Encyclopaedia of German diatheses

Michael Cysouw

Open Germanic Linguistics 4

Preface

[0.1] Errors and omissions are unavoidable in scientific writing. They are the writer’s equivalent of statistical Type I and Type II errors, respectively. And just as with statistical data, I have worked hard to keep all errors and omissions to a minimum in relation to the number of justified statements and judgements. Still, I need to start with a major disclaimer: this book is a work in progress. The current version undoubtedly contains numerous errors, omissions, inaccuracies and wrong generalisations. I can say this with certainty because I have been changing, adding and deleting details up to the last moment before publication of the current version of this book. And I do not expect it to stop here. Actually, the work-in-progress status is intended to be taken quite literally: I plan to update and revise this book regularly in the future. Any progress can be followed online at github.com/cysouw/diathesis. I welcome any suggestions for improvement, which can be submitted as an “issue” on that website, or, even better, as a “pull request” including proposed changes and corrections.

[0.2] This book is about German grammar, but the book is written in English. These two decisions have a purely personal background. First, the idea to write about German grammar arose in the context of me teaching German grammar at the Philipps-University in Marburg. Actually, the diversity of diathesis could, and should, be investigated in the same depth in other language besides German. Second, the book is written in English first and foremost because I personally feel more comfortable writing in English than in German. Also, I think that the current approach to diathesis is also of interest to readers that do not care too much about all minute details of German grammar. And for the readers that are interested in those details of the German language, I assume that they both have a working knowledge of English (so they can read this text) and of German (so they can understand the German examples). For that reason I decided to omit any interlinear glossing of the examples. Most examples are simple enough to be understood even with just an approximate understanding of German. Adding interlinear glossing throughout would be an enormous undertaking, which I think is not worthwhile given the intended readership.

[0.3] This book is written in Pandoc Markdown. Markdown (commonmark.org) allows for clean and readable raw text, while Pandoc (pandoc.org) provides easy transformations of the text into beautiful output, for example in formats like XeLaTex/PDF or HTML. I have used various extensions for Pandoc (“filters” in Pandoc-parlance), for example to format and number linguistic examples. More information on these filters can be found on the GitHub webpage mentioned above.

[0.4] The many lists, examples and subsections of this book make it a serialised database, and I have included many cross references to connect related parts throughout. To read the resulting hypertext I would urge the reader to try out an electronic version, either PDF or HTML. I personally have become really enamoured with the HTML version as it allows for easy searching and for quick forward-and-backward jumping through the text using our already internalised muscle-memory from web browsing. Also, the advances in CSS-styling have progressed to such an extend that the layout of HTML is almost approaching LaTeX sophistication, while adding a responsive/adaptive design (Marcotte 2010). The HTML version of this book is prepared as a single standalone file that can be used offline. This file will be opened in a web browser, even when the file is saved locally. It just uses the web browser as a text-rendering engine.

[0.5] Many thanks to Martin Haspelmath, Simon Kasper, and especially to Jens Fleischhauer for extremely helpful comments and detailed suggestions. The proofreaders at the Language Science Press did magnificent work: many thanks to Agnes Kim, Annemarie Verkerk, Elliot Pearl, Felix Kopecky, Jeroen van de Weijer, Katja Politt, Lea Schäfer, Lisa Schäfer, Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, Yvonne Treis and one additional anonymous proofreader. Of the many students that have participated in my lectures and seminars (and had to endure my work-in-progress) I would like to explicitly thank Annika Besser, Dennis Beitel, Franziska Beyer, Patricia Bier, Katja Daube, Milena Gropp, Eric Ilten, Jens Jakob, Christina Jann, Vanessa Lang, Katrin Leinweber, Rieke Hänche, Philip Ossowski, Nico Reinicke, Kristina Splanemann and Stella van den Berg. They wrote very useful term papers related to the topics discussed here and provided valuable suggestions, feedback and corrections. And finally I would like to thank all people at the Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (DWDS) as listed at dwds.de. Such easy-access resources are reinvigorating linguistic research enormously.

1 Setting the scene

1.1 The daunting diversity of diathesis

[1.1] The quintessential example of German diathesis, discussed in every grammatical description of this language, is the werden+Partizip passive construction (1.1 a). The crucial characteristic that makes this a diathesis is that the state-of-affairs as described by the passive is fundamentally the same as in the corresponding active (1.1 b). Yet, while the circumstances remain the same, the grammatical structure and the communicated perspective differ between the two expressions.

(1.1) a. Das Gemälde wird von einem Künstler gemalt.
b. Der Künstler malt ein Gemälde.

[1.2] This general approach to diathesis, viz. alternating sentence structures that express approximately the same state-of-affairs, is applicable to a large number of grammatical phenomena in German. All in all, almost 250 different German diatheses are described in this book, some highly productive, some only attested for a handful of verbs. The main goal of this book is to present this wealth of grammatical possibility in a unified manner, while at the same time attempting to classify and organise this diversity. I will make no attempt to fit all the hundreds of constructional possibilities of the German language into any specific grammatical framework, although the collection of diatheses presented here might be taken as a modelling-challenge for your favourite grammatical theory.

[1.3] It might come as a surprise that there are so many different diatheses in German, but my impression is that in this respect German is no exception among the world’s languages. I expect that all languages have a similar abundance of different ways in which to construe a sentence around a lexical predicate. In a sense, a diathesis allows for the expression of a distinct perspective on the event described, something that is arguably a common desire of any language user.

[1.4] By way of an introduction, consider the following five illustrative examples of diathesis. Many examples in this book contain masculine nouns, not because of laziness on my behalf, but because their definite articles overtly show the different German cases (der, des, dem, den). Notwithstanding this grammatical preference, I will try to use examples with as much diversity as possible throughout this book. Some verbs, like beginnen ‘to start’ (1.2 a), allow for a passive-like construction without any werden auxiliary, often called “anticausative”. Other verbs, like schießen ‘to shoot’ (1.2 b), allow for an alternation between an accusative and a prepositional phrase, often called “antipassive”. Further, there are many different kinds of diathesis marked by a reflexive pronoun, like the reflexive antipassive with beklagen ‘to lament’ (1.2 c). Diathesis is also frequently marked by a prefix, like the applicative between stammen aus and entstammen ‘to descend from’ (1.2 d). Lastly, many light-verb constructions show diathesis, for example the sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv passive, as illustrated below with the main verb lösen ‘to solve’ (1.2 e).

(1.2) a. Der Diktator beginnt den Krieg.
Der Krieg beginnt.
b. Der Jäger schießt den Bären.
Der Jäger schießt auf den Bären.
c. Der Lehrer beklagt den Lärm.
Der Lehrer beklagt sich über den Lärm.
d. Der Kandidat stammt aus einem Adelsgeschlecht.
Der Kandidat entstammt einem Adelsgeschlecht.
e. Der Ermittler löst den Fall.
Der Fall ist für den Ermittler leicht zu lösen.

1.2 Defining diathesis

[1.5] A diathesis is defined here as special kind of alternation between two different clause constructions. To properly define diathesis, I will first define “alternation” in general. The definition of “clause alternation” will then be established on that basis. Finally, a diathesis will be defined as a special kind of clause alternation.

[1.6] Hidden in these succinct definitions there are various grammatical concepts that will be expanded upon in the subsequent sections. The more general aspects of clause alternation are discussed in this chapter, directly below the following definitions, while the details of the analysis and the classification of diathesis are postponed to the next chapter.

Alternation

[1.7] An alternation (or simply “grammatical marking”) is defined as follows:

[1.8] Alternations include basic morphological oppositions, like singular vs. plural (1.3 a) and in general comprise any opposition of grammatical forms, like synthetic present vs. analytic perfect (1.3 b). Alternations also exist in syntax as oppositions between different sentence structures, like a plain transitive nominative+accusative structure alternating with an intransitive reflexive anticausative with obligatory adverbial (1.3 c).

(1.3) a. Ein Haus.
Zwei Häuser.
b. Das Kind schläft.
Das Kind hat geschlafen.
c. Ich verkaufe das Buch.
Das Buch verkauft sich gut.

[1.9] There is a thought-provoking and almost philosophical issue here, which I will not further explore, namely whether the basis of grammatical analysis are the constructions themselves or the alternations between constructions. The approach taken here is that the alternations are the more crucial entities. I consider alternations as the morphosyntactic equivalent to phonological minimal pairs. Alternations are also useful in the practice of grammatical description. The meaning/function of a construction by itself is often hard to describe in full, while the meaning/function of an alternation can simply be described by the difference in meaning between the alternants. Only the crucial facets that are added by the alternation need to be captured – a task that often is already difficult enough. Similar intuitions about the importance of alternations have led to the development of syntactic transformations (cf. Harris 1957).

Clause alternation

[1.10] Based on the above definition of an alternation, a clause alternation is defined as follows:

[1.11] Clause alternations are widespread when auxiliaries are introduced, like modal müssen ‘have to’ (1.4 a), see Sec­tion 11.4.7. However, clause alternations are attested with many more different kinds of marking, like the verb particle auf‑ marking completeness of the action (1.4 b), see Sec­tion 6.7.8, or the somewhat mysterious “free” reflexive sich with verbs like ansehen ‘look at’ (1.4 c), see Sec­tion 7.4.4. Arguably, the special word order in German subordinate clauses (viz. with the finite verb in clause-final position) can also be regarded as a clause alternation (1.4 d).

(1.4) a. Er erledigt seine Hausaufgaben.
Er muss seine Hausaufgaben erledigen.
b. Ich esse den Apfel.
Ich esse den Apfel auf.
c. Er hat das Haus angesehen.
Er hat sich das Haus angesehen.
d. Er erledigt seine Hausaufgaben.
(Ich hoffe, dass) er seine Hausaufgaben erledigt.

Diathesis

[1.12] Based on the notion of a clause alternation, a diathesis (sometimes also known as “valency alternation”) is defined as follows:

[1.13] The prototypical example of a diathesis is the werden+Partizip passive as in (1.5 a), see Sec­tion 10.5.15. Also widely acknowledged is the bekommen+Partizip dative passive as shown in (1.5 b), see Sec­tion 10.5.21. However, the diversity of diatheses in German goes well beyond such light-verb constructions. There is also, for example, a passive-like diathesis marked with a reflexive pronoun as shown in (1.5 c), see Sec­tion 7.5.6, or an applicative diathesis marked with a prefix be‑ as shown in (1.5 d), see Sec­tion 8.8.8.

(1.5) a. Der Schreiner lackiert den Tisch.
Der Tisch wurde von dem Schreiner lackiert.
b. Der Lehrer nimmt dem Schüler das Handy ab.
Der Schüler bekommt das Handy von dem Lehrer abgenommen.
c. Der Preis empört den Kunden.
Der Kunde empört sich über den Preis.
d. Der Tourist steigt auf den Berg.
Der Tourist besteigt den Berg.

1.3 Definitional details

1.3.1 Monoclausality and coherence

[1.14] Diatheses are defined here as alternations between clauses with the same main verb. However, a single clause in German can contain multiple verb forms, for example when auxiliaries are used. It is crucial to strictly distinguish between expressions in which a multi-verb construction is monoclausal and when it is not. Only monoclausal constructions will be considered in this book.

[1.15] To define monoclausality, I will use the fact that the finite verb in German is placed at the end of a subordinate clause. The dummy main sentence Es ist bekannt, dass ‘it is known that’ will be used to force such a subordinate construction. The position of the finite verb in the subordinate clause can then be used to identify the boundary of the clause. Concretely, everything that can occur before the finite verb still belongs within the clause. In contrast, everything that has to come after the finite verb belongs to a different clause. For example, the sentence in (1.6 a) will turn into (1.6 b) in a subordinate construction. The finite verbform gehe now occurs at the end of the sentence. In this example it is not possible for anything to follow after this finite verb, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (1.6 c). So, the original sentence in (1.6 a) is a single clause.

(1.6) a. Ich gehe morgen nach Hause.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich morgen nach Hause gehe.
c. * (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich gehe morgen nach Hause.

[1.16] Sentences with this characteristic will be called (syntactically) coherent, following Bech (1955; see also Kiss 1995 for an in-depth discussion). This usage of the term “coherence” is slightly confusing, because it is used here as a technical term from the syntactic literature, completely independent from the pragmatic usage of the term “coherence” for contextual interconnectedness. Coherent constructions are considered to be monoclausal. For example, coherence is attested in auxiliary constructions with participles (1.7) and infinitives (1.8). Such constructions are thus monoclausal.

(1.7) a. Ich habe gestern ein Haus gekauft.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich gestern ein Haus gekauft habe.
c. * (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich gestern gekauft habe ein Haus.
(1.8) a. Ich will morgen ein Haus kaufen.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich morgen ein Haus kaufen will.
c. * (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich morgen kaufen will ein Haus.

[1.17] In contrast, constructions with zu and an infinitive are sometimes coherent, e.g. (1.9) with the finite verb geben ‘to give’, and sometimes non-coherent, e.g. (1.10) with the finite verb behaupten ‘to claim’. The coherent construction in (1.9 a) is thus monoclausal, while the non-coherent construction in (1.10 a) consists of two clauses.

(1.9) a. Der Protest gibt ihr zu denken.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) der Protest ihr zu denken gibt.
c. * (Es ist bekannt, dass) der Protest gibt ihr zu denken.
(1.10) a. Der Sportler behauptet den Wettkampf zu gewinnen.
b. * (Es ist bekannt, dass) der Sportler den Wettkampf zu gewinnen behauptet.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) der Sportler behauptet den Wettkampf zu gewinnen.

[1.18] All diatheses in this book are monoclausal (by definition). Besides trying to list all German diatheses, I will also catalogue all monoclausal alternations without any change in role marking (i.e. without diathesis). Such alternations will be called epitheses. This book can thus also be read as a collection of all German monoclausal constructions, with or without role remapping. Somewhat unexpectedly, the number of alternations with role remapping (i.e. diathesis) is about twice as large as the number of monoclausal alternations without changes in role marking (i.e. epithesis).

[1.19] When the above definition of monoclausality is strictly followed, then there turn out to be dozens of verbs that can be used as the finite “auxiliary” in a coherent multi-verb clause. When used as finite auxiliaries, these verbs are grammaticalised, i.e. they shed much of their lexical meaning when used in a multi-verb construction. Such grammaticalised verbs are classified into different groups and referred to by many different names in the German grammatical literature, for examples Hilfsverb, Kopulaverb, Modalverb, Modalitätsverb, Halbmodalverb (Eisenberg 2006a), Nebenverb (Engel 1996: 406), Funktionsverb (Polenz 1963 cited in Kamber 2008: 34), Strukturverb (Weber 2005), or Stützverb (Seelbach 1991 cited in Kamber 2008: 34). I will not pursue the question here how to classify these verbs into different kinds. I will simply refer to the whole group of these auxiliary verbs as light verbs. The same English term “light verb” has recently also been used as a translation of the German term Funktionsverb (Fleischhauer & Gamerschlag 2019; Fleischhauer 2021; Fleischhauer & Hartmann 2021). Actually, both that use and my use of the term “light verb” are instances of a more general overarching concept. The Funktionsverb can be specified as a “light verb with a nominal main predicate”. In contrast, in this book the term “light verb” is used for a “light verb with a verbal main predicate” (cf. Sec­tion 13.2.4). All light verbs that will be discussed in this book are shown in alphabetical order in (1.11).

(1.11) German verbs that can be used as light verbs
aussehen, bekommen, bleiben, brauchen, bringen, drohen, dürfen, erscheinen, fahren, finden, fühlen, geben, gehen, gehören, gelten, glauben, haben, halten, heißen, helfen, hören, kommen, kriegen, können, lassen, legen, lehren, lernen, liegen, machen, mögen, müssen, nehmen, pflegen, riechen, scheinen, schicken, sehen, sein, setzen, sollen, spüren, stehen, suchen, tun, vermögen, versprechen, verstehen, werden, wirken, wissen, wollen

1.3.2 Grammaticalisation of lexical meaning

[1.20] It is not always immediately clear whether a verb remains the same verb in a clause alternation. For example, the verb trinken means ‘to drink’ when used as a transitive verb (1.12 a). In contrast, when used intransitively it contains a strong insinuation that the drinking includes too much alcohol, so it might better be translated as ‘to be an alcoholic’ (1.12 b). In effect, the transitive and the intransitive use of trinken have a different meaning. However, in this case, the special intransitive meaning is probably best analysed as a conversational implicature because the suggestion of alcoholism can be suppressed given the right context (1.12 c).

(1.12) a. Er trinkt einen Orangensaft.
b. Er trinkt.
c. Er trinkt hastig, weil er durstig ist.

[1.21] In general, when the same lexical verb is used in different alternating constructions, then there is (of course) a difference in meaning between the two occurrences. However, ideally this difference is completely induced by the alternation and not by the lexical verb itself. Yet, it is extremely common for the combination of a lexical verb with the surrounding construction to grammaticalise into a new meaning. For example, the verb auftreten means something like ‘to act’ as an intransitive (1.13 a), but ‘to kick open’ as a transitive (1.13 b). Both meanings originate as metaphorical extensions from the meaning ‘to step on something (by foot)’.

(1.13) a. Er ist in der Oper aufgetreten.
b. Er hat die Tür aufgetreten.

[1.22] Likewise, historical processes can lead to current homophony of two different lexemes. For example, this appears to be the case with the verb abhauen, which has a transitive meaning ‘to cut off’ (1.14 a). However, it has attained another usage during the course of the 20th century as an intransitive meaning ‘to run away’ (1.14 b), probably based on a southern German dialectal meaning of hauen ‘to go, to walk’. Pfeiffer (1993), entry hauen at https://www.dwds.de/wb/etymwb/hauen, accessed 12 December 2018.

(1.14) a. Er hat den Ast abgehauen.
b. Er ist abgehauen.

[1.23] In between those extremes (i.e. conversational implicature as with trinken and different lexicalisation as with abhauen) there are various intermediate stages of semantic separation. For example, the verb hängen ‘to hang’ can be used as a regular intransitive verb with a location (1.15 a). However, the specific combination with the preposition an can also have a special meaning ‘being emotionally attached to something’ (1.15 b). In this case it seems most appropriate to interpret the combination hängen an as a separate lexicalisation, although the path of the grammaticalisation to this new interpretation can still be intuitively grasped.

(1.15) a. Er hängt an einem Seil.
b. Er hängt an seinem Teddy.

[1.24] As with all grammaticalisation, it is often difficult to decide where to draw the line on the continuum between implicature (trinken), metaphorical extension (auftreten), contextual lexicalisation (hängen an) or completely different lexicalisation (abhauen). I tend to be rather lenient in allowing slightly different meanings still to be counted as diatheses of the “same” verb. However, I will exclude clear examples of grammaticalised lexicalisation and treat those as separate verbs.

1.3.3 Lexeme-specific lexical roles

[1.25] A crucial aspect of diathesis is that the lexical roles of a specific verb do not change, only the grammatical encoding of the roles is modified. For example, the verb füllen ‘to fill’ occurs in various monoclausal constructions (1.16) but the roles of (i) filler, (ii) filled container and (iii) filling substance remain the same. The different grammatical forms that are used to express these roles are indexed with the corresponding subscripts in the examples below.

(1.16) a. [Der Koch]i füllt [den Topf]ii [mit dem Reis]iii.
b. [Der Koch]i füllt [den Reis]iii [in den Topf]ii.
c. [Der Reis]iii füllt [dem Koch]i [den Magen]ii.
d. [Der Koch]i füllt sich [den Magen]ii.
e. [Der Blumentopf]ii füllt sich [mit Wurzeln]iii.

[1.26] Already from this example it becomes clear that it is often really difficult, if not impossible, to attach a specific valency to a verb. Given that most (and possibly all) German verbs show some kind of diathesis, I reject the traditional notion of a fixed valency belonging to a specific verb (see Sec­tion 2.2 for a more extensive discussion). Alternatively, I propose that it is possibly to list all lexeme-specific roles (or equivalently lexical roles) as a fixed characteristic of each lexical verb. The following three criteria will be used to determine the lexical roles of a verb.

[1.27] First, each role that is case-marked in at least one clause alternant is a lexeme-specific role. In the example of füllen in (1.16), each of the three roles is marked as nominative, accusative or dative in at least one of the alternants, so all three roles are lexeme-specific. Various exceptions and stipulations to this criterion are discussed in Sec­tion 5.2.

[1.28] Second, all obligatory prepositional phrases are lexeme-specific roles. There are different kinds of such lexeme-specific prepositional phrases. First, some verbs obligatorily require such a location, like sich befinden (1.17), see Sec­tion 6.3.3. Second, some diatheses introduce an obligatory location, like the caused-motion diathesis with waschen (1.18), see Sec­tion 6.8.8. This diathesis turns an accusative object Hose ‘trousers’ (1.18 a) into an obligatory location (1.18 b,c).

(1.17) a. Der Stuhl befindet sich im Wohnzimmer
b. * Der Stuhl befindet sich.
(1.18) a. Ich wasche meine Hose.
b. Ich wasche den Fleck aus meiner Hose.
c. * Ich wasche den Fleck.

[1.29] Third, there is a large class of lexeme-specific prepositional phrases that I will call governed prepositions, like with arbeiten an ‘to work on’ (1.19 a). These prepositional phrases are not obligatorily present (1.19 b). However, the intuition behind governed prepositions is that these prepositions are lexically determined by the verb and often strongly grammaticalised both semantically and structurally. For example, the preposition an with the verb arbeiten ‘to work’ (1.19 a) is semantically strongly bleached with none of its local meaning remaining. Syntactically, the prepositional phrase in arbeiten an can be paraphrased with a complement clause of the form daran, dass (1.19 c). The possibility of such a syntactic paraphrase will be used as the main characteristic to identify governed prepositions. Various exceptions and stipulations to this criterion are discussed in Sec­tion 6.2.

(1.19) a. Ich arbeite an meinem Buch.
b. Ich arbeite hart.
c. Ich arbeite daran, dass das Buch bald fertig wird.

[1.30] Under this approach, there are a few lexical roles that appear to be very widespread, up to the point of seemingly being universally applicable to all verbs. If that would be the case, then it would defeat the idea of lexeme-specific roles. However, on closer inspection it appears that there are no roles that apply to all verbs. The closest contender is, arguably, the role of causer, which can be introduced to almost any German verb by using the lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis (1.20), see Sec­tion 11.6.2. However, there is a small group of verbs that do not allow for this diathesis, like gefallen ‘to like’ (1.21). This shows that even virtually universal roles are still lexically determined in German.

(1.20) a. Der Student arbeitet an einer Aufgabe.
b. Der Professor lässt den Studenten an einer Aufgabe arbeiten.
(1.21) a. Dein Haarschnitt gefällt mir.
b. * Er lässt mir seinen Haarschnitt gefallen.

[1.31] Such lexeme-specific roles are called “verb-specific semantic roles” in Van Valin (2004) and “microroles” in Hartmann et al. (2014). The obvious next step (as discussed in both these papers) is to group such microroles into clusters of semantic/thematic meso­roles, i.e. widespread roles like agent, patient, experiencer, etc. Such semantic roles are used constantly in contemporary linguistics, but they are surprisingly ill-defined. For example, given a random German verb like füllen as exemplified at the start of this section, it is not clear at all what should be its semantic roles, and what criteria should be used to determine them. Hartmann et al. (2014) and Cysouw (2014) use cross-linguistic data to approach this problem. However, such an approach does not allow for language-specific definitions, which is the problem here.

[1.32] As a solution, I propose to use the applicability of a diathesis as a criterion for the language-specific determination of semantic mesoroles. For example, a “German patient” might be defined as the group of those lexical roles that are changed from accusative to nominative in the werden+Partizip passive diathesis. Note that this definition is not supposed to satisfy all intuitions that surround the notion “patient” in linguistics. Quite to the contrary, the proposal is to define a semantic role like “patient” on the basis of applicable diatheses and adapt any intuitions to that definition (or, if that feels too radical, simply use a different name for the newly defined semantic role, like Leidtragende). Even more general, a semantic role could also be defined by the cross section of multiple diatheses. The determination of suitable (combinations of) diatheses to define semantic roles for German will not be pursued here, but left for a follow-up investigation.

1.3.4 Domain of application and verb classes

[1.33] A widespread assumption in linguistic analysis is that most alternations (including diatheses) have a sensible domain of application. This is the idea that there is some rationale, often a kind of semantic characterisation, explaining which roots allow for a specific kind of linguistic marking (e.g. only transitive verbs allow for a werden passive). For example, compare the infamous sentence on the first page of Levin (1993: 1) “the behavior of a verb, particularly with respect to the expression and interpretation of its arguments, is to a large extent determined by its meaning”. In contrast to that claim, Levin in practice uses form to establish classes of verbs, not meaning. That practical approach is also taken here. Although I also believe that many alternations, including diatheses, mostly behave sensibly, I would advise not to expect too much (semantic) regularity to be hidden in grammatical structure. Many grammatical regularities have unexpected exceptions, be it because of haphazard diachronic change or through creative analogical extension. Even stronger, some grammatical marking appears to be almost completely without (semantic) rationale, like the assignment of plural allomorphy in German. If that can happen in morphology, it can also happen in syntax.

[1.34] As a practical approach to determine the domain of application (say, which verbs allow for the werden+Partizip passive) I propose to always first enumerate as much examples as possible. In other words, first empirically establish a verb class of those verbs that happen to be possible with an alternation. In this book, I will not be satisfied with four or five cases that suggest a neat semantic characterisation for a specific diathesis. In contrast, I will list as many as possible further examples, idiosyncratic as they may be. Only after such a formal listing of the domain of application (which ideally needs much more corpus research than I have been able to perform here) is it possible to investigate the presence of any (semantic) rationale. In many cases there might be a (partial) rationale for the attested group of verbs, but it is just as likely (and just as interesting) to have to conclude that there apparently is none.

[1.35] Taking this principle one step further, I propose to define the domain of application by the concrete listing of all examples. Any (semantic) characterisation is then always a post-hoc generalisation, not a definition. This radically lexicalist interpretation is the approach that I will follow in this book. For each diathesis I will list as many example verbs as possible that take part in the diathesis (for some I will reverse the approach and list verbs that are not possible). These lexical lists (i.e. the empirical verb classes) are the definition of the domain of application. For some diatheses I will speculate about semantic generalisations, but I consider these generalisations always to be secondary to the concrete listing of examples. My semantic generalisations are thus never a causal explanation.

[1.36] This principle of definition by listing even holds for questions of productivity. For example, when somebody would propose a nonce-verb like flurchten to be a new verb for the German language in an experimental setting, then its meaning is partially defined by stipulating what kind of diatheses it can take part in. For example, the following constructions might, or might not, be chosen in examples that contextualise the new verb. The choices made will strongly influence the interpretation of the new verb.

(1.22) a. Ich flurchte den Gärtner.
b. Ich flurchte auf den Gärtner.
c. Ich flurchte mich vor den Gärtner.
d. Der Gärtner flurchtet.
e. Der Gärtner flurchtet sich.

1.3.5 Functional analysis

[1.37] Intimately connected to the domain of application (i.e. which verbs allow for which diathesis) is the question as to the meaning/function of a specific diathesis. In essence, this question asks for a description of the difference in meaning between the two alternants of a diathesis. For example, what is the difference between the transitive schließen (1.23 a) and the corresponding reflexive anticausative sich schließen (1.23 b), cf. Sec­tion 7.5.2. Although the answer might seem obvious for some diatheses, it turns out to be extremely difficult to give a concise description of such differences for most diatheses, and I will regularly refrain from trying to provide such a descriptions. Each diathesis is actually its own research project, preferably investigated using predictive corpus analysis (cf. the large literature on the English dative alternation, or for German De Vaere, De Cuypere & Willems 2018).

(1.23) a. Ich schließe die Tür.
b. Die Tür schließt sich.

[1.38] There are two empirical pieces of information that are crucial for such a functional analysis of a diathesis. The first key data point is the actual list of verbs that allow for a specific diathesis (i.e. the verb class as defined by a diathesis, see the previous Sec­tion 1.3.4). The second important consideration is any restriction on the kind of nominals that can be used to fill the roles of a diathesis (i.e. nominal classes as defined by a diathesis). Both these classes can be established empirically by collecting and analysing a corpus of examples of a specific diathesis.

[1.39] The problem of a functional description for a diathesis becomes even larger with the realisation that there are many dozens of diatheses, often highly similar to each other. For example, it is really difficult (cf. Schäfer 2007; Kurogo 2016) to characterise the difference between the reflexive anticausative, like with schließen above in (1.23), and the unmarked anticausative, like with kochen in (1.24), see Sec­tion 5.5.5.

(1.24) a. Ich koche den Kaffee.
b. Der Kaffee kocht.
c. * Der Kaffee kocht sich.

[1.40] The problem of providing a concise functional description for a grammatical construction is not restricted to diatheses. Clause alternations that do not have any role-remapping are also in need of a functional description (see Chapter 4 for a survey). An example is the phenomenon of “free” reflexives, illustrated with ansehen in (1.25), see Sec­tion 7.4.4. Although there is no role-remapping in this alternation (and thus no diathesis), it turns out to be really difficult to describe the difference between (1.25 a) without reflexive and (13.4 b) with reflexive. All clause alternations, with or without role-remapping, are in need of a functional analysis, and most such analyses will need substantial further research.

(1.25) a. Ich habe das Haus angesehen.
b. Ich habe mir das Haus angesehen.

1.4 Method

[1.41] Methodologically, I regard the approach in this book as an attempt to unify grammatical research with lexicographic research, two aspects of linguistics that are often considered to be separate inquiries. In contrast to such a separation, I would like to propose a view of linguistics that might be called grammar of the lexicon (cf. Levin 1993: 2–4, but one might just as well include all of construction grammar here). In this approach, each grammatical phenomenon should always be linked to individual occurrences, either types (lexicon) or tokens (corpus). It is my experience from compiling the current compendium of diatheses that identifying and characterising a specific grammatical structure is really just “step one” of grammatical research. Only by trying to find more examples, with different lexemes and in different contexts, it becomes clear how prominent and varying a grammatical structure really is.

[1.42] As as rule-of-thumb, I propose the 10-in-10-rule as “step two” of grammatical research. If you think that a particular construction is widespread, or maybe even typical for a specific class of words (e.g. typical for intransitives), then take 10 minutes to search for examples, either using your own intuitions or in one of the many online databases or corpora. Resources like the Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (DWDS), the various online offerings of the Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS), or just a Google “exact search” are literally just a click away and completely rejuvenate linguistic research. If you are not able to list 10 examples in 10 minutes, then go back to the drawing board and reconsider your intuitions.

[1.43] Such quick-and-dirty 10-minute surveys of course still only represent a preliminary step of grammatical analysis. It is this level of detail that I have aimed for in this book (although I have often spend way more than 10 minutes searching for examples of a specific diathesis). Each sub-subsection about an individual diathesis lists lexemes that can be used with this diathesis. It includes examples of the diathesis, either from my own intuitions or from any of the above mentioned databases. I plan to expand and fine-tune these lists in future revisions of this book.

[1.44] However, the real research is only yet to come. “Step three” would be the in-depth investigation of individual diatheses by sampling examples from corpora and formulating predictive parameters to explain their usage. For example, De Vaere et al. (2018) investigate the dative antipassive (see Sec­tion 6.7.11) for just the single verb geben ‘to give’. Now, there are hundreds of diatheses and hundreds of verbs listed in this book, so there are tens of thousands of similar research projects just waiting to be tackled.

1.5 Previous research

[1.45] The current attempt to present an all-encompassing survey of German diatheses builds on a rich scholarly tradition (with many scholarly precursors to be cited in appropriate places throughout this book). A comparable and highly influential survey of diathesis for English is Levin (1993), followed by a similar attempt for German by Sauerland (1994). A recent cross-linguistic survey of valency and diathesis in this tradition is edited by Malchukov & Comrie (2015), which also includes data on German (Haspelmath & Baumann 2013).

[1.46] Independently, there is a long tradition in the German grammatical literature to investigate diathesis, e.g. as “Konversenverhältnis der Aktanten(Eroms 1980: 24; cf. Heringer 1968). An early attempt at a survey of various diatheses is presented by Höhle (1978). Basic summaries of German diathesis in the context of valency can be found in Eroms (2000: Ch. 10) or Ágel (2000: Ch. 6). There also are a few monographs about specific German diatheses (e.g. Leirbukt 1997; Holl 2010; Jäger 2013) and recently some corpus studies into the effect of specific diatheses on individual verbs have appeared (De Vaere, De Cuypere & Willems 2018; Imo 2018; Dux 2020: Ch. 6).

[1.47] Diathesis is of course closely linked to the concept of valency, so the groundbreaking valency dictionary for German by Helbig and Schenkel (1969, originally from 1969) deserves mentioning. They identify the problem that certain verbs can be used in different constructions, but diatheses are not investigated consistently in their dictionary. Another highly influential valency dictionary for German, edited by Schumacher (1986; also the precursor Engel & Schumacher 1978), discusses passive diatheses for all verbs that are included. I regard the current survey of German diatheses as a next step to extend such valency dictionaries into even more all-encompassing dictionaries that discuss all possible clause constructions for each verb.

1.6 Structure of this book

[1.48] The structure of this book is somewhat unusual for a scholarly monograph. It is not a narrative with a painless beginning, a sturdy middle and a satisfying conclusion. Rather, this book is open ended, and it does not have a gratifying closure at the end. That is by design. It is an encyclopaedia after all.

[1.49] The book consists of three different parts. First, Chapters 1 and 2 discuss the major theoretical considerations that guide the collection and organisation of the data. This is the part to read for insights into the nature of diathesis and sundry topics. Second, Chapters 3 and 4 are the closest to what this book has to offer in the way of a conclusion. Each of these chapters presents an astonishingly long list of grammatical constructions, summarising a selection of the major linguistic structures as identified in the remainder of this book. These summaries are intended to be a quick entry into the actual German language data, with ample cross-references to the following encyclopaedia. Finally, Chapters 5 to 13 make up the actual encyclopaedia, with separate sub-subsections about individual phenomena. Each of these sub-subsections is a fragment of a research project, sometimes mundane, but often full of surprising avenues for future research.

[1.50] Going through the chapters in more detail, this first chapter summarised the basic definitional properties of clauses and clause alternations. The next Chapter 2 describes in detail how diatheses are analysed and classified. Chapter 3 presents a summary of the about 80 major German diatheses and proposes German names for those structures. As a small extra, Chapter 4 summarises the about 40 major epithetical structures and provides an unconventional approach to the analysis of verbal categories of German.

[1.51] Chapters 5 to 13 are the core part of this book. These chapter are database-like texts, discussing each clause structure separately. All of these chapters have exactly the same internal structure. Sometimes certain sections are empty, because there is no grammatical structure in that category. However, the headers of those empty sections have been preserved for the sake of parallel numbering across chapters. The following structure is used in all data chapters:

[1.52] In these data chapters, each diathesis has its own sub-subsection with a unique section header that can be used as a name to refer to the diathesis (e.g. Sec­tion 10.5.15 on the “werden+Partizip Passive”). Many of these unique names are quite boring, but hopefully descriptively useful for future reference. More imaginative German names are only added for the major diatheses. Individual verbs are listed with each diathesis to show the extent of its applicability. Often a section with further examples is added to illustrate the diathesis. Neither these lists of verbs nor the examples are intended to be exhaustive in any way. Sometimes an additional section with notes is provided to discuss idiosyncrasies of individual verbs. All this information should be read as a first step towards a more in-depth research into individual diatheses and into the constructional possibilities that are available to individual verbs.

2 The structure of a diathesis

2.1 Analytical dimensions

[2.1] The central concepts to analyse the structure of a diathesis are valency (Sec­tion 2.2), voice (Sec­tion 2.3) and diathetical operation (Sec­tion 2.4). These concepts will be discussed extensively in this chapter. Two new concepts are introduced as well, namely stacking (Sec­tion 2.5) and chaining (Sec­tion 2.6). Finally, I will present an extensive discussion about naming diatheses at the end of this chapter (Sec­tion 2.7).

[2.2] A diathesis (as defined in Sec­tion 1.2) is an alternation between two different clausal construction. Each of the alternants show a different mapping of (grammatical) expressions onto (semantic) roles. Such an alternation is what is called a “diathetical operation” in Zuñiga & Kittilä (2019: 4), in contrast to the term “diathesis” being used for each individual mapping between expressions and roles. However, because I will only consider diathetical operations between an unmarked basic clause and a marked alternant, I have decided to simplify the terminology in this book. Both the alternation itself (Zuñiga & Kittilä’s “diathetical operation”, e.g. “causativisation”) and the derived alternant (Zuñiga & Kittilä’s “diathesis”, e.g. “causative”) will be referred to here simply as a diathesis, from Greek διάθεσις ‘placement in order, (re)arrangement’.

[2.3] A side-effect of this approach is that “active” is not a diathesis, but simply the unmarked counterpart of a diathetical operation. Even stronger, I will refrain from using the term “active” because it immediately conjures up “passive” as its antithesis. This opposition is too much of an oversimplification as “passive” is just one of the hundreds of possible diatheses. Also, the “active” does not necessarily describe an action, so content-wise this term is also ill-fitting.

[2.4] As an alternative to “active”, I will use the term basic clause as the unmarked base of comparison for all clause alternations. A basic clause is a clause with a single finite verb from, either in the German Präsens or Präteritum tense. Strictly speaking, a basic clause can also be a clause with a single finite verb in the Konjunktiv I or Konjunktiv II. However, because these are rather rare nowadays I have hidden this possibility in this footnote. All other verb forms, including the Perfekt and the other traditional German tense-aspect distinctions, are all derived clauses, i.e. the result of some kind of clause alternations. A diathesis is a special instance of a derived clause that also exhibits a diathetical operation. In constrast to a diathesis, a derived clause without any diathetical operation will be called epithesis, from Greek ἐπίθεσις ‘placement upon, imposition’. Epithesis is grammatical marking “on top of” a basic clause. There appears to be a rarely used alternative meaning of the term “epithesis” in linguistics to indicate the addition of a sound to the end of the word, i.e. a special kind of epenthesis, see for example http://www.websters1913.com/words/Epithesis, accessed 23 December 2022. A summary of all major epithetical constructions will be presented in Chapter 4.

[2.5] The actual linguistic marking of a diathesis (for example using verbal morphology or auxiliaries) is called grammatical voice. The crux of this term is that a voice is the language-specific linguistic expression used to mark the diathesis. For example, a diathesis in German can be “voiced” by a reflexive pronoun (Chapter 7) or by a light verb with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (Chapter 12), and so on. The different kinds of grammatical voice in German are used here as the central organisational characteristic for the separation of the data chapters. An overview of the different German voices is given in Sec­tion 2.3.

[2.6] A major objective of research into diathesis is to describe the connection between a diathetical operation and its semantic effects on the meaning of the clause. Somewhat confusingly, Zuñiga and Kittilä (2019: 3) use the term “transitivity” (following Hopper & Thompson 1980) for such semantic effects. However, the effects of diathetical operations seem to far surpass differences in transitivity. For example, when an accusative argument is remapped onto a prepositional phrase (“antipassive”) this often implies less involvement of the participant. The details of such semantic effects for each of the hundreds of diatheses in this book is an important and fascinating topic, for which I can currently offer only limited insights throughout. In practice, I assume that each diathesis as described here has some kind of semantic/pragmatic effect. However, the concise specification of these effects needs much more detailed research, which has to be provided by subsequent work. Wherever I can, I will observe tendencies and propose hypotheses for such future research.

[2.7] Lastly, I prefer to use the term “diathesis” over the frequently attested term “valency alternation”, although in practice both terms can mostly be used interchangeably. There is only a difference when using a highly simplistic interpretation of the term “valency”, namely as indicating the number of arguments of a verb. There are many diatheses in which the number of arguments does not change between the alternants. For example, in (2.1) both sentences have the same (surface) valency, having three arguments: a nominative case, an accusative case and a prepositional phrase. Yet, there clearly is a role-remapping between both sentences. Strictly speaking, “number-of-arguments” valency alternations are then just a subset of all possible diatheses.

(2.1) a. Ich schmiere Salbe auf die Wunde.
b. Ich beschmiere die Wunde mit Salbe.

2.2 Valency

2.2.1 Utterance valency and lexical roles

[2.8] Valency is traditionally interpreted as a fixed constructional characteristic of a lexical verb, e.g. the verb geben ‘to give’ is said to be ditransitive. A central thesis of this book is that this conception of valency is too limited. Individual verbs can (and normally will) be used in many different constructions with different valency (i.e. most verbs show some kind of diathesis). Consider for example the verb wehen ‘to blow’. Such weather verbs are often considered to have zero valency, which in German is characterised by an obligatory non-phoric es pronoun (2.2 a). However, the same verb can just as well be used as an intransitive (2.2 b,c), as a transitive with an accusative object (2.2 d), or even as a ditransitive with a dative and accusative object (2.2 e). Note that the prepositional phrases in (2.2 c,d,e) cannot be left out and their obligatory presence might be used to argue for argument-status of these prepositional phrases. The example in (2.2 e) then will be an example of the verb wehen with a valency of four.

(2.2) a. Heute weht es.
b. Gestern wehte kein Lüftchen.
c. Der Rosenduft weht ins Zimmer.
d. Der Sturm weht den Schnee von den Dächern.
e. Der Fahrtwind weht mir die Mütze vom Kopf.

[2.9] There is a recurrent tendency in the literature to try and reduce such variation to a single valency per verb (viz. its “real” or “underlying” valency), and various strategies are employed to arrive at such a prototypical valency (see e.g. Welke 2011: Ch. 9 for a survey). That will not be the approach taken here. Instead, valency is proposed to be a characteristic of a specific utterance, not of a specific verb. So, the examples in (2.2) can simply be assigned an utterance valency from zero (2.2 a) to four (2.2 e) even though they all use the same lexeme wehen as their main verb.

[2.10] As a replacement of the traditional lexeme-specific notion of valency (e.g. geben is ditransitive), I propose to use the notion of lexeme-specific lexical roles (e.g. geben has lexical roles “giver”, “givee”, “given object”, etc.). Lexical roles are participants that are treated as an argument of utterance valency in at least one of the possible diatheses of a verb (see the next section for the complete definition of such arguments). The existence of such lexical roles is solely determined by the verb and does not change with different sentence constructions around the verb. Looking back at the example in (2.2 e), the following lexical roles of the German verb wehen ‘to blow’ can be established:

  1. blower: the blowing air, Fahrtwind ‘headwind’.
  2. blowee: Object affected by the blowing air, Mütze ‘cap’.
  3. blowing location: Location affected by the blowing air, Kopf ‘head’.
  4. blowing location possessor: Possessor of the locational object, in (2.2 e) the dative mir ‘my’. This role is necessarily the possessor of the location Kopf ‘head’ affected by the blowing.

[2.11] Additionally, it is of course possible to define a notion of lexeme valency. A straigtforward approach would be to take the utterance valency of a basic clause (cf. paragraph 2.4) as the definition of lexeme valency. However, in general lexeme valency has to be a much more complex construct. For example, lexeme valency can be defined as the collection of all attested utterance valencies for a specific lexeme. To be precise, this lexeme valency also has to include an indexation of the lexical roles across all arguments. This addition is important to distinguish between, for example, the lexical valency of kochen ‘to cook’ (2.3) and essen ‘to eat’ (2.4). Both can occur with a transitive and intransitive utterance valency, but the lexical roles that can be used in the intransitive differ. Specifically, the patient-role “eaten object” of essen cannot be used as nominative subject in the intransitive (2.4 c), which is different from kochen (2.3 c). In effect, these verbs have a different lexeme valency.

(2.3) a. Der Chef kocht den Fond.
b. Der Chef kocht immer noch.
c. Der Fond kocht immer noch.
(2.4) a. Der Chef isst den Fond.
b. Der Chef isst immer noch.
c. * Der Fond isst immer noch.

2.2.2 Arguments of utterance valency

[2.12] The lexical roles of a specific verb are defined as those participants that are treated as argument in at least one of the possible utterance valencies of this verb. So, to identify lexical roles, a strict definition of the arguments of utterance valency is needed. The following four kinds of arguments can be identified. First, all case marked noun phrase constituents are arguments, with a few exceptions that will be discussed in Sec­tion 5.2. Basically, case-marked arguments (2.5 a) can be questioned by the question pronouns wer or was, including their case forms wem, wen and wessen (7.81 b,c). Further, case-marked arguments can be pronominalized by personal pronouns (2.5 d) or the indefinite pronouns (irgend)jemand or (irgend)etwas (2.5 e).

(2.5) a. Der Löwe sieht einen Vogel.
b. Wer sieht einen Vogel?
c. Was sieht der Löwe?
d. Er sieht ihn.
e. Jemand sieht etwas.

[2.13] Second, prepositional phrases (10.75 a) are arguments of an utterance when they can be paraphrased by a complement clause of the form da(r)+preposition, dass (2.6 b). All details of the difficult question when to treat prepositional phrases as arguments in German are discussed in Sec­tion 6.2.

(2.6) a. Der Weltreisende wartet auf einen Zug.
b. Der Weltreisende wartet darauf, dass ein Zug kommt.

[2.14] Third, there exist obligatory prepositional phrases, though they are not very widespread in German and mostly designate a location. Some verbs always expect such a location-role, like sich befinden ‘to be located’ (2.7 a,b), see Sec­tion 6.3.3 and 7.3.4.

(2.7) a. Der Stuhl befindet sich im Wohnzimmer
b. * Der Stuhl befindet sich.

[2.15] More widespread are diatheses that introduce an obligatory local role, like with brechen ‘to break’ (2.8), see Sec­tion 6.8.8. This example crucially shows that arguments should be determined as part of the clause structure, not the lexeme structure. It is perfectly possible to use the verb brechen without a prepositional phrase (2.8 c), but only with a different lexical role in the accusative, viz. Felsen takes the role “broken object”, while Loch has the role “location where the breaking took place”.

(2.8) a. Ich breche ein Loch in den Felsen.
b. * Ich breche ein Loch.
c. Ich breche den Felsen.

[2.16] Finally, all complement clauses are arguments (2.9 a,b). Complement clauses can be questioned by was (2.9 c) and pronominalised by a definite pronoun es (2.9 d) or an indefinite pronoun (irgend)etwas (2.9 e). Complement clauses are thus syntactically highly similar to case marked noun phrases. Caution should be taken when interpreting pronominalised examples like (2.9 d,e), because it is not immediately obvious whether the pronouns are replacing a case-marked noun phrase or a complement clause. For example, with the verb hoffen (2.9 e) it is not possible to replace the pronoun es with a noun phrase, though a governed prepositional phrase with auf is possible (2.9 f). The impact of such complement-clause arguments has not (yet) been thoroughly investigated in this book.

(2.9) a. Er hofft, dass er rechtzeitig kommt.
b. Er hofft rechtzeitig zu kommen.
c. Was hofft er?
d. Er hofft es.
e. * Er hofft eine gute Note.
f. Er hofft auf eine gute Note.

2.2.3 es Arguments

[2.17] A further kind of utterance-valency argument can be instantiated by es, the 3rd person nominative/accusative pronoun in the neuter gender. There are four uses of this pronoun that have to be distinguished, the last of which is particularly important for the analysis of diathesis. First, the most obvious use of the pronouns es is for anaphoric reference (phoric es). The next two uses do not have argument-status (viz. correlative and position-simulating es). Most interestingly in the current context, the fourth usage of es does not have anaphoric reference, but will still be counted as an argument (viz. valency-simulating es). I will illustrate these four options below.

[2.18] First, es can be used for anaphoric reference to neuter nouns, typically with gender agreement as shown in (2.10). There are many variants of such phoric usage, extensively discussed by Czicza (2014: Ch. 2).

(2.10) Das Mädchen weint.
Ich tröste es.

[2.19] Second, another kind of referential es occurs with some non-finite complement clauses. By definition, a complement clause replaces an argument (2.11 a), but in some examples a pronoun es remains in place of the original argument, side by side with the complement clause (2.11 b). This is known as a correlative es (Czicza 2014: 79ff.).

(2.11) a. Ich vergesse [meine Aufgaben].
Ich vergesse [schnell zu laufen].
b. Ich hasse [meine Aufgaben].
Ich hasse es [schnell zu laufen].

[2.20] Third, the pronoun es is also used to fill the first sentence position in front of the finite verb (Vorfeld in the German grammatical terminology), because there is a strong regularity in German that this position cannot be left empty (except in imperatives and in yes/no questions). Word order is rather flexible in German, and it is often possible to have no lexical content in the Vorfeld. In such sentences, the pronoun es has to be used to fill the Vorfeld, as shown in (2.12 b). This is known as a position-simulating es (Czicza 2014: 115).

(2.12) a. Ein Mädchen weint.
b. Es weint ein Mädchen.

[2.21] Finally, there are also constructions that obligatorily include the pronoun es in the sentence as part of the valency of the utterance. The main reason for such a pronoun es is that there is a strong regularity in German that a nominative subject has to be present in each sentence (with very few exceptions, see below). Note that “subject” is defined here strictly for German as the nominative noun phrase that shows agreement with the finite verb. When there is no such subject available, then the pronoun es is used to fill this gap. This is known as a valency-simulating es (Czicza 2014: 115). In the analysis of diatheses in this book, such valency-simulating es is alway explicitly noted.

[2.22] In constructions with a valency-simulating es, as exemplified in (2.13 a,b), the pronoun es can occur in the Vorfeld (2.13 a), seemingly parallel to the position-simulating usage (2.12 b). However, when another constituent is placed in the Vorfeld, the pronoun es in (2.13 a) cannot be dropped, but has to occur elsewhere in the sentence, typically immediately after the finite verb (2.13 b). This post-verbal retention of the pronoun es is a typical sign for the valency-simulating use.

(2.13) a. Es stinkt hier sehr.
b. Hier stinkt es sehr.

[2.23] In a very limited set of constructions the expected valency-simulating es is not present, resulting in sentences without any formal nominative subject. Some of these examples are historical idiosyncrasies (2.14), see Sections 6.5.3 and 5.9.3, respectively.

(2.14) a. Heute ist mir kalt.
b. Dem Arzt graut vor Blut.

[2.24] However, there are a few impersonal diatheses that completely remove the subject but still have no valency-simulating es. Specifically, the following diatheses result in sentences that do not have any nominative subject.

(2.15) a. Im Bett wird geschlafen.
b. An der Ernsthaftigkeit der Aussage lässt sich zweifeln.
c. Mit einem neutralen Deutschland ist schwer leben.
d. Mit ihm ist nicht zu spaßen.

[2.25] There are also a few rare cases in which there is a valency-simulating es in what appears to be an accusative case (2.16), see Sections 6.3.5 and 9.7.3, respectively. These constructions need a more in-depth investigation.

(2.16) a. Ich belasse es bei einer Warnung.
b. Ich meine es ernst.

2.2.4 Adjuncts

[2.26] Adjuncts, the counterparts of arguments, are phrases that are not specifically induced by the main verb of a clause. Typically, such adjuncts are adverbial prepositional phrases, see Sec­tion 6.2.2. Just like with arguments, adjunct status should not be linked to a lexical verb itself, but to the clause construction in which it is used.

[2.27] For example, the verb tanzen ‘to dance’ is typically considered to be an intransitive verb with optional (adjunct) location prepositional phrases (2.17 a,b). However, there is a crucial difference between the two locations in these two examples, see Sec­tion 6.8.1. The static location im Saal ‘in the hall’ (2.17 a) remains optional in the perfect (with auxiliary haben), see (2.17 c,d), while the dynamic location in den Saal ‘into the hall’ becomes obligatory in the perfect (with auxiliary sein), see (2.17 e,f). So, the obligatory location in (2.17 e) is an utterance argument (and as a consequence, the role of “path” is a lexical role of such verbs of movement like tanzen).

(2.17) a. Ich tanze (im Saal).
b. Ich tanze (durch den Saal).
c. Ich habe im Saal getanzt.
d. Ich habe getanzt.
e. Ich bin durch den Saal getanzt.
f. * Ich bin getanzt.

[2.28] Adjuncts are, by definition, optionally present, so there is a natural connection to them being unexpressed. A central unanswered problem is whether there is a crucial distinction between constructions in which a participant is obligatorily absent (i.e. impossible to express) vs. optionally absent (i.e. possibly not expressed). In most diatheses that involve absence, the whole point is that there is an alternation between absence and presence of a lexical role (e.g. in all diatheses that involve a drop or addition). The problematic cases are differences like passive vs. anticausative, which by definition are distinguished by possibility vs. impossibility for the agent to be expressed. This difference is highly volatile, i.e. it often differs from lexeme to lexeme whether it is possible or just dispreferred for an agent to be expressed.

2.3 Voice

[2.29] The formal linguistic marking of a diathesis, for example by verbal morphology or auxiliaries, is called grammatical voice (following Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 4). The different kinds of grammatical voice in German establish the basic organisational framework of this book. Each of the data chapters discusses a specific kind of grammatical voice, listing all diatheses using that “voicing”. The nine data chapters can be grouped into four kinds of grammatical voices:

[2.30] The first two chapters deal with diatheses that are not overtly marked as such, i.e. they deal with covert diatheses. Because there is no marking on either of the two alternants, it is often difficult to discern a direction in such equipollent alternations. In Chapter 5 I will discuss diatheses that only differ in the marking of case, for example unmarked anticausatives like (2.18). Chapter 6 deals with unmarked diatheses in which at least on of the alternants is a prepositional phrase, for example unmarked antipassives like (2.19).

(2.18) a. Er verbrennt den Tisch.
b. Der Tisch verbrennt.
(2.19) a. Ich schlürfe meinen Tee.
b. Ich schlürfe an meinem Tee.

[2.31] The contribution of reflexive pronouns for the marking of diathesis is discussed in Chapter 7. A central claim in this chapter is that ‘self-inflicting’ reflexive reference (2.20) does not count as diathesis in German. In contrast, there are various other diathetical constructions in German that use reflexive pronouns without such self-inflicting reflexive reference, like the antipassive in (2.21). In such diatheses the presence of a reflexive pronoun is the actual marking of the diathesis, it is not signalling that subject and object are the same participant. An important generalisation about diatheses with reflexive pronouns is that they are always demotions.

(2.20) a. Ich wasche das Auto.
b. Ich wasche mich.
(2.21) a. Ich fürchte den Tod.
b. Ich fürchte mich vor den Tod.

[2.32] In Chapter 8 I will turn to preverbs, i.e. verbal prefixes that in German grammar are known as Verbpräfixe and Verbpartikeln. Syntactically, these are different kinds of elements, but from the perspective of diathesis they appear to function rather similar. The most widespread diathesis marked by such preverbs is an applicative, like with be‑ in (2.22). Because of the bound morphological structure, these diatheses show a strong tendency to grammaticalise into a large variety of different kinds of diathetical operations. A central generalisation of the diatheses discussed in this chapter is that the resulting sentence structures after a preverb diathesis is mostly transitive (especially nominative+accusative).

(2.22) a. Ich steige auf den Berg.
b. Ich besteige den Berg.

[2.33] Closely related to preverbs are resultative preverbials that induce diathesis, like the applicative with leer‑ in (2.23). There exist also diatheses induced by evaluative adverbials, like the reflexive anticausative with a manner specification gut in (2.24). Although these two kinds of elements, resultatives and evaluatives, occur in rather different kinds of diathesis, for convenience both phenomena are combined into a single chapter on adverbial-like diatheses in Chapter 9.

(2.23) a. Ich habe in dem Teich gefischt.
b. Ich habe den Teich leergefischt.
(2.24) a. Ich fahre den Lastwagen.
b. Der Lastwagen fährt sich gut.

[2.34] A large number of diatheses use light verbs in combination with a non-finite form of the lexical verb. A somewhat surprising insight is that light-verb diatheses always involve a role-change of the nominative subject. I distinguish four different kinds of light verb constructions, to be discussed in four different chapters. Chapter 10 discusses light verb construction with participles, like the infamous werden+Partizip passive (2.25).

(2.25) a. Ich habe einen Brief geschrieben.
b. Der Brief wurde geschrieben.

[2.35] The next three chapters describe different combinations of light verbs with lexical verbs in the infinitive. Chapter 11 discusses light verbs with straight infinitives, like the lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv causative (2.26).

(2.26) a. Ich wasche meine Kleider.
b. Sie lässt mich meine Kleider waschen.

[2.36] Chapter 12 investigates light verbs with zu plus an infinitive, like for example the sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv passive (2.27). The combination of zu with an infinitive is arguably completely grammaticalised and is considered here to be yet another non-finite verb form of German, alongside Partizip and In­fi­ni­tiv. I propose to call it the zu-In­fi­ni­tiv.

(2.27) a. Ich führe einen Hund an der Leine.
b. Ein Hund ist an der Leine zu führen.

[2.37] Finally, Chapter 13 looks at the combinations of prepositions, article and an infinitive, like the halten+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv causative (9.49). In such constructions, the preposition and article are obligatorily fused (an+dem>am) and this fused combination cannot be separated from the infinitive. Such completely grammaticalised constructions appear to be rather recent in German and are often considered substandard. Only a few of such combinations pass all the tests for complete grammaticalisation. When all tests apply, then I consider the combination of preposition+article+infinitive to be yet another non-finite verb form of German, alongside Partizip, In­fi­ni­tiv and zu-In­fi­ni­tiv. I propose to call it the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv.

(2.28) a. Das Feuer brennt.
b. Der Wind hält das Feuer am Brennen.

2.4 Diathetical operations

2.4.1 Abbreviations used

[2.38] A diathetical operation is a change that happens to the marking of the participants in a diathesis. One of the central definitional properties of a diathesis is that the coding of at least one of the participants has to change, for example a participant erstwhile coded with an accusative turns into a prepositional phrase. Because the role of the participant remains the same (again, by definition), such a change amounts to the mapping of a role onto a different grammatical form. I will call this process role-remapping.

[2.39] In the analysis of diathetical operations in this book I will use the following abbreviations, as summarised in Figure 2.1. First, grammatical expressions, i.e. actual grammatical forms as identified in traditional German grammar, are abbreviated with single letters, shown at the right side of the figure. For case-marked noun phrases I will use the easily recognisable capital letters nadg for nominative, accusative, dative and genitive respectively. As argued earlier (see Sec­tion 2.2.2) there are also prepositional phrases that express lexically determined roles. These will also be abbreviated with capital letters: l for obligatory locations and p for governed prepositional phrases.

Figure 2.1: Abbreviations used to describe role-remapping

[2.40] Lower-cased letters are used for non-argument participants in the clause: ‘p’ for non-governed prepositional phrases and ‘g’ for adnominal genitives. Adnominal genitives become relevant because in some diatheses a newly introduced participant is inherently the possessor of another participant (see paragraph 2.133). Absence of a specific role will be indicated by a dash. Lower-cased ‘a’ and ‘d’ are only used in Sec­tion 7.4 to indicate accusative and dative reflexive pronouns in referential usage. As described in much detail in that chapter, it is important to distinguish between reflexive pronouns in German that refer to a lexical role (i.e. “referential” or “real” reflexive constructions) and reflexive pronouns that mark a diathesis without referring to a separate role themselves. Only the former reflexive pronouns, those that are (doubly) marking a role, are abbreviated by lowercased ‘a’ or ‘d’.

[2.41] Besides single-letter abbreviations I will also use capitalised three-letter abbreviations for a more abstract level of analysis. As summarised at the left side of Figure 2.1, the grammatical expressions are grouped into sets of grammatical macroroles, mostly along familiar lines. However, it is crucial to realise that these macroroles are defined here as a superset of language-specific German grammatical expressions. There is no abstract metalinguistic (universal) definition assumed. The current grouping is not necessarily the best or most optimal grouping, but this grouping has emerged to be useful to organise the large diversity of diatheses in this book.

[2.42] The notion subject (sbj) is used for nominative phrases that show agreement with the finite verb. There are various other nominatively marked phrases in German grammar which are not included under this heading, e.g. the nominative in nominal or equational predication like der Täter in Er ist der Täter. The other case-marked governed phrases are combined as cased objects (obj). The cased objects together with the prepositional objects (pbj) form a superclass of objects. Non-governed phrases are separated in overtly expressed adjuncts (adj) and unexpressed roles omitted (ø). Although I will use this five-way distinction throughout this book (sbj, obj, pbj, adj, ø), the five steps are not equidistant. The macroroles obj and pbj are rather closely related, and likewise are adj and ø intimately linked. Collapsing these pairs results in the traditional subject-object-adjunct distinction.

[2.43] There are some indications that the group of cased objects (obj) might be fruitfully separated into core (accusative) and non-core (dative/genitive). This would simplify the analysis of case change in object chains (Sec­tion 2.7.5), the antipassive hierarchy (Sec­tion 6.7) and the case-marking of the reflexive pronoun (Sec­tion 7.3). However, in the majority of diatheses all three cases seem to behave as a uniform group, so I did not consistently pursue this separation.

[2.44] It is imperative to realise that the macroroles are defined in a language-specific way for German grammar as groupings of language-specific German expressions (e.g. adj is defined as being either a non-governed prepositional phrase or an adnominal genitive). The names that are used (e.g. “object” or “adjunct”) deliberately conjure up general cross-linguistic associations, but it remains to be seen whether similar definitions as used here are also useful for other languages. I will refrain from any cross-linguistic speculation in this context here.

2.4.2 Remapping of roles

[2.45] All diatheses in this book will be organised and categorised in various levels of abstraction using the abbreviations as summarised in Figure 2.1. The following levels of abstraction will be used to arrange the diatheses in each chapter.

[2.46] level 1: diathesis. On the lowest level, each diathesis is summarised in its own sub-subsection. The establishment of an individual diathesis is not always obvious, and each diathesis in this book is already a conscious categorisation (which could be wrong). It has actually been a voyage of discovery in the preparation of this book to decide when to consider a set of examples to be a single diathesis. Very often erstwhile single diatheses turned out to be better analysed by a separation into various different diatheses, and vice versa. Although I am rather confident in the quality of the current decisions, I expect that further refinements are necessary in the future.

[2.47] level 2: remapping pattern. The role-remapping of each diathesis is analysed using the single-letter abbreviations (nadgpl pgad‑) from Figure 2.1. A remapping is specified as an ordered listing of grammatical expressions for roles, both before and after the diathesis. For example, [na | ‑n] is a diathesis that involves two roles that are marked N(ominative) and A(ccusative) before the diathesis but unexpressed (“–”) and N(ominative) after the diathesis, respectively. Because there are many diatheses with this same pattern, this characterisation is already an (implicit) classification.

[2.48] level 3: local group. Groups of diatheses with similar remapping and similar semantics within each chapter can be grouped together as a local group. These groups are rather ad-hoc and mainly represent a useful summary to streamline the presentation. Local groups are indicated by similar names for the diatheses.

[2.49] level 4: macrorole pattern. The remapping of each local group is structurally analysed in terms of the three-letter macroroles (sbj, obj, pbj, adj, ø) from Figure 2.1. For example, the remapping from above [na | ‑n] includes both a change from n to being omitted (i.e. sbj › ø) and a change from a to n (i.e. obj › sbj). These two macrorole changes can be combined into a single macrorole pattern obj › sbj › ø.

[2.50] level 5: promotion/demotion. On the most abstract level, all diatheses are separated into chapter-subsections of either demotion or promotion (with only very few diatheses being symmetrical exchanges). Basically, each remapping is evaluated on the macrorole hierarchy (2.29) with role-remapping upwards being promotion and role-remapping downward being demotion. Note that there is a crucial additional criterion necessary, because the majority of diatheses consist of chains of two coinciding remappings (see Sec­tion 2.6 on the notion of “chains”). In such chained remappings, the largest jump on the macrorole hierarchy defines a diathesis as being demotion or promotion. When both jumps are equally large, then the diathesis is symmetric.

(2.29) Macrorole Hierarchy
sbj » obj » pbj » adj » ø

[2.51] For example, the diathesis in (2.30) is analysed as a remapping pattern [na | ‑n], see Sec­tion 7.5.2. This should be read as follows: there is an alternation between a clause with na arguments (nominative, accusative) and a clause with only n marking (nominative). The relative order of these letters is crucial, as the order of the roles remains fixed in this notation, e.g. the second letter on the left (a for accusative) corresponds to the second letter on the right (n for nominative). The dash on the right indicates that the corresponding n on the left is not expressed. Note that the actual linear arrangement of the letters is flexible, as long as both sides of the alternation remain in the same order, i.e. [an | n‑] would be the same remapping pattern as [na | ‑n]. The pattern [na | ‑n] is an implicit categorisation, because there are many other diatheses that have exactly the same pattern (see e.g. Sec­tions 5.5.5, 9.5.2, 10.5.12).

(2.30) a. Ich schließe die Tür.
b. Die Tür schließt sich.

[2.52] Although there is a reflexive pronoun in (2.30 b), this pronoun is not included with a lower-cased ‘a’ in the remapping pattern [na | ‑n], because this reflexive pronoun does not refer to a separate role. The verb schließen ‘to close’ implies at least two different roles, the “closer” and the “closed object”, expressed as nominative and accusative in (2.30 a), respectively. In (2.30 b) only the role of “closed object” is expressed as nominative. The reflexive pronoun does not refer to any other role. I interpret the reflexive pronoun in (2.30) as a marker of the diathesis itself (see Chapter 7 for an extensive discussion), so there is actually an overt direction in the markedness from unmarked (2.30 a) to reflexive-marked (2.30 b). The vertical bar “ | ” in the middle of the remapping pattern [na | ‑n] implies this direction in markedness from left to right, i.e. left side describes the unmarked alternant and the right side the marked alternant. Reordering the remapping pattern around the vertical bar would result in a completely reversed diathesis [‑n | na].

[2.53] The diathesis in (2.30) is one of various examples of a local group that are all called “reflexive antipassive”. Other diatheses in this group include examples like (2.31) with an additional governed preposition, analysed here with the remapping pattern [nap | ‑np], see Sec­tion 7.5.5. All diatheses in this local group have the same macrorole pattern, namely obj › sbj › ø, i.e a cased object is turned into nominative subject, which is omitted (i.e. unexpressed).

(2.31) a. Das Lied erinnert den Mann an den Krieg.
b. Der Mann erinnert sich an den Krieg.

[2.54] This diathesis is a combination of two different remappings obj › sbj and sbj › ø, with the first being a promotion on the macrorole hierarchy and the second a demotion. Crucially, because the demotion part (sbj › ø) is a larger jump on the hierarchy than the promotion part (obj › sbj), the complete combination is categorised as a demotion.

[2.55] So, in summary, the role-remapping of the diathesis (2.31) is categorised as summarised below. This information also informs the place in the book where this diathesis will be discussed: Reflexive voice is Chapter 7, demotion that includes the subject in the macrorole pattern is always Section 5 within each chapter, and consequently, this diathesis can be found with the heading obj › sbj › ø named “reflexive antipassive” in Sec­tion 7.5.5.

  1. diathesis: reflexive antipassive+governed preposition
  2. remapping pattern: [nap | ‑np]
  3. local group: reflexive antipassive
  4. macrorole pattern: obj › sbj › ø
  5. promotion/demotion: demotion
  6. voice: reflexive marking

2.5 Stacking

2.5.1 Combining diatheses

[2.56] Different clause alternations (both diatheses and epitheses) can be applied one after the other, forming stacks of diatheses and/or epitheses. The term “stacking” is introduced here explicitly in opposition to “subordinating”. Subordination leads to non-coherent multi-clause constructions, while stacks always remain coherent and thus monoclausal. My impression is that much of modern syntactic theory could be drastically simplified by strictly distinguishing between stacking and subordinating.

[2.57] Stacked diatheses can lead to convoluted role-remappings. A beautiful example of such stacking of diatheses is given by Dixon (2014: 252) for the Amazonian language Paumarí. Here, the root noki‑ ‘to see’ is transparently related to the meaning ‘to show’ through a series of derivational diatheses, viz. noki‑ ‘to see’, noki-a‑ ‘to be visible’, na-noki-a‑ ‘to become visible’, and finally na-noki-a-hi‑ ‘to make become visible’ i.e. ‘to show’.

[2.58] German does not have that many morphologically bound mechanisms for diathesis, though there are incidental examples that come close. For example, the verb liegen ‘to lie’ changes with ablaut to legen ‘to lay’ (see Sec­tion 5.6.3), which in turn can take a preverb to form be-legen ‘to cover’ (see Sec­tion 8.7.13). However, when the perspective is broadened beyond bound morphology and all different kinds of German diathesis are considered, then it turns out that stacking of diatheses is extremely widespread.

[2.59] In many cases, the different steps in a stack can be easily disentangled by carefully observing the formal marking of the diathesis. For example, the construction in (2.32 c) includes both a preverb be‑ and a reflexive pronoun sich and it turns out that these are applied in turn to make a stack of two diatheses. Starting with the verb antworten ‘to answer’ with a governed preposition auf (2.32 a), the applicative preverb be‑ changes the prepositional phrase to an accusative (2.32 b), see Sec­tion 8.8.8. Subsequently, the reflexive anticausative turns the accusative into a nominative and drops the nominative agent (2.32 c), see Sec­tion 7.5.2.

(2.32) a. Der Lehrer antwortet auf deine Frage.
b. Der Lehrer beantwortet deine Frage.
c. Deine Frage beantwortet sich von selbst.

[2.60] Clause alternations are applied one after the other, i.e. the order of the alternations in a stack is of crucial importance in most examples (unordered stacks exist, but are unusual, see Sec­tion 2.6.4). Basically, a stack is just a list of clause alternations applied one after the other. Syntactically this is just a linear sequence of application, i.e. there is no branching possible with stacking. Semantically this means that each subsequent clause alternation has scope over the previous one.

[2.61] A stack can be written down using a symbol like +> to indicate the additive (+) and sequential (>) nature of the combination. The stack above (3.58) can then be analysed as: (2.32 a) +> be‑ applicative +> reflexive anticausative = (2.32 c). This notation leads to concise analyses, as shown for example in (2.33) for the difference between the sentences (2.33 a,b) and (2.33 c,d).

(2.33) a. Der Lehrer hat die Aufgabe lösen wollen.
b. Basic clause: Der Lehrer löst die Aufgabe.
+> wollen modal (cf. 11.4.7)
    = Der Lehrer will die Aufgabe lösen.
+> haben perfect (cf. 10.4.1)
    = Der Lehrer hat die Aufgabe lösen wollen.
c. Der Lehrer will die Aufgabe gelöst haben.
d. Basic clause: Jemand löst die Aufgabe für den Lehrer.
+> beneficiary dative (cf. 6.8.10)
    = Jemand löst dem Lehrer die Aufgabe.
+> haben dative passive (cf. 10.5.22)
    = Der Lehrer hat die Aufgabe gelöst.
+> wollen modal (cf. 11.4.7)
    = Der Lehrer will die Aufgabe gelöst haben.

[2.62] With unmarked (“covert”) diatheses such stacks can sometimes be tricky to tease apart. As an example, consider the arguably somewhat artificially constructed example in (2.34) using the verb schneiden ‘to cut’. It starts off in (2.34 a) as a basic transitive construction with a nominative and accusative argument. Yet, after various twists and turns it ends up on (2.34 f) with a nominative, an accusative, a dative and an obligatory location prepositional phrase, while the original agent Arzt is not even expressed.

(2.34) a. Der Arzt schneidet den Nagel des Patienten.
b. Der Arzt schneidet in den Nagel des Patienten.
c. Der Arzt schneidet dem Patienten in den Nagel.
d. Der Arzt schneidet dem Patienten einen Schlitz in den Nagel.
e. Der Arzt schneidet dem Patienten einen Schlitz in den Nagel mit dem Fräser.
f. Der Fräser schneidet dem Patienten einen Schlitz in den Nagel.

[2.63] Teasing this stack apart, there are five different diatheses, concurrently showing that the verb schneiden has at least five different lexeme-specific roles. As defined in Sec­tion 2.2.2, each role that appears as a case-marked constituent in at least one diathesis is a lexeme-specific role, and all of the following participants are case-marked in the stack of diatheses (2.34):

[2.64] The five diatheses (and the corresponding role-remappings) are the following:

2.5.2 Fixed stacks

[2.65] There are a few examples of diatheses that look like stacks of two diatheses, but on closer inspection it turns out that the intermediate construction does not exist. A few major examples of such fixed stacks are exemplified below.

[2.66] There is an infamous anticausative diathesis that needs a reflexive pronoun, which is attested for a large, but restricted group of verbs like schließen ‘to close’ (2.35 a,b), see Sec­tion 7.5.2. A completely different group of verbs also has an anticausative diathesis with a reflexive pronoun, but only with an additional evaluative adverbial. This is for example attested with verkaufen ‘to sell’ (2.35 c,d), see Sec­tion 9.5.2. In this case, the diathesis is marked by both the reflexive pronoun and the presence of an adverbial, and neither is possible without the other. Such a combination of two obligatorily co-occurring formal marking strategies is called a fixed stack.

(2.35) a. Ich schließe die Tür.
b. Die Tür schließt sich.
c. Ich verkaufe das Buch.
d. Das Buch verkauft sich gut.

[2.67] Various diatheses between a verb, like fassen ‘to grasp’ (2.36 a), and its pre­verb-alternant, like befassen ‘to be concerned with’ (2.36 b), additionally need a reflexive pronoun, see Sec­tion 8.7.4. So here we have a fixed stack of a reflexive pronoun and a preverb together that mark the diathesis.

(2.36) a. Ich fasse einen Entschluss.
b. Ich befasse mich mit dem Entschluss.

[2.68] Also some light verb alternations show fixed stacks. For example, there is a very widespread causative diathesis using the light verb lassen with an infinitive (2.37 b), see Sec­tion 11.6.2. Additionally, the combination of lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv and a reflexive pronoun leads to a passive alternation (2.37 c), which does not make sense as being derived from the causative (2.37 b). It seems better to consider the combination of lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv as a fixed stack, see Sec­tion 11.5.5.

(2.37) a. Der Schüler löst die Aufgabe.
b. Der Lehrer lässt den Schüler die Aufgabe lösen.
c. Diese Aufgabe lässt sich (von den Schülern) lösen.

2.6 Chaining

2.6.1 Beyond solitary remapping

[2.69] Many diatheses just remap a single role. Such diatheses are called isolated diatheses here. However, there are also many diatheses in which more than one role is remapped. I distinguish the following kinds of combined role-remappings, of which only the first is frequently attested.

[2.70] Chained diatheses are surprisingly frequent in German, and my impression is that this pervasiveness extends to many other languages beyond German. In a chained diathesis the result of the first remapping is the start of the second remapping. This can be conceptualised as a “push” or “pull” chain in which one remapping induces another. The prevalence of such chains is probably caused by two general tendencies of language structure, namely distinctness and default marking. These tendencies are formulated here as hypotheses for language structure in general, beyond the specifics of German.

[2.71] First, the tendency for distinctness causes language to disprefer multiple constituents with the same structure in a single clause. For example, the German languages tends to prevent two accusatives in the same clause. In effect, if a diathesis would gives rise to such a duplication, then the duplicated constituent is preferably “pushed” out to another kind of marking. Second, the principle of default marking induces languages to mark at least one of its constituents as the “default” in each clause. For example, in German the nominative subject has to be present in almost every clause. As a result, if a diathesis removes this preferred constituent, then another constituent is typically “pulled” into this kind of marking. It remains to be further investigated whether these two forces really exist, and whether the two tendencies can be teased apart.

2.6.2 Chained diatheses

[2.72] In German, chained diatheses typically occur when the nominative subject is involved in the diathesis. There can only be a single nominative subject in a German clause, and it is highly unusual to have a sentence without a nominative subject. This implies that any diathesis involving the nominative subject typically includes two remappings, namely one from something else to nominative and a second remapping of the erstwhile nominative to something else.

[2.73] A prototypical example of a chained diathesis involving the nominative subject is the werden passive (2.38). Here, the erstwhile accusative Kuchen ‘cake’ is turned into a nominative, while the erstwhile nominative Lehrling ‘apprentice’ is removed (or optionally retained as a von prepositional phrase). So, we have a chain consisting of the role-remappings obj › sbj and sbj › adj.

(2.38) chained diathesis (obj › sbj › adj)
a. Der Lehrling backt den Kuchen.
b. Der Kuchen wird gebacken (von dem Lehrling).

[2.74] Diatheses without involvement of the nominative subject are more flexible, in that both isolated and chained diatheses are common. A typical example of a chained diathesis is an object exchange induced by the preverb be‑ (2.39). In this example, a prepositional phrase für ihre Freundin ‘for her friend’ is remapped to an accusative (adj › obj) while the erstwhile accusative Essen ‘food’ is turned into a prepositional phrase (obj › adj).

(2.39) chained diathesis (adj › obj › adj)
a. Sie kocht kubanisches Essen für ihre Freundin.
b. Sie bekocht ihre Freundin mit kubanischem Essen.

[2.75] Among the chained diatheses there is a group of frequently recurring remapping patterns. Because of their frequency, it is highly useful to give them specific names. Such names are widespread in the literature, e.g. anticausative for obj › sbj › ø or passive for obj › sbj › adj. A survey of the various names used in this book will be pursued in Sec­tion 2.7.

2.6.3 Multi-chained diatheses

[2.76] multi-chained diatheses consist of combinations of more than two role-re­map­pings that occur in a sequence. This occurs frequently as the result of a stack of multiple diatheses, but only very rarely in a single diathesis. As an example arising from a stack of multiple diatheses consider taking a verb like lesen ‘to read’ (2.40 a) and applying a stack of two diatheses (2.40 b,c). This leads to a chain of three role-remappings. First, the preverb diathesis with vor‑ (2.40 b) leads to the addition of a dative argument dem Jungen, i.e. a role-remapping ø › obj, see Sec­tion 8.8.7. On top of that, the bekommen dative passive (2.40 c) promotes this dative to subject and removes the original subject, i.e. a role-remapping obj › sbj › ø, see Sec­tion 10.5.21. Combined, these two diatheses lead to a multi-chained role-re­map­ping ø › obj › sbj › ø.

(2.40) multi-chained diathesis (ø › obj › sbj › ø)
a. Der Vater hat ein Buch gelesen.
b. Der Vater hat dem Jungen ein Buch vorgelesen.
c. Der Junge bekommt ein Buch vorgelesen.

[2.77] Such multi-chained diatheses that are the result of diathesis-stacking are widespread. However, I know of only two diatheses with a multi-chain that cannot be decomposed into a stack of separate diatheses. Both these “fixed” multi-chain diatheses appear to occur with just a few idiosyncratic verbs, so this phenomenon really seems to be dispreferred in German.

[2.78] First, the preverb diathesis from erben ‘to inherit’ to enterben ‘to disinherit’ (2.41), see Sec­tion 8.6.13, contains three linked role-remappings for (i) the originator of the inheritance Vater ‘father’ (adj › sbj), (ii) the receiver of the inheritance Junge ‘boy’ (sbj › obj) and (iii) the inheritance Schreibtisch ‘desk’ (obj › ø).

(2.41) multi-chained diathesis (adj › sbj › obj › ø)
a. Der Junge erbt den Schreibtisch von seinem Vater.
b. Sein Vater enterbt den Jungen.

[2.79] Second, the verb schmecken ‘to taste’ (2.42), see Sec­tion 6.5.6, allows for two different constructions with three linked role-remappings for (i) the tasted substance Pfefferminze ‘peppermint’ (obj › adj), for (ii) the tasted dish Suppe ‘soup’ (adj › sbj) and for (iii) the taster Koch ‘cook’ (sbj › ø).

(2.42) multi-chained diathesis (obj › adj › sbj › ø)
a. Der Koch schmeckt die Pfefferminze in der Suppe.
b. Die Suppe schmeckt nach Pfefferminze.

2.6.4 Disjunct diatheses

[2.80] disjunct diatheses consist of a combination of multiple role-remappings that are not linked to each other. Just as with the multi-chained diatheses from the previous section, disjunct diatheses regularly occur as the result of stacking of diatheses. In contrast, they are very rare in individual diatheses.

[2.81] When multiple diatheses are stacked, i.e. when they are applied sequentially on top of each other, they are sometimes structurally independent (and thus unordered). For example, the verb waschen ‘to wash’ (2.43 a) can be used in a object-exchange diathesis (2.43 b) in which the role of washee Hemd ‘shirt’ is turned from an accusative into a location (obj › pbj) and a new accusative object is introduced for the role of the object to be removed Fleck ‘stain’ (ø › obj), see Sec­tion 6.8.8. Independent of this chained diathesis, the possessor of the object Nachbar ‘neighbour’ can be raised to genitive (2.43 c), i.e. a possessor applicative (adj › obj), see Sec­tion 6.8.13.

(2.43) disjunct diathesis (ø › obj › pbj + adj › obj)
a. Ich wasche das Hemd des Nachbarn.
b. Ich wasche den Fleck aus dem Hemd des Nachbarn.
c. Ich wasche dem Nachbarn den Fleck aus dem Hemd.

[2.82] There are only a few incidental examples of such disjunct diatheses without stacking. The following four examples all only occur with a very limited number of verbs. First, the verb deuten can be used both to mean ‘interpret’ (2.44 a) and ‘forebode’ (2.44 b) with a rather transparent connection between the two. However, the role-remappings are quite complex, see Sec­tion 6.5.11.

(2.44) disjunct diathesis (ø › pbj + obj › sbj › ø)
a. Ich deute den Traum.
b. Der Traum deutet auf nichts Gutes.

[2.83] Second, some preverbs lead to disjunct diatheses, like with schweigen ‘to remain silent’ and verschweigen ‘to conceal’ (11.56), see Sec­tion 8.8.15.

(2.45) disjunct diathesis (adj › obj + pbj › obj)
a. Ich schweige zu dir über meinen Besuch.
b. Ich verschweige dir meinen Besuch.

[2.84] Further examples are a few verbs of naming like schimpfen ‘to scold’ (2.46), see Sec­tion 6.8.6. The disjunct diathesis in (2.47) is less clear, as it might be better analysed as a stack, see Sec­tion 6.5.3.

(2.46) disjunct diathesis (ø › obj + adj › obj)
a. Sie schimpft auf mich.
b. Sie schimpft mich einen Narren
(2.47) disjunct diathesis (ø › obj + sbj › adj)
a. Der Sommer ist kalt.
b. Mir ist kalt im Sommer.

[2.85] The only more widespread disjunct diathesis is the caused-motion construction that can arise with some apparently intransitive verbs like schwitzen ‘to sweat’ (2.48). This diathesis introduces two roles at once: a result of the sweating Fleck ‘stain’ and an obligatory location of the result Hemd ‘shirt’, see Sec­tion 6.8.3.

(2.48) disjunct diathesis (ø › obj + ø › pbj)
a. Ich schwitze.
b. Ich schwitze einen Fleck in mein Hemd.

2.7 Naming

2.7.1 Names for macrorole patterns

[2.86] Throughout the introductory chapters I have used various names for diatheses, like passive, antipassive, applicative or causative. These names have a long history in the typological grammatical literature (cf. Mel’čuk 1993; Wunderlich 1993; Wunderlich 2015; Dixon & Aikhenvald 2000; Dixon 2014; Haspelmath & Müller-Bardey 2004; Kulikov 2011; Malchukov 2015: 96ff.; Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019). Although I have been using these terms as if their meaning is clear, this is often far from the truth. Many different terms and definitions have been proposed in the literature, and different terms have at times been used for the same phenomena. For example, the original proposal for the term “antipassive” is already 50 years old (Silverstein 1972: 395), but the same phenomenon is also known as deaccusative (Geniušė 1987: 94) or antiapplicative (Haspelmath & Müller-Bardey 2004: 1132; Scheibl 2006: 371). Conversely, the term antipassive is also attested referring to a slightly different phenomenon of the drop of an object (Scheibl 2006: 372–373).

[2.87] In this section I will describe in more detail how these names are used and defined in the current book about German diatheses. The names for diatheses will here always refer to a macrorole pattern, i.e. to the highly abstract classification of a diathesis in terms of sbj, obj, etc. as defined in Sec­tion 2.4.2. For example, the term “anticausative” will be used as a name for the macrorole pattern obj › sbj › ø. Such macrorole patterns are strictly defined here in a language-specific way for German, so care should be taken when applying the same names to different languages.

[2.88] One widespread term that I will avoid is the term “middle” (and likewise the Latinate equivalent term “medium”). This term for a diathesis is already attested as μεσότης in the oldest known Greek grammatical text, the τέχνη γραμματική of Dionysius Thrax, and it has become a mainstay in the grammatical literature ever since. Thrax writes: διαθέσεις εἰσὶ τρεῖς, ἐνέργεια, πάθος, μεσότης “there are three diatheses, active, passive and middle” (Uhlig 1883: 48). The phenomena that are called “middle” in the literature are highly variable, and there is no consensus about what kind of diathesis this term is supposed to designate, other than something that is neither active nor passive (see Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 168–177 for a thorough summary of the complex philological history of the term middle/medium). Such a broad and ill-defined term is not useful for a detailed analysis of the large variety of attested role-remappings in German.

[2.89] The discussion about the different names for macrorole patterns will be split into four parts. First, the next two sections will present names for diatheses involving the nominative subject. Subsequent sections will discuss diatheses not involving the subject. In both discussions, a central distinction will be made between isolated diatheses and chained diatheses (cf. Sec­tion 2.6).

2.7.2 Isolated subject diatheses

[2.90] Isolated diatheses that involve a nominative subject do not show much variation in German. The most widespread kind is the drop of the subject (sbj › ø), i.e. the complete removal of the role marked as nominative subject without any further accompanying role-remapping or reintroduction of a new subject. This is typically attested with intransitive verbs: after removing the single available role, there is no other role introduced to fill the structural subject position. Semantically, such diatheses put the focus on the activity as described by the verb itself, so I propose to call them insubjective diatheses. Note that there is a strong tendency for every German sentence to formally have a nominative subject with verb agreement. Consequently, such insubjective diatheses regularly (but not always) result in the presence of a valency-simulating nominative pronoun es (see Sec­tion 2.2.3).

[2.91] An insubjective diathesis is attested with verbs like stinken ‘to stink’ (2.49), see Sec­tion 5.5.1. In a sentence like es stinkt the pronoun es can of course simply be an anaphor, like in (2.49 b). In such a sentence, the role of “stinker” is still present and there is no diathesis at all. However, in other contexts (2.49 c) the verb stinken is used without implied subject. This is typically attested in contexts in which some odour is attested, but the originator is not known.

(2.49) insubjective (sbj › ø)
a. Der Müll stinkt.
b. Das schmutzige Tuch, es stinkt!
c. Hier stinkt es.

[2.92] Another example of a insubjective diathesis is illustrated with the verb leben ‘to live’ (2.50), see Sec­tion 9.5.1. Many such intransitive verbs can be used without a subject in a habitual sense, but this is only possible with an obligatory adverbial qualification like gut (2.50 b,c).

(2.50) insubjective (sbj › ø)
a. Ich lebe in diesem Haus.
b. In diesem Haus lebt es sich gut.
c. * In diesem Haus lebt es sich.

[2.93] Also the so-called impersonal passive consisting of werden+Partizip (2.51), see Sec­tion 10.5.1, is an example of a insubjective diathesis, in this case even without any valency-simulating es.

(2.51) insubjective (sbj › ø)
a. Die Jungs tanzen hier.
b. Hier wird getanzt.
c. * Hier wird es getanzt.

[2.94] A different kind of isolated subject diathesis is subject demotion of the nominative subject to a prepositional phrase. An example is the geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (2.52), see Sec­tion 12.5.4. In this diathesis, the subject is demoted to an optional non-governed prepositional phrase (sbj › adj). The demotion is the only role-remapping that is happening in this diathesis, so I propose to call such a diathesis a desubjective.

(2.52) desubjective (sbj › adj)
a. Wir gewinnen einen Preis.
b. es gibt (für uns) einen Preis zu gewinnen.

[2.95] The other isolated subject diatheses are only attested in incidental examples in German, like a subject demotion to a governed preposition (sbj › pbj) with fehlen shown in (2.53), see Sec­tion 6.5.2.

(2.53) desubjective (sbj › pbj)
a. Das Geld fehlt ihm.
b. Ihm fehlt es an Geld.

[2.96] Isolated subject addition (ø › sbj) is very rare in German, partly because it would need an unmarked construction without any subject to start off with. A possible example is the addition of a subject that seems possible with some weather verbs like donnern ‘to thunder’ (2.54), see Sec­tion 5.6.1.

(2.54) subject addition (ø › sbj)
a. Es donnert.
b. Die Motoren donnerten.

2.7.3 Chained subject diatheses

[2.97] Chained diatheses that involve the nominative subject are widespread in German (in contrast to the infrequent occurrence of isolated diatheses as discussed previously). Figure 2.2 presents an overview of the different terms that I will use for these diatheses. The bold-faced terms are used for widely attested diatheses, while the other kinds of diatheses are only incidentally found. There is currently no evidence in German for the existence of the remappings that are left empty in the figure. There appears to be a preference for various kinds of demotion (i.e. the upper right corner of the figure), which fits nicely with the known typological preference of German for anticausative constructions (Haspelmath 1993: 101; Nichols, Peterson & Barnes 2004: 189).

Figure 2.2: Names for chained macro-role remappings with the subject in the middle of the chain

[2.98] The upper right part of Figure 2.2 are demotions, the lower left part are promotions, and on the diagonal are examples of symmetrical diatheses. I will discuss all types in this order.

2.7.3.1 Demotions

[2.99] The most extreme kind of demotion is an anticausative (obj › sbj › ø). The typical characteristic of an anticausative is the complete removal of the nominative subject that is the causer of the action/state of the clause. Filling the syntactic gap, a case-marked argument (typically the accusative) is promoted to subject. This is a widespread kind of diathesis. An example is the reflexive anticausative with verb like schliessen ‘to close’ (2.55), see Sec­tion 7.5.2.

(2.55) anticausative (obj › sbj › ø)
a. Ich schließe die Tür.
b. Die Tür schließt sich (von alleine).

[2.100] Very similar to an anticausative is the passive (obj › sbj › adj). The main difference between the two (a distinction which is often difficult to delimit) is that for a passive the original subject is still implied and can optionally be overtly expressed (2.56). In contrast, for an anticausative the original subject is completely removed and a phrase like by itself can typically be added. As an example of a passive diathesis in (2.56) is the bekommen Rezipientenpassiv in which a dative is promoted to subject Sec­tion 10.5.21

(2.56) passive (obj › sbj › adj)
a. Ihr Freund kocht ihr eine Suppe.
b. Sie bekommt von ihrem Freund eine Suppe gekocht.

[2.101] A conversive (obj › sbj › pbj) looks similar to a passive, except that the prepositional phrase is a lexically governed preposition, so it has a more object-like grammatical status. An example is the verb empören ‘to appall’ (2.57 a) with the reflexive diathesis sich empören über ‘to be outraged about’ (2.57 b,c), see Sec­tion 7.5.6. The term conversive is adapted from Kulikov (2011: 380).

(2.57) conversive (obj › sbj › pbj)
a. Der Preis empört den Kunden.
b. Der Kunde empört sich über den Preis.
c. Der Kunde empört sich darüber, dass der Preis schon wieder gestiegen ist.

[2.102] For the next diathesis, I propose the term fabricative (pbj › sbj › ø) based on Lat. fabrica ‘plan, trick, workmanship’. This term is used for a diathesis in German in which a fabricated product can be expressed either as a governed prepositional phrase or as a nominative subject. This diathesis occurs for example with various verbs of emotional interactions like überraschen ‘to surprise’ (2.58 a), see Sec­tion 6.5.7. To understand this diathesis, a distinction is needed between the role of the “fabricator” (here: Lehrer, ‘teacher’) and the role of the “fabricated product”, which induces the emotion (here: Aufgabe, ‘assignment’). The mit prepositional phrase that expresses the fabricated product in (2.58 a) is a governed preposition (2.58 c). The diathesis promotes this fabricated product to nominative subject and the fabricator is removed from the expression (2.58 b). The experiencer in the accusative mich remains unchanged.

(2.58) fabricative (pbj › sbj › ø)
a. Der Lehrer überrascht mich mit seiner Aufgabe.
b. Die Aufgabe überrascht mich.
c. Der Lehrer überrascht mich damit, dass er die Aufgabe schon korrigiert hat.

[2.103] A similar kind of diathesis will be called conciliative (adj › sbj › ø) based on Lat. conciliator ‘intermediary, mediator’. In a conciliative an external object (typically an instrument) is promoted to subject (2.59), see Sec­tion 6.5.5. The conciliative and fabricative in German both regularly use a prepositional phrase with mit, but the grammatical status is clearly different. The mit phrase in a conciliative is an optional adjunct (2.59), while the mit phrase in a fabricative is a governed preposition (2.58). This grammatical difference is paralleled by a functional difference in the role that is promoted to subject: a conciliative concerns a (typically tangible) instrument that is used by an agent, while a fabricative promotes a (typically intangible) creation that is produced by the agent.

(2.59) conciliative (adj › sbj › ø)
a. Der Doktor heilt die Wunde mit einer Salbe.
b. Die Salbe heilt die Wunde.

2.7.3.2 Promotions

[2.104] The most widespread promotion to subject attested in German is the diathesis with role-remapping ø › sbj › obj, called novative here (based on Lat. novare ‘renew, refresh’). This role-remapping is best known as “causative”, but this semantic characterisation does not hold for all examples of this diathesis. Various other novative diatheses exist in which the new nominative is not a causer but an experiencer, opinionator, permitter or assistant.

[2.105] Semantically, the most widespread kind of novative adds a new causer to the construction, like with the diatheses between brennen ‘to burn (intransitive)’ and verbrennen ‘to burn (transitive)’ (2.60), see Sec­tion 8.6.1. Such a diathesis is aptly called a causative.

(2.60) causative novative (ø › sbj › obj)
a. Der Tisch brennt.
b. Ich verbrenne den Tisch.

[2.106] The sehen+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis (2.61), see Sec­tion 11.6.6, adds a new nominative subject and the old nominative is turned into an accusative. This diathesis is thus structurally an example of a novative (ø › sbj › obj). However, the newly added nominative is not a causer. The new role is better described as an experiencer, so this diathesis can semantically be called an experientive. Similar constructions are also attested with light-verbs hören, fühlen, and spüren.

(2.61) experientive novative (ø › sbj › obj)
a. Der Junge putzt den Tisch.
b. Ich sehe den Jungen den Tisch putzen.

[2.107] The finden+Partizip diathesis (2.62), see Sec­tion 10.6.4 also adds a new nominative subject while the old nominative is turned into an accusative. The role of the new nominative is best characterised as somebody having an opinion, so this diathesis can semantically be called an opiniative. The main verb is typically a patientive intransitive predicate like scheitern, ‘to fail’, see Sec­tion 10.2.5. Similar constructions also exist with light verbs wissen, sehen and glauben.

(2.62) opiniative novative (ø › sbj › obj)
a. Das Projekt scheitert.
b. Ich finde das Projekt gescheitert.

[2.108] The lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis (2.63), see Sec­tion 11.6.2 is also structurally a novative (ø › sbj › obj). This diathesis has multiple possible interpretations, among them also a causative reading (2.63). However, in the example in (2.64) the newly added nominative is allowing the action to happen, not causing it, so this diathesis can semantically be called a permissive. This second interpretation typically happens with agentive intransitive predicates like schlafen ‘to sleep’, see Sec­tion 10.2.5. However, note that in both examples the other interpretation is also possible, albeit only is specially crafted contexts.

(2.63) causative novative (ø › sbj › obj)
a. Der Junge schläft ein.
b. Ich lasse den Jungen einschlafen.
(= Ich sorge dafür, dass der Junge einschläft.)
(2.64) permissive novative (ø › sbj › obj)
a. Der Junge schläft.
b. Ich lasse den Jungen schlafen.
(= Ich erlaube, dass der Junge weiter schläft.)

[2.109] Finally, the lehren/helfen+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis (2.65), see Sec­tion 11.6.12, is a novative in which the role of the new subject is more of an assistant than a real causative. Therefor it is called here an assistive novative. Note that both lehren and helfen can also be used with zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv, but then the constructions are not coherent, so those constructions are not included among the diatheses.

(2.65) assistive novative (ø › sbj › obj)
a. Der Sohn faltet die Wäsche.
b. Der Vater lehrt seinem Sohn die Wäsche falten.

[2.110] The novative with extended demotion (ø › sbj › pbj) is extremely rare in German. The name is adapted from Kulikov (2011: 388) to denote a diathesis in which the demotion accompanying the novative is not just sbj › obj but sbj › pbj. The diathesis between freuen ‘to be pleased’ and erfreuen ‘to please’ (2.66) might be an example because mit is a governed preposition (2.66 c), see Sec­tion 8.6.10.

(2.66) novative with extended demotion (ø › sbj › pbj)
a. Das Geschenk freut mich.
b. Er erfreut mich mit einem Geschenk.
c. Er erfreut mich damit, dass er mich besucht.

[2.111] Slightly more widespread, a novative with extreme demotion (ø › sbj › adj) is a novative diathesis that almost completely removes the erstwhile subject. This is attested in an interesting group of constructions using light verbs like finden with a participle and a transitive main verb like aufheben ‘to preserve’ (2.67), see Sec­tion 10.6.8. With this diathesis, there is a new opinionator introduced, just like with the opiniative above (see paragraph 2.107). However, the erstwhile nominative subject is now demoted to an optional prepositional phrase.

(2.67) novative with extreme demotion (ø › sbj › adj)
a. Das Archiv hebt den Nachlass auf.
b. Ich finde den Nachlass (im Archiv) gut aufgehoben.

[2.112] The remaining types of promotions are extremely rare. A reversed passive (adj › sbj › obj) demotes the subject to object and at the same time promotes a new subject from an erstwhile adjunct role. An example in German is the diathesis from erben ‘to inherit’ to enterben ‘to disinherit’ (2.68 a,b), see Sec­tion 8.6.13. This is semantically very close to a causative ø › sbj › obj in which the newly introduced causer can sometimes be expressed as an adjunct (2.68 c,d). This affinity between a reversed passive and a causative is reminiscent of the affinity between a passive and an anticausative. In both pairs, the difference amounts to a switch between the closely related macro-role of an optional adjunct (adj) and being completely unexpressed (ø).

(2.68) reversed passive (adj › sbj › obj)
a. Ich erbe den Schreibtisch von meinem Vater.
b. Mein Vater enterbt mich.
c. Der Wettkampf endet (durch den Gong).
d. Der Gong beendet den Wettkampf.

[2.113] Finally, a reversed conversive (pbj › sbj › obj) differs from a reversed passive in that the prepositional phrase is a lexically governed preposition, as can be identified by a possible da(r)+Preposition, dass paraphrase. This is for example attested with the diatheses between staunen über ‘to marvel’ and erstaunen ‘to amaze’ (10.41), see Sec­tion 8.6.11.

(2.69) reversed conversive (pbj › sbj › obj)
a. Ich staune über deine Arbeit.
b. Deine Arbeit erstaunt mich.
c. Ich staune darüber, dass du schon fertig bist.

2.7.3.3 Symmetrical subject diatheses

[2.114] Completely symmetrical diatheses involving the subject are rare in German. A perfectly symmetrical inversive (obj › sbj › obj) is a diathesis that switches subject and object. This term is proposed by Malchukov (2015: 99–100) inspired by the so-called “inverse” marking found in Algonquian languages. An inversive diathesis is designated as a “symmetric conversive” by Kulikov (2011: 380). An example of an inversive is the diathesis between wundern ‘to puzzle’ and bewundern ‘to admire’ (2.70), see Sec­tion 8.9.5.

(2.70) inversive (obj › sbj › obj)
a. Dein Verhalten wundert mich.
b. Ich bewundere dein Verhalten.

[2.115] Much more widespread in German are diatheses in which a nominative/accusative construction is inverted into a dative/nominative construction. This is for example attested for the bleiben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis (2.71), see Sec­tion 12.9.1. Because dative and accusative are both classified here as obj, this counts as an inversive diathesis. However, when a separation between core case (accusative) and non-core case (dative/genitive) would be pursued (see paragraph 2.43), then this diathesis would be an example of demotion. There are two remappings, namely down from sbj to non-core-obj and up from core-obj to sbj. When non-core is taken as being lower on the macrorole hierarchy (2.29) then the biggest jump is the jump down, which is the definition of demotion (see Sec­tion 2.4.2). Instead of adding a completely new set of categories I propose to simply split inversive into two subtypes and call this phenomenon a demoted inversive.

(2.71) demoted inversive (obj › sbj › obj)
a. Ich räume den letzten Schrank ein.
b. Dieser letzte Schrank bleibt mir noch einzuräumen.

[2.116] The opposite promoted inversive promotes a dative/genitive into a nominative subject, and demotes the erstwhile nominative to an accusative. This is illustrated with the haben+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis in (2.72), see Sec­tion 11.9.2.

(2.72) promoted inversive (obj › sbj › obj)
a. Ein Tropfen hängt ihm an der Nase.
b. Er hat einen Tropfen an der Nase hängen.

[2.117] At the other extreme, a commutative (ø › sbj › ø) completely removes the old subject and introduces a completely new role as subject. I propose this term on the basis of Lat. commutare ‘exchange, replace’. A German example of such a diathesis is the geben+Partizip construction (2.73), see Sec­tion 10.9.3. Note that the subjects in the two sentences do not have to be the same participant.

(2.73) commutative (ø › sbj › ø)
a. Das Kind verliert den Ring.
b. Der Vater gibt den Ring verloren.

[2.118] The two other symmetrical diatheses in between the two extremes are even rarer. A preposition inversive (pbj › sbj › pbj) is similar to an inversive, but the exchange is with a governed preposition. This is arguably attested in the diathesis between strahlen ‘to shine’ and erstrahlen ‘to gleam’ (2.74), see Sec­tion 8.9.6.

(2.74) preposition inversive (pbj › sbj › pbj)
a. Die Sonne strahlt auf das Haus.
b. Das Haus erstrahlt in der Sonne.

[2.119] Finally, an example of an adjunct commutative (adj › sbj › adj) is possibly attested with the verb wimmeln ‘to swarm’ (2.75), see Sec­tion 6.9.1.

(2.75) adjunct commutative (adj › sbj › adj)
a. Die Kinder wimmeln auf den Platz.
b. Der Platz wimmelt von Kindern.

2.7.4 Isolated object diatheses

[2.120] The situation with object diatheses is reversed from the previously discussed subject diatheses. With object diatheses, isolated diatheses are much more widespread and they occur with a wide variety of role-remappings, see Figure 2.3. In contrast, chained object diatheses are less widespread and can mostly be analysed as a combination of multiple isolated diatheses.

[2.121] The top right diatheses in Figure 2.3 are demotions, while the bottom left ones are promotions. The bottom right of the figure is left completely empty because these remappings are not diatheses anymore, but simply optional marking. There is a strong tendency for object demotions in German to be either unmarked, or marked by reflexive pronouns, while the object promotions are typically marked by preverbs or resultative preverbials.

[2.122] The exception to this generalisation are the so-called locative and delocative diatheses. With those, promotions (locatives) are formally unmarked, while demotions (delocatives) are typically marked by preverbs or resultative preverbials. A possible explanation for this apparent markedness reversal is that the adding or removing of location phrases should not be seen as a change in valency (“diathetical operation”), but as the marking of the diathesis itself (“voice”). This would be a parallel to the addition/removal of directionals (see Sec­tion 9.2.5).

Figure 2.3: Names for isolated object remappings

[2.123] I will discuss the different role-remappings from Figure 2.3 in four subsections. First, I will summarise the various kinds of applicatives and antipassives (mid left and mid top), then the objectives and deobjectives (top right and left bottom), followed by locative and delocative diatheses (mid bottom and mid right), and finally the symmetrical exchanges (on the diagonal).

2.7.4.1 Applicatives & antipassives

[2.124] Applicatives and antipassives are very similar, though reversed. applicatives (adj › obj) change a prepositional phrase into a case-marked phrase, while antipassives (obj › adj) convert a case-marked phrase into a prepositional phrase. Given this affinity, instead of antipassive it might be better to call such remappings “antiapplicative” (e.g. Haspelmath & Müller-Bardey 2004: 1132) or “deapplicative” (in line with the other names below).

[2.125] By removing or adding an object, applicatives and antipassives change the transitivity of the sentence. However, because case marking in German is nominative/accusative aligned, changes in transitivity are not reflected in the marking of the subject. This is crucially different from languages with ergatively aligned case marking, in which antipassives also include a change in the marking of the subject, namely from ergative to absolutive (and vice versa with applicatives). Terminologically, these two situations might be distinguished by using the term “deapplicative” for nominative/accusative languages and reserve “antipassive” for ergative/absolutive languages. I decided against that distinction and the term “antipassive” will be used throughout in this book with this explicit caveat.

[2.126] Applicatives occur frequently with the addition of a preverb, like in the alternation between steigen auf ‘to climb’ and besteigen ‘to mount’ (2.76), see Sec­tion 8.8.8.

(2.76) applicative (adj › obj)
a. Sie steigt auf den Berg.
b. Sie besteigt den Berg.

[2.127] Antipassives in German are often unmarked (see further below), but an example of an antipassive with a clear markedness direction is the alternation between treffen ‘to meet’ and reflexive sich treffen mit ’to meet with (2.77), see Sec­tion 7.7.3.

(2.77) antipassive (obj › adj)
a. Ich treffe dich.
b. Ich treffe mich mit dir.

[2.128] The object of applicatives and antipassives is typically an accusative, but datives can also be targeted. An example of a dative applicative is the alternation between stammen aus ‘to hail from’ and entstammen ‘to be descended from’ (2.78), see Sec­tion 8.8.13. An example of a dative antipassive is the covert alternation of berichten ‘to report’ (2.79), see Sec­tion 6.7.11.

(2.78) dative applicative (adj › obj)
a. Ich stamme aus einem Adelsgeschlecht.
b. Ich entstamme einem Adelsgeschlecht
(2.79) dative antipassive (obj › adj)
a. Er berichtet dem Vorstand alles.
b. Er berichtet alles an den Vorstand.

[2.129] In the discussion of diatheses in this book I consistently distinguish governed applicatives (pbj › obj) and governed antipassives (obj › pbj) when the prepositional phrase is a governed preposition (see Sec­tion 6.2.1). An example of a governed applicative is the diathesis between arbeiten an ‘to work on’ (with a governed preposition an) and bearbeiten ‘to edit, adapt’ (2.80), see Sec­tion 8.8.9. An example of a governed antipassive is the diathesis between beklagen ‘to lament’ and sich beklagen ‘to complain’ (with a governed preposition über) (2.81), see Sec­tion 7.7.4. However, the differentiation between the governed and non-governed applicative/antipassive does not currently allow for any promising semantic or structural generalisations, so this differentiation might grammatically be unnecessary to explain German sentence structure.

(2.80) governed applicative (pbj › obj)
a. Ich arbeite an dem Text.
(Ich arbeite daran, dass der Text fertig wird.)
b. Ich bearbeite den Text.
(2.81) governed antipassives (obj › pbj)
a. Ich beklage den Lärm.
b. Ich beklage mich über den Lärm.
(Ich beklage mich darüber, dass es so laut ist.)

[2.130] There are a many diatheses with a role-remapping between adjunct and object that do not have any overt indication of a direction. Without explicit marking it is difficult to decide whether such diatheses are cases of (applicative) promotion (adj › obj) or (antipassive) demotion (obj › adj). For the sake of organisation in this book I classify such covert alternations on the basis of (debatable) semantic intuitions and parallels to other overtly marked diatheses.

[2.131] Most covert diatheses with an alternation between prepositional phrases and case-marked arguments are classified here as antipassive, like in the alternation between schießen auf ‘to aim at’ and schießen ‘to shoot’ (2.82), see Sec­tion 6.7.8. This is also widespread with datives (2.83), see Sec­tion 6.7.11. In such examples, I judge the case-marking to be more basic than the prepositional phrase.

(2.82) covert antipassive (obj › adj)
a. Ich schieße den Bären.
b. Ich schieße auf den Bären.
(2.83) covert dative antipassive (obj › adj)
a. Ich schreibe dir einen Brief.
b. Ich schreibe einen Brief an dich.

[2.132] In contrast, there is a widespread alternation between datives and beneficiary für prepositional phrases (2.84) that I classify as an applicative, see Sec­tion 6.8.10. In this example the beneficiary dative seems to be the derived construction.

(2.84) covert applicative: beneficiary raising (adj › obj)
a. Er kocht eine Suppe für mich.
b. Er kocht mir eine Suppe.

[2.133] There is a further kind of covert diathesis with a dative object, conventionally called possessor raising. In such diatheses there is an alternation between a possessor (typically expressed as an adnominal genitive) and a dative (2.85). The dative can alternate with the possessor of a nominative subject (see Sec­tion 5.8.3), an accusative object (see Sec­tion 5.8.4) or an obligatory location (see Sec­tion 6.8.12). Following widespread convention, I classify these diatheses as promotion (adj › obj)

(2.85) covert applicative: possessor raising (adj › obj)
a. Er schneidet meine Haare.
b. Er schneidet mir die Haare.

[2.134] These two covert kinds of dative applicative (viz. beneficiary and possessor applicative) are semantically and structurally clearly distinct. The datives that show a possessive alternation (2.85) are semantically experiencers. In contrast, datives that alternate with für prepositional phrases (2.84) are semantically beneficiaries. In especially crafted context it might be possible to evoke either reading for the same sentence (2.86).

(2.86) a. ? Ich schneide dir (zuliebe) in den (meinen) Finger.
(= Ich schneide für dich in meinen Finger.)
b. Ich schneide dir in den (deinen) Finger.
(= Ich schneide in deinen Finger.)

2.7.4.2 Objectives & deobjectives

[2.135] A deobjective diathesis (obj › ø) is a diathesis that drops an object, i.e. a role cannot be expressed anymore (the term is taken from Haspelmath & Müller-Bardey 2004: 1131). A deobjective drop is illustrated in (2.87) with an alternation from kaufen ‘to buy’ to einkaufen ‘to shop’, see Sec­tion 8.7.2 for an extensive discussion.

(2.87) deobjective (obj › ø)
a. Ich habe gestern ein Buch gekauft.
b. Ich habe gestern eingekauft.

[2.136] A special variant of a deobjective occurs with verbs that apply to the body, like verbrennen ‘to burn’ (2.88). In such constructions, a reflexive pronoun is necessary. This diathesis is called endoreflexive (Haspelmath 1987: 27–28), see Sec­tion 7.7.1 for an extensive discussion.

(2.88) deobjective: endoreflexive (obj › ø)
a. Er verbrennt das Buch.
b. Er verbrennt sich.

[2.137] An objective diathesis (ø › obj) is a diathesis that adds a new object, i.e. a completely new role is introduced in the form of an object. An example of an overtly marked object addition is the alternation from zaubern ‘to perform magic’ to verzaubern ‘to enchant’ (2.89). In this example the new object is simply an added patient to an erstwhile intransitive action. Such object additions are frequently attested with preverbs like ver-, see Sec­tion 8.8.1.

(2.89) objective: added patient (ø › obj)
a. Sie zaubert.
b. Sie verzaubert mich.

[2.138] A semantically special kind of diathesis introduces a new added result object. Such an objective diathesis adds an object that is the result of performing the activity described by the predicate. An overtly marked example is presented in (2.90) with the diathesis between arbeiten ‘to work’ and the inherent reflexive sich etwas erarbeiten ‘to acquire something through work’, see Sec­tion 8.8.5. The result of the work is added as an object in (2.90 b). Here I consciously avoid the term “resultative” for this phenomenon to avoid confusion. First, I already use the term “resultative” in this book for a special class of preverbial adjectives (see Sec­tion 9.2.6). Second, the term “resultative” is also frequently used in the literature for an aspectual concept, namely to indicate a special kind of state induced as the result of performing the predicate (e.g. Nedjalkov 1988).

(2.90) objective: added result (ø › obj)
a. Ich arbeite.
b. Ich erarbeite mir ein Vermögen.
(= Ich arbeite, und das Resultat davon ist, dass ich ich ein Vermögen besitze.)

[2.139] Objectives and deobjectives are frequently attested without any overt marking (cf. ambitransitive/labile verbs), and in such “covert” diatheses it is difficult to establish a direction. As already noted above, for the sake of organisation in this book I classify such covert alternations on the basis of (often debatable) semantic intuitions and parallels with other overtly marked diatheses. For example, the verb stören ‘to disturb’ (2.91) can be used both with and without an accusative object, see Sec­tion 5.7.1. This is classified here as a deobjective diathesis. Such unmarked object drops are also attested with datives, see Sec­tion 5.7.4, and with governed prepositions, see Sec­tion 6.7. The dropping of an object is also often used to put the focus on the action itself, but then it is typically attested with an adverbial, see Sec­tion 9.7.1 for an extensive discussion.

(2.91) covert deobjective (obj › ø)
a. Du störst die Veranstaltung.
b. Du störst.

[2.140] In contrast, the verb stottern ‘to stutter’ is classified here as an example of a covert object addition (2.92), although there is no formal differentiation from the previous example of a covert object drop (2.91). The intuition is that stottern is basically intransitive (and any accusative object is thus added), while stören is basically transitive (and any missing object is thus dropped). Correlated with this proposed difference is the fact that covert object addition with stottern has an added result interpretation (2.92 b). However, it remains to be seen whether there is really a substantive difference between these two kinds of verbs (see Sec­tion 5.8.1 for an extensive discussion).

(2.92) covert objective: added result (ø › obj)
a. Er stotterte.
b. Er stotterte eine Entschuldigung.
(= Er stotterte, und das Resultat davon ist eine Entschuldigung.)

2.7.4.3 Locatives & delocatives

[2.141] A locative diathesis (ø › pbj) is a diatheses that adds an obligatory location phrase to the clause. For example, the transitive befehlen ‘to order’ marks the ordered person as an accusative (2.93 a). With a (directional) locative phrase an die Front ‘to the frontline’ the sentence obtains a caused-motion reading (2.93 b), see Sec­tion 6.8.4. Note that there is no profound association between such a locative diathesis and the widespread phenomenon of a locative case. Both terms simply use the term “locative” to describe the fact that the marking of location is concerned.

(2.93) locative: caused motion (ø › pbj)
a. Ich befehle eine Armee.
b. Ich befehle die Armee an die Front.
(= Ich befehle, und dadurch geht die Armee an die Front.)

[2.142] Even more noteworthy, such a caused-motion diathesis is also possible with many intransitive verbs like schwitzen ‘to sweat’ (2.94 a). With such verbs, a locative diathesis not only adds a location, like in mein Hemd ‘in my shirt’, but also an added-result accusative object, like einen Fleck ‘a stain’ (2.94 b), see Sec­tion 6.8.3.

(2.94) locative: caused motion+added result (ø › pbj + ø › obj)
a. Ich schwitze.
b. Ich schwitze einen Fleck in mein Hemd.
(= Ich schwitze, und dadurch ist ein Fleck in meinem Hemd entstanden.)

[2.143] The reversal of a locative diathesis is a delocative diathesis (pbj › adj). In such a diathesis an obligatory location loses its obligatory status and is often completely dropped. An example of such a diathesis is shown in (2.95) with the alternation between stecken ‘to put into’ and verstecken ‘to hide’. The verb stecken needs an obligatory location (2.95 a,b). Such an obligatory location is classified here as a pbj prepositional object (see Sec­tion 2.2.2). The situation is different with the verb verstecken. With this verb the location is an adj optional adjunct and can be left out (see Sec­tion 8.7.11 for an extensive discussion).

(2.95) delocative (pbj › adj)
a. Ich stecke das Geschenk in den Schrank.
b. * Ich stecke das Geschenk.
c. Ich verstecke das Geschenk in dem Schrank.
d. Ich verstecke das Geschenk.

2.7.4.4 Symmetrical object diatheses

[2.144] Symmetrical object diatheses are rare in German. A case change (obj › obj) is illustrated in (2.96) by the alternation between folgen ‘to follow’ (with dative) and verfolgen ‘to chase’ (with accusative), see Sec­tion 8.9.2.

(2.96) case change (obj › obj)
a. Ich folge dem Auto.
b. Ich verfolge das Auto.

[2.145] A governed preposition change (pbj › pbj) does occur in German, but such diatheses have not been explicitly collected in this book. Possible examples are arbeiten an ‘to work on’ (2.97 a) changing into sich durcharbeiten ‘to work through’ (2.97 b) or sorgen für ‘take care of’ (2.97 c) changing into sich sorgen um ‘to worry about’ (2.97 d).

(2.97) governed preposition change (pbj › pbj)
a. Er arbeitet an den Daten.
b. Er arbeitet sich durch die Daten.
c. Er sorgt für seine Mutter.
d. Er sorgt sich um seine Mutter.

[2.146] An adjunct change (adj › adj) is, according to my definitions, not a diathesis at all, as adjuncts are not lexically specific. However, the change between a possessor dein ‘your’ (2.98 a) and a non-governed prepositional phrase von dir ‘from you’ (2.98 b) can be seen as as a borderline examples, see Sec­tion 6.9.3.

(2.98) adjunct change (adj › adj)
a. Ich erwarte dein Geschenk.
b. Ich erwarte ein Geschenk von dir.

2.7.5 Chained object diatheses

[2.147] Chains of object diatheses (i.e. chains with the object in the middle of the chain) can always be interpreted as a combination of two isolated object diatheses from the previous section. However, not all theoretically possible combinations are attested (see Figure 2.4). The most frequently attested chained object diatheses are the highlighted variants of object exchange (see Sec­tions 2.7.5.1-2.7.5.4). A few incidental examples of chained case change are also attested (see Sec­tion 2.7.5.5).

Figure 2.4: Names for chains of object diathesis

2.7.5.1 Object exchange

[2.148] The highlighted diatheses in Figure 2.4 are collectively called object exchange because as part of the role-remapping the accusative marking is exchanged from one role to another. These diatheses are used with verbs that involve some kind of part/whole relation between the two roles involved. A typical example (2.99) is the diathesis between schmieren ‘to smear’ and beschmieren ‘to spread’ (discussed in detail in Sec­tion 8.7.13). In this example an auf prepositional phrase turns into a new accusative, while the old accusative is turned into a mit prepositional phrase. So, syntactically the role marked as an accusative object is exchanged from Salbe ‘ointment’ to Wunde ‘wound’. Semantically, the Wunde is the “whole” to which the Salbe is applied.

(2.99) object exchange
a. Ich schmiere die Salbe auf die Wunde.
b. Ich beschmiere die Wunde mit der Salbe.

[2.149] Different variants of such object exchange show an astonishingly strong correlation between syntactic structure and semantic interpretation. Basically, promotions have the effect that the new object role is a part of the old object role (i.e. the new object is a meronym), while demotions have the reverse effect in that the new object role encompasses the old object role (i.e. the new object is a holonym). To appreciate this generalisation it is important to recall how demotions and promotions are defined for chained diatheses. This definition is not trivial because chained diatheses are always a combination of both a promotion and a demotion. So the question is which of the two “wins”.

[2.150] By definition (cf. Sec­tion 2.4.2), a chained diathesis is deemed to be an overall demotion when the demotion-part is stronger than the promotion-part, and vice versa. The strength is measured as the size of the “jump” on the macrorole hierarchy, repeated here in (2.100). Additionally, the overall chain exhibits varying intensity: the larger the difference in jump size between demotion-part and promotion-part, the more extreme the overall chain.

(2.100) macrorole hierarchy
sbj » obj » pbj » adj » ø

[2.151] Concretely, the promotion of an object exchange can be either an objective (ø › obj) (“three steps up”), an applicative (adj › obj) (“two steps up”) or an oblig­a­tory-loc­ation applicative (pbj › obj) (“one step up”). In reverse, the demotion can be either a deobjective (obj › ø) (“three steps down”), an antipassive (obj › adj) (“two steps down”) or an oblig­a­tory-loc­ation antipassive (obj › pbj) (“one step down”). Combining two of these leads to an overall assessment of the chained diathesis. This whole concept of chained demotions/promotions can be visualised by considering the top-right to bottom-left diagonal in Figure 2.4. The top-right corner (obj › obj › ø) is the most extreme demotion (“net four down”) and the bottom-left corner (ø › obj › obj) is the most extreme promotion (“net four up”). All other possibilities are situated somewhere in between these extremes on this diagonal.

[2.152] For example, consider again the diathesis from schmieren to beschmieren, repeated below in (2.101). It consist of a promotion from a prepositional phrase auf die Wunde to an accusative die Wunde and a demotion from an accusative die Salbe to a prepositional phrase mit der Salbe. The promotion starts from an obligatory location (2.101 a,b), i.e. this is an oblig­a­tory-loc­ational applicative (pbj › obj). In contrast, the demotion ends in an optional instrumental phrase (2.101 c,d), i.e. this is an antipassive diathesis (obj › adj). Now, the antipassive demotion (“two steps down”) is a bigger jump on the macrorole hierarchy than the oblig­a­tory-loc­ation promotion (“one step up”), so the whole object exchange (pbj › obj › adj) is classified as a demotion, be it a minor one (“net one step down”).

(2.101) demoted object exchange (pbj › obj › adj)
a. Ich schmiere die Salbe auf die Wunde.
b. * Ich schmiere die Salbe.
c. Ich beschmiere die Wunde mit Salbe.
d. Ich beschmiere die Wunde.

[2.153] According to the above mentioned generalisation, such an overall demotion coincides with the fact that the new object Wunde ‘wound’ is a holonym to which the old meronymic object Salbe ‘ointment’ is applied. To be precise, the terms meronym and holonym are language-specific classifications as observed in the structure of German. So, not all examples necessarily correspond to any (universal) semantic conceptualisation of the terms holonym/meronym. For example, German verbs that describe an act of covering (e.g. schmieren ‘to smear’) or wrapping (e.g. wickeln ‘to wrap around’) consistently treat the cover/wrap alike to other meronyms and the covered/wrapped object alike to other holonyms. That is no statement about what it semantically means to be a meronym or holonym. It is just a statement about the distribution of syntactic structures among German verbs as they take part in object exchange.

2.7.5.2 Demoted object exchange

[2.154] There are two different kinds of object exchange with demotion, namely the filled holonym and the emptied holonym object exchange. These two kinds of exchange correlate with the intensity of the demotion. A minor demotion manifests a fil­led-holo­nym object exchange, while a more extreme form of demotion expresses an emptied-holonym object exchange.

[2.155] Typically, a filled holonym diathesis is expressed by a minor demotion (“net one step down”), as illustrated with schmieren/beschmieren above in (2.101). Note that in that example, the holonym Wunde is not literally ‘filled with’ the meronym Salbe. However, with many other examples, like pflanzen/bepflanzen ‘to plant’ below (2.102), the holonym Garten ‘garden’ is literally filled with the meronym Tulpen ‘tulips’. In accordance with this being a minor overall demotion (“net one step down”), the new accusative object after the object exchange is a filled holonym.

[2.156] Note that with pflanzen/bepflanzen (2.102) the pre-diathesis location phrase in den Garten is not obligatory (2.102 a,b), so the resulting diathesis is symmetric (adj › obj › adj). This is the kind of minor syntactic variation that is indicated in Figure 2.4 with the unnamed boxes in the centre of the highlighted object-exchange domain. Still, this diathesis is clearly an example of a fil­led-holo­nym object exchange because the change in prepositions from in (with unmarked pflanzen) to mit (with marked bepflanzen) fits in perfectly with other fil­led-holo­nym examples (cf. Sec­tion 8.7.13).

(2.102) symmetric object exchange: filled holonym (adj › obj › adj)
a. Ich pflanze Tulpen in den Garten.
b. Ich pflanze Tulpen.
c. Ich bepflanze den Garten mit Tulpen.
d. Ich bepflanze den Garten.

[2.157] The second kind of demoted object exchange is the emptied holonym diathesis, expressed with a more extreme demotion (“net two steps down”). This is illustrated in (2.103) with the diathesis between the verb klopfen ‘to pound’ and ausklopfen ‘to beat out’ (cf. Sec­tion 8.7.12). The unmarked verb klopfen (2.103 a) takes an accusative object role that expresses the result of the pounding (Staub ‘dust’). The pounded object role (Mantel ‘coat’) is expressed as an obligatory location phrase (2.103 b). Crucially, the accusative object role in this construction is a component part (meronym) of the locational object role (holonym). The diathesis from klopfen to ausklopfen (2.103 c) completely drops the meronym Staub from the sentence (obj › ø) and promotes the holonym Mantel to accusative (pbj › obj). The meronymic role Staub cannot be expressed anymore at all after the diathesis (2.103 d). In accordance with this large overall demotion (“net two steps down”), the new holonymic accusative object Mantel is semantically “emptied” from its old meronymic accusative object Staub by the action klopfen. So the new accusative object after this object exchange is an emptied holonym.

(2.103) demoted object exchange: emptied holonym (pbj › obj › ø)
a. Ich klopfe den Staub von meinem Mantel.
b. * Ich klopfe den Staub.
c. Ich klopfe meinen Mantel aus.
d. * Ich klopfe meinen Mantel von den Staub aus.

2.7.5.3 Promoted object exchange

[2.158] There are also two different kinds of object exchange with promotion, namely the joined meronym and the parted meronym object exchange. These two kinds of object exchange correlate with the intensity of the promotion. A minor promotion manifests a joined-meronym object exchange, while a more extreme form of promotion expresses a parted-meronym object exchange. Basically, these diatheses are reversals of the two demoted object exchanges discussed in the previous section.

[2.159] The joined meronym object exchange occurs with less extreme promotions (“net one step up”). This is illustrated here with the diathesis from nähen ‘to sew’ to festnähen ‘to fixate by sewing’ (2.104). The original object role Bluse ‘blouse’ (2.104 a) turns into an optional an prepositional phrase (2.104 b,c). This part of the chain is an antipassive diathesis (obj › adj), i.e. “two steps down”. At the same time a new object role Knopf ‘button’ is introduced. This role cannot be expressed in the construction before the diathesis (2.104 a). So, this part of the chain is an objective diathesis (ø › obj), i.e. “three steps up”. The promotion is larger than the demotion, so the whole diathesis overall is a promotion, although a minor one, i.e. “net one step up”. As predicted for promotions, the new object Knopf semantically is a meronymic part of the original object Bluse. Further, in accordance with the promotion being minor, the verb nähen describes a situation in which the new object Knopf is physically connected to the holonymic Bluse. In summary, the new object is a joined meronym.

(2.104) promoted object exchange: joined meronym (ø › obj › adj)
a. Ich habe eine Bluse genäht.
b. Ich habe den Knopf an die Bluse festgenäht.
c. Ich habe den Knopf festgenäht.

[2.160] In some examples the joined-meronym object exchange allows for optional prepositional phrases at both sides of the diathesis, resulting in a symmetric diathesis (adj › obj › adj). For example, this is attested with the diathesis from massieren ‘to massage’ (2.105 a,b) to einmassieren ‘to massage in’ (2.105 c,d). Still, this diathesis is clearly an example of a joined-meronym object exchange because the change in preposition from mit (with unmarked massieren) to in (with marked einmassieren) is completely parallel to all other joined-meronym examples (cf. Sec­tion 8.9.1). Semantically, the new accusative object role (Balsam, ‘balm’) is a meronym of the old object role (Muskeln ‘muscles’), and this new object role is applied to the old object role to become a part of it by the verb massieren. So, even though the diathesis is symmetric, the new object is syntactically and semantically a joined meronym.

(2.105) symmetric object exchange: joined meronym (adj › obj › adj)
a. Ich habe die Muskeln mit Balsam massiert.
b. Ich habe die Muskeln massiert.
c. Ich habe den Balsam in die Muskeln einmassiert.
d. Ich habe den Balsam einmassiert.

[2.161] The parted meronym object exchange occurs with more extreme promotions (“net two steps up”). For example, the verb waschen ‘to wash’ normally takes an accusative object role that is the washee, here Hose ‘trousers’ (2.106 a). There is a covert diathesis that introduces a new object role that cannot be expressed earlier, here Fleck ‘stain’ (2.106 b). this addition is an objective promotion (ø › obj), i.e. “three steps up”. At the same time, the original accusative is turned into a locational prepositional phrase and this location phrase cannot be left out (2.106 c). This is an oblig­a­tory-loc­ation antipassive (obj › pbj), i.e “one step down”. This diathesis is thus an extreme promotion overall, i.e. “net two steps up”. Accordingly, the new meronymic object Fleck is semantically a component part of the original holonymic object Hose and it is removed from it by the action waschen. In summary, the new object is a parted meronym.

(2.106) promoted object exchange: parted meronym (ø › obj › pbj)
a. Ich wasche meine Hose.
b. Ich wasche den Fleck aus meiner Hose.
c. * Ich wasche den Fleck.

2.7.5.4 Other kinds of object exchange

[2.162] There are a few other examples of object exchange that do not fit in with the general pattern described above, for example with zwingen/erzwingen ‘to force’ (2.107 a,b). This chained diathesis is a remapping of the form (pbj › obj › adj) because the preposition zu is a governed preposition (2.107 c). This diathesis is attested with various verbs of persuasion (cf. Sec­tion 8.7.14). The demotion is more prominent than the promotion, so this chain is overall a demotion. Consequently, because it is the person being persuaded that is demoted I call this a persuadee demotion object exchange.

(2.107) object exchange: persuadee demotion (pbj › obj › adj)
a. Er zwingt ihn zu einem Geständnis.
b. Er zwingt ihn dazu, ein Geständnis abzulegen.
c. Er erzwingt ein Geständnis (von ihm).

[2.163] Another example of an object exchange is illustrated here with the verb bewundern ‘to admire’ (2.108), see Sec­tion 6.9.3. This verb (and others like it) show a combination of a possessor-raising applicative promotion (adj › obj) and a governed antipassive demotion (obj › pbj) leading to the object exchange (adj › obj › pbj). The promotion is more prominent than the demotion, so this chain is overall a promotion. I propose to call this a possessor raising object exchange.

(2.108) object exchange: possessor raising (adj › obj › pbj)
a. Ich bewundere seine Ehrlichkeit.
b. Ich bewundere ihn für seine Ehrlichkeit.
c. Ich bewundere ihn dafür, dass er ehrlich ist.

2.7.5.5 Chained case changes

[2.164] Finally, there are a few object chains involving a change of case, shown at the top and the left of Figure 2.4. Note that a case change of dative/genitive to accusative can be interpreted as a promotion, and the reverse as a demotion, cf. paragraph 2.43, but that perspective will not be expanded upon here.

[2.165] Example (2.109) shows a combination of a dative-to-accusative case change with an antipassive, resulting in a chain (obj › obj › adj). The verb schenken ‘to gift’ takes a recipient in the dative and a patient in the accusative, while the derived beschenken ‘to gift’ turns the accusative into a prepositional phrase (i.e. antipassive) and changes the dative dir into an accusative dich (see Sec­tion 8.7.8).

(2.109) antipassive+case change (obj › obj › adj)
a. Ich schenke dir ein Buch.
b. Ich beschenke dich mit einem Buch.

[2.166] The reverse situation, i.e. a chain (adj › obj › obj), is attested with the diathesis between drängen ‘to urge’ and the derived aufdrängen ‘to impose’ (2.110), see Sec­tion 8.8.12. In this example a prepositional phrase changes into an accusative (i.e. applicative), while the accusative dich changes to dative dir.

(2.110) applicative+case change (adj › obj › obj)
a. Ich dränge dich zu einem Abo.
b. Ich dränge dir ein Abo auf.

[2.167] Finally, an idiosyncratic diathesis is attested with the verb rauben ‘to rob’ (2.111), see Sec­tion 8.9.4. When this verb is changed to berauben ‘to rob’ then two case changes happen simultaneously: first a dative-to-accusative change (dich becomes dir) and second an accusative-to-genitive change (das Buch becomes des Buches). This is thus an example of a remapping pattern (obj › obj › obj), here called double case change.

(2.111) double case change (obj › obj › obj)
a. Ich raube dir das Buch.
b. Ich beraube dich des Buches.

3 Summary of major diatheses

3.1 German names for German grammar

[3.1] Among the almost 250 diatheses that are distinguished in this book there are many that are frequently attested and that can be used with very many different verbs. In contrast, there are also many diatheses that only occur in very specific circumstances or that might otherwise be considered to be exceptions or incidental instances. Only the major diatheses, those that are of central importance to the grammatical structure of German, will be summarised in this chapter. Such a summary would normally be presented at the end of a book, but because of the often long-winding data-driven details of the subsequent descriptive chapters, I decided to present this summary here at the end of the introductory deliberations. Take it as a quick appetiser of things to come, with ample links to the actual discussion in later chapters. This chapter also provides a sketch of how diathesis could be approached in practical grammars of the German language.

[3.2] To reiterate the basic premise of this book: in the Chapters 5 to 13 I aim to present a complete list of all coherent, and thus monoclausal, clause structures in German (cf. Sec­tion 1.3.1 on defining monoclausality). All in all, in those chapters there are more than 300 separate sub-subsections that describe (often minor) variations of monoclausal structures. This diversity is condensed into about 120 major clause alternations as summarised here. Of those, about 80 are diatheses (i.e. clause alternations with role-remapping, discussed in this chapter), while only about 40 are epitheses (i.e. clause alternations without any change in role marking, discussed in the next chapter). So, diathesis (“grammatical voice”) is a much more diverse grammatical phenomenon than epithesis (“tense-aspect-mood marking”). All these counts should be taken with some leeway, because a lot depends on individual decisions about splitting or lumping structures into groups (e.g. how many lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv constructions are counted separately, cf. Sec­tion 11.2.5). Although the analysis of German clause alternations might look cleaner when lumping structures into larger groups, that would not reduce the attested diversity, it would only hide the variation at the cost of larger within-group complexity.

[3.3] Besides providing a basic summary, I also propose German names (sometimes based on Latinate terms) for all 120 major derived monoclausal sentence structures. Using suitable names is a central aspect of (scientific) communication. In grammar, names are like instruments that allow us to abstract away from individual details and manipulate classes of utterances that show a specific abstract structure. However, naming is hard and can also lead to miscommunication. When re-using available terminology, the terms are easily recognised and remembered, but they carry the weight of history. Even when detailed definitions are given (as I have tried to do throughout this book), unintended interpretations of previous usage inevitably seep through. In contrast, inventing new names introduces more precision, but the downside is often cumbersome terms that are difficult to remember.

[3.4] In naming diatheses in this book I have tried to strike a balance between precise naming and good readability. For the English names in the detailed discussions in the coming chapters, I have decided in favour of precision. Each phenomenon is newly named with often long descriptive and unique names. In contrast, for the German names in this chapter I try to reuse available terminology as much as possible. When necessary, I propose new names that attempt to evoke a functional description like Reziprokativ or Erlebniskonversiv. However, the semantic characterisation has not been the main focus of this book, so it might become necessary to rename diatheses in the future once more detailed investigations have been performed. In some cases I have not been able to find a suitable semantic characterisation. For those diatheses I have resorted to using formal characteristics in the name, always written as separate words, like Reflexiv Erlebniskonversiv (i.e an Erlebniskonversiv that needs a reflexive pronoun) or Resultativ Delokativ (i.e. a Delokativ that needs a resultative preverbial).

[3.5] In this chapter, the diatheses are organised in sections according to the grammatical macro-role remapping patterns as introduced in Sec­tion 2.7. The different diatheses in each section are thus functionally highly similar, but they are structurally different. Inversely, there are various diatheses that are structurally highly similar, but are nonetheless repeated in separate sections under different names. This is necessary because superficially identical diatheses can have rather different structural repercussions depending on the verbs to which they are applied. This happens for example with different instantiations of the sein+Partizip or the lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv constructions.

3.2 Naming clause types

[3.6] Before diving into the daunting diversity of German diathesis, a short note on German names for different clause types is in order (summarised in Table 3.1). The distinction between sentence (German: satz) and clause (German: teilsatz) is customary made in the German grammatical literature when a precise description is needed. However, the term Satz is often used as a shorthand for both. When subdividing clauses, there is of course a basic distinction between main clause (German: hauptsatz, more precise would be selbständiger teilsatz) and subordinate clause (German: nebensatz or alternatively untergeordneter teilsatz).

[3.7] Yet, a central thesis of this book is that there is a further subdivision for both main and subordinate clauses. First, a “basic clause” is a clause with a single finite verb in the Präsens or Präteritum. For German I propose to use the term basissatz, or, to be more precise, grundlegender teilsatz. Various kinds of derived clauses can be constructed from a basic clause. For German I propose to call such a derived clause a spezialsatz, or, to be more precise, abgeleiteter teilsatz.

[3.8] There are two kinds of derived clauses. First, an epithesis is a clause alternation without role-remapping. For German I propose to use either the neologism übersatz or the Greek-inspired epithese, or, to be more precise, erweiterter teilsatz. Second, a diathesis is a clause alternation with role-remapping. For German I propose to use the neologism wechselsatz or the Greek-inspired diathese, or, to be more precise, umgestellter teilsatz.

Table 3.1: German terminology for clause types
English Term German Term Short German Term
Main clause Selbständiger Teilsatz Hauptsatz
Subordinate clause Untergeordneter Teilsatz Nebensatz
 
Basic clause Grundlegender Teilsatz Basissatz
Derived clause Abgeleiteter Teilsatz Spezialsatz
 
Epithesis Erweiterter Teilsatz Übersatz (Epithese)
Diathesis Umgestellter Teilsatz Wechselsatz (Diathese)

3.3 Insubjective diatheses (sbj › o)

[3.9] An insubjective is a diathesis that completely removes the role marked as nominative subject without introducing a new subject. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.2, specifically starting at paragraph 2.90.

3.3.1 Auslöserentfall

[3.10] The unmarked auslöserentfall (full discussion in Sec­tion 5.5.1 and subsequent sections) is typically found with dispersion verbs like stinken ‘to stink’, klingeln ‘to ring’ or krachen ‘to crunch’ (3.1 a). These verbs allow for a construction without explicit nominative subject when describing a general situation with unknown cause. An obligatory valency-simulating pronoun es is used as a replacement of the nominative subject (3.1 b).

(3.1) a. Der Müll stinkt.
b. Hier stinkt es aber.

3.3.2 Aktionsbewertung

[3.11] The aktionsbewertung (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.5.1) similarly replaces the nominative subject by a valency-simulating es. Additionally, this diathesis obligatorily needs a reflexive pronoun and an adverbial phrase describing an evaluation, like gut ‘well’ or angenehm ‘pleasantly’. The Aktionsbewertung is typically used with agentive intransitive verbs like leben ‘to live’ or tanzen ‘to dance’ and describes a habitual situation. This diathesis is closely related to the bewertungsantikausativ for transitive verbs (see Sec­tion 3.7.4).

(3.2) a. Wir leben in diesem Haus.
b. Hier lebt es sich gut.

3.3.3 Zustandsbewertung (sein+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.12] The zustandsbewertung (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.5.3) is a somewhat formulaic construction dropping the nominative subject of an intransitive verb. This construction is constructed with sein and an infinitive. Additionally an adverbial phrase describing an evaluation is obligatory, like gut ‘well’ or schlecht ‘badly’. A valency-simulating pronoun es instead of the dropped nominative is mostly not present. This construction expresses an evaluation and it typically used with a location, like with sitzen ‘to sit’ (3.3).

(3.3) a. Ich sitze zwischen den Stühlen.
b. Zwischen den Stühlen ist schlecht sitzen.

3.3.4 Möglichkeitsbewertung (lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.13] The möglichkeitsbewertung (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.5.1) consists of the light verb lassen with the infinitive of an intransitive verb. This construction obligatory includes a reflexive pronoun and an evaluating adverbial expression like gut ‘fine’. A valency-simulating pronoun es appears to be optional (3.4). This construction gives an evaluation about a possible situation. It is closely related to the permissivpassiv for transitive verbs (see Sec­tion 3.8.6).

(3.4) a. Ich arbeite zuhause.
b. Zuhause lässt (es) sich gut arbeiten.

3.3.5 Unpersönliches Vorgangspassiv (werden+Partizip)

[3.14] The unpersönlicher vorgangspassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.5.1) is a construction consisting of the light verb werden with a participle of an intransitive verb. Only agentive (“unergative”) intransitive verbs like tanzen ‘to dance’ (3.5) or schlafen ‘to sleep’ allow for this construction without any nominative subject (not even a valency-simulating es is needed). The name “passive” is rather unfitting for this diathesis, but it is retained here because of widespread usage. This construction is closely related to the vorgangspassiv for transitive verbs (see Sec­tion 3.8.1).

(3.5) a. Die Jungs tanzen.
b. Jetzt wird getanzt!

3.3.6 Unpersönliches Modalpassiv (sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.15] The unpersönlicher modalpassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.5.1 and subsequent sections) consists of a light verb sein with zu and an infinitive. It is found with incidental intransitive verbs, but more typically with verbs with a dative argument (but no accusative) like helfen ‘to help’ or trauen ‘to trust’ (3.6). In this diathesis the nominative subject is dropped and cannot be retained in any other form. There is also no valency-simulating es present. The name “passive” is actually beside the point for this diathesis, but it is used here because this construction is closely related to the modalpassiv (see Sec­tion 3.8.4).

(3.6) a. Ich traue ihm nicht.
b. Ihm ist nicht zu trauen.

3.4 Desubjective diatheses (sbj › adj)

[3.16] A desubjective is a diathesis that removes the role marked as nominative subject, though this role can still optionally be expressed as a prepositional phrase. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.2, specifically starting at paragraph 2.94.

3.4.1 Möglichkeitsdesubjektiv (geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.17] The möglichkeitsdesubjektiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.5.4) uses a subjectless light verb geben with zu and an infinitive (3.7). The removed nominative subject is replaced by a valency-simulating pronoun es, so the light verbs are always in the third person singular, resulting in a fixed expression es gibt. The removed subject can optionally be retained with a für prepositional phrase, though this is less frequent compared to the gelten+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis (see Sec­tion 3.4.2). Any other argument is simply preserved, like the accusative den Koffer ‘the suitcase’ in the example below. The Möglichkeitsdesubjektiv semantically invokes an option that is available to the original subject, i.e. a modal-like ‘can’ meaning. The same construction geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is also used in a semantically and structurally quite different diathesis, namely the Möglichkeitskausativ (see Sec­tion 3.11.6).

(3.7) a. Wir kaufen den Koffer.
b. In dem Laden gibt es den Koffer ?(für uns) zu kaufen.

3.4.2 Notwendigkeitsdesubjektiv (gelten+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.18] The notwendigkeitsdesubjektiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.5.5) uses a subjectless light verb gelten with zu and an infinitive (3.8). The removed nominative subject is replaced by a valency-simulating pronoun es, so the light verb gelten is always in the third person singular, resulting in fixed expressions es gilt. The removed subject can optionally be retained with a für prepositional phrase. Any other argument is simply preserved, like the accusative den Koffer ‘the suitcase’ in the example below. This construction semantically invokes some kind of (self‑)assignment that should be fulfilled, i.e. a modal-like ‘must’ meaning.

(3.8) a. Wir verlieren den Koffer nicht.
b. Jetzt gilt es (für uns) den Koffer nicht zu verlieren.

3.4.3 Aufforderungsdesubjektiv (heißen+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.19] The aufforderungsdesubjektiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.5.4) consists of the verb heißen with an infinitive. The meaning of this constructions is very close to the previous Notwendigkeitsdesubjektiv (see Sec­tion 3.4.2). The removed nominative subject is replaced by a valency-simulating pronoun es, so the light verb heißen is always in the third person singular, resulting in fixed expressions es heißt. The removed subject can optionally be retained with a für prepositional phrase. However, different from gelten+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv, the construction heißen+In­fi­ni­tiv can only be applied to intransitive verbs. Note that there also exists a completely separate causative usage of heißen+In­fi­ni­tiv, but that Aufforderungskausativ appears to be rather old-fashioned (see Sec­tion 3.11.8).

(3.9) a. Er redet weiter.
b. Dann heißt es für ihn weiter reden.

3.5 Conciliative diatheses (adj › sbj › o)

[3.20] A conciliative is a diathesis that completely removes the role marked as subject and promotes an instrument to be the new subject. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.3.1, specifically starting at paragraph 2.103.

3.5.1 Instrumentsubjektiv

[3.21] The instrumentsubjektiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.5.4 and subsequent sections) promotes an instrument to nominative subject. For example, the instrument Schlüssel ‘key’ of the verb öffnen ‘to open’ is expressed with a mit prepositional phrase in (3.10 a). Alternatively, it can be expressed with a nominative as in (3.10 b). In that construction, the original agent cannot be expressed anymore. This diathesis looks very similar to the Kreationsubjektiv (see Sec­tion 3.6.1), but there are crucial semantic and structural differences (discussed below).

(3.10) a. Ich öffne die Tür mit dem Schlüssel.
b. Der Schlüssel öffnet die Tür.

3.6 Fabricative diatheses (pbj › sbj › ø)

[3.22] A fabricative is a diathesis that completely removes the role marked as subject and promotes an fabricated entity to be the new subject. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.3.1, specifically starting at paragraph 2.102.

3.6.1 Kreationsubjektiv

[3.23] The kreationsubjektiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.5.7) superficially looks very similar to the previous Instrumentsubjektiv. In both diatheses a mit prepositional phrase is promoted to nominative subject. However, with a verb like überraschen ‘to surprise’ (3.11) the noun in the prepositional phrase, Aufgabe ‘task’, does not represent an instrument, but a fabrication by the subject of the sentence, Lehrer ‘teacher’. This semantic difference is paralleled by a structural difference, namely that the mit prepositional phrase is a governed preposition (3.11 c). Note that the verbs that allow for a Kreationsubjektiv show a substantial overlap with the verbs that allow for the Reflexiv Erlebniskonversiv (see Sec­tion 3.9.1), though the two groups are not identical.

(3.11) a. Der Lehrer überrascht mich mit der Aufgabe.
b. Die Aufgabe überrascht mich.
c. Der Lehrer überrascht mich damit, dass er die Aufgabe schon korrigiert hat.

3.6.2 Auslösersubjektiv (sein+zum-In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.24] The auslösersubjektiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 13.5.1) is constructed with the light verb sein with a zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv. This diathesis can be applied to verbs of emotion with a governed preposition describing the trigger of the emotion. For example, heulen ‘to whine’ (3.12 a) uses the governed preposition über to describe the trigger, here Schaden ‘damage’ (3.12 b). The result of the diathesis is that the trigger of the emotion is promoted to nominative subject (3.12 c). The original subject, i.e. the perceiver of the emotion, cannot be expressed anymore.

(3.12) a. Ich heule über den Schaden.
b. Ich heule darüber, dass der Schaden so groß ist.
c. Der Schaden ist zum Heulen.

3.7 Anticausative diatheses (obj › sbj › ø)

[3.25] An anticausative is a diathesis that completely removes the role marked as subject and promotes an object to be the new subject. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.3.1, specifically starting at paragraph 2.99.

3.7.1 Antikausativ

[3.26] The unmarked antikausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 5.5.5 and subsequent sections) is attested with verbs like öffnen ‘to open’ or kochen ‘to cook’. These verbs occur both as transitive (3.13 a) and intransitive (3.13 b) without any further grammatical marking. Crucially, the object of the transitive is the subject of the intransitive. Because this diathesis is unmarked, there is no formal indication of a direction. So, this diathesis could just as well be interpreted as a causative. However, there is a formal difference between verbs that allow for both a haben and sein in the intransitive (3.13 c,d) and those that only allow for a sein in the intransitive. There seems to be an interesting semantic correlate to this formal difference in that the verbs that allow for both haben and sein seem primarily transitiv. Consequentially this group is called antikausativ (this section), while the second group with only sein is called kausativ (see Sec­tion 3.11.1).

(3.13) a. Der Mitarbeiter öffnet den Laden.
b. Der Laden öffnet gleich.
c. Der Laden hat geöffnet.
d. Der Laden ist geöffnet.

3.7.2 Ortsantikausativ

[3.27] The unmarked ortsantikausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.5.10) is similar to the previous unmarked antikausativ. Verbs like kleben ‘to glue, to stick’ or klappen ‘to fold’ occur both as transitive and intransitive (3.14 a,b) with the object of the transitive being the subject of the intransitive. Likewise, the intransitive is possible with both haben and sein (3.14 c,d). The only difference is the obligatory presence of a location. Note that there is also a parallel ortskausativ (see Sec­tion 3.11.2).

(3.14) a. Ich habe den Zettel an die Wand geklebt.
b. Der Zettel klebt an der Wand.
c. Der Zettel hat an der Wand geklebt.
d. Der Zettel ist an die Wand geklebt.

3.7.3 Reflexiv Antikausativ

[3.28] The reflexiv antikausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 7.5.2 and subsequent sections) is attested with verbs like entscheiden ‘to decide’ or beschränken ‘to limit’. Again, these verbs occur both as transitive and intransitive with the transitive object being the subject of the intransitive (3.15 a,b). However, with these verbs the intransitive needs an obligatory reflexive pronoun (3.15 b). The intransitive with reflexive pronoun typically takes haben in the perfect (3.15 c). The intransitive perfect with sein (3.15 d) can now clearly be identified as a zustandspassiv of the transitive (see Sec­tion 3.8.2).

(3.15) a. Der Richter entscheidet den Fall.
b. Der Fall entscheidet sich.
c. Der Fall hat sich entschieden.
d. Der Fall ist entschieden.

3.7.4 Bewertungsantikausativ

[3.29] The bewertungsantikausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.5.2 and subsequent sections) is possible with many straightforward transitive verbs, like with ver­kauf­en ‘to sell’ or lesen ‘to read’ (3.16 a). The anticausative intransitive obligatorily needs a reflexive pronoun, and additionally an obligatory manner adverbial is needed (3.16 b). Just like the previous anticausatives, the intransitive occurs both with haben and sein in the perfect. However, haben is clearly used with the reflexive anticausative construction with obligatory adverbial (3.16 c), while sein is used with the zustandspassiv (see Sec­tion 3.8.2) of the original transitive, without reflexive pronoun or obligatory adverbial evaluation (3.16 d).

(3.16) a. Ich verkaufe das Buch.
b. Das Buch verkauft sich gut.
c. Das Buch hat sich gut verkauft.
d. Das Buch ist verkauft.

3.7.5 Inferenzantikausativ (scheinen/erscheinen+Partizip)

[3.30] The inferenzantikausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.5.10) is constructed with one of the light verbs scheinen or erscheinen with a participle of a transitive verb (3.17). This construction expresses an evidential inference by the speaker that something is the case. The retention of the original agent as a prepositional phrase seems to be mostly not possible (3.17 b), so this diathesis is classified as an anticausative here. With intransitive verbs this construction does not show any diathesis and is consequently called perfektinferenz (see Sec­tion 4.6.2).

(3.17) a. Der Pförtner schließt die Tür.
b. Die Tür scheint *(von dem Pförtner) geschlossen.

3.7.6 Sinnesantikausativ (aussehen/wirken+Partizip)

[3.31] The sinnesantikausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.5.11) uses the light verbs aussehen or wirken together with a participle of a transitive verb to form an anticausative diathesis (6.119). This construction expresses that the speaker has sensory evidence about the state of affairs. The retention of the original subject is very rare, though it might to be possible with verbs describing a mental state, like entspannen ‘to relax’ (3.18 b). With intransitive verbs this construction does not show any diathesis and is consequently called sinnesevidenz (see Sec­tion 4.6.3).

(3.18) a. Die Renovierung verändert den Bahnhof.
Der Bahnhof sieht *(von der Renovierung) verändert aus.
b. Die Stille entspannt ihn.
Er wirkt ?(von der Stille) entspannt.

3.7.7 Darstellungsantikausativ (geben/zeigen+Partizip)

[3.32] The darstellungsantikausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.5.12) consists of the light verb geben with a participle and an obligatory reflexive pronoun. It expresses a conscious performance to appear in a certain way by the erstwhile accusative. The original nominative cannot be retained. The light verb zeigen can be used alternatively to geben. Any difference between these two light verbs needs more investigation.

(3.19) a. Die Stille entspannt ihn.
b. Er gibt sich *(durch die Stille) entspannt.

3.7.8 Erwartungsantikausativ (stehen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.33] The erwartungsantikausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.5.6) uses a light verb stehen with zu and an infinitive. The original accusative object is promoted to subject and the erstwhile nominative subject cannot be retained, so this clearly is an anticausative diathesis. However, examples with an explicitly accusative noun phrase as in (3.20 a) are actually rare. Typically, this diatheses is found with cognitive predicates expressing an expectation, like befürchten ‘to fear’, with a dass complement clause (3.20 b). Functionally, this complement clause has the same status as an accusative object. Note that complement clauses typically come towards the end of the sentence in German, and then the first position of the sentence often has to be filled with a position-simulating pronoun es (which is removed when the first position is filled otherwise).

(3.20) a. Ich befürchte einen weiteren Beschäftigungsabbau.
Ein weiterer Beschäftigungsabbau steht zu befürchten.
b. Ich befürchte, dass er zu spät kommen wird.
Es steht zu befürchten, dass er zu spät kommen wird.

3.7.9 Unmöglichkeitsantikausativ (gehen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.34] The unmöglichkeitsantikausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.5.7) uses a light verb gehen with zu and an infinitive. This anticausative diathesis is typical for an informal register, but written examples can be found going back to the 19th century. The construction is typically used with an additional negation (3.21 b), though in contemporary online writing it is also attested without negation (3.21 c). Because of the negation, the typical usage of the Unmöglichkeitsantikausativ is to express the impossibility to change something.

(3.21) a. Ich lösche die Datei.
b. Die Datei geht nicht zu löschen.
c. Die Datei geht zu löschen.

3.8 Passive diatheses (obj › sbj › adj)

[3.35] A passive is a diathesis that removes the role marked as subject and promotes an object to be the new subject. The erstwhile subject can optionally be expressed as a prepositional phrase. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.3.1, specifically starting at paragraph 2.100.

3.8.1 Vorgangspassiv (werden+Partizip)

[3.36] The vorgangspassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.5.15) is the infamous diathesis consisting of a light verb werden with a participle. Passives are very similar to anticausatives in that the transitive object is turned into the intransitive subject (3.22). The special characteristic of a passive is that the transitive subject can be optionally retained, typically as a prepositional von or durch phrase. However, note that this prepositional phrase is normally not used. The same werden+Partizip construction leads to a different diathesis with intransitive verbs, namely the unpersönlicher Passiv (see Sec­tion 3.3.5).

(3.22) a. Ich verkaufe den Schrank.
b. Der Schrank wird verkauft (von mir).

3.8.2 Zustandspassiv (sein+Partizip)

[3.37] The zustandspassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.5.16) consists of a light verb sein with a participle (3.23). Although this diathesis is traditionally called “passive” in German grammar, the status of the retained agent is problematic and appears to be strongly dependent on the verb (3.23 b,c). It might thus be better to consider this diathesis to be an anticausative. However, because of the long tradition I hold on to the term Zustandspassiv and the analysis of it being a passive. The closely related sein+Partizip erlebniskonversiv (see Sec­tion 3.9.2) retains the subject with a governed preposition. Also the sein+Partizip perfekt as attested with some intransitive verbs is arguably a similar construction, though applied to different verbs (see Sec­tion 4.3.1).

(3.23) a. Ich verkaufe den Schrank.
b. Der Schrank ist ?(von mir) verkauft.
c. Der Schrank ist !(vom Schreiner) gebaut.

3.8.3 Fortsetzungspassiv (bleiben+Partizip)

[3.38] The fortsetzungspassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.5.17) is closely related to the sein-Zustandspassiv (see Sec­tion 3.8.2), but now the light verb bleiben is used with a participle (3.24). This construction expresses that a reached state is maintained. Like with sein, the retention of the original agent with bleiben is possible, but often difficult (3.24 b,c). However, not all verbs can be equally used with sein and bleiben. For example, verbs like drucken ‘to print’ or schreiben ‘to write’ are fine with the sein-Zustandspassiv but not with the bleiben-Fortsetzungspassiv. This construction is only attested with transitive verbs. The same bleiben+Parti­zip construction can be used with intransitive verbs, but then it does not induce a diathesis and is called perfektkontinuativ (see Sec­tion 4.3.9).

(3.24) a. Der Pförtner schließt die Tür.
b. Die Tür bleibt ?(durch den Pförtner) geschlossen.
c. DIe Tür bleibt !(durch einen Vorhang) verborgen.

3.8.4 Modalpassiv (sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.39] The modalpassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.5.8) is constructed using the light verb sein with zu and an infinitive. When applied to transitive verbs like führen ‘to lead’ (3.25 a) or lösen ‘to solve’ (3.25 b) this diathesis promotes the accusative to nominative subject. The erstwhile nominative subject can be retained as a prepositional phrase. This diathesis has two different interpretations. It can indicate either an deontic modality (‘must’) as in (3.25 a) or an ability (‘can’) as in (3.25 b). Note that the subject retention with the preposition für is only possible in the ability-interpretation. The closely related unpersönlicher Modalpassiv is used with intransitives and only allows for the deontic interpretation (see Sec­tion 3.3.6).

(3.25) a. Der Besitzer führt den Hund an der Leine.
Hunde sind an der Leine zu führen (von ihren Besitzern).
b. Die Schüler lösen die Aufgabe.
Die Aufgabe ist (für die Schüler) leicht zu lösen.

3.8.5 Normpassiv (gehören+Partizip)

[3.40] The normpassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.5.18) consists of the light verb gehören with a participle. It is only attested with verbs with accusative objects, like bestrafen ‘to punish’ (3.26). The diathesis expresses that the main verb ought to be applied to the object. The original subject can optionally be retained as a prepositional phrase.

(3.26) a. Der Schiedsrichter bestraft den Spieler.
b. Der Spieler gehört bestraft (durch den Schiedsrichter)

3.8.6 Permissivpassiv (lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.41] The permissivpassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.5.5) consists of the light verb lassen with infinitive and an obligatory reflexive pronoun (3.27). The agent can be retained with an optional von prepositional phrase, so this diathesis is a passive. This diathesis expresses that something is permitted (3.27 a) or that something is possible (3.27 b). A similar construction with lassen+sich+In­fi­ni­tiv can be applied to intransitive verbs, which leads to a different diathesis, namely the Möglichkeitsbewertung (see Sec­tion 3.3.4). Also the Permissivkonversiv (see Sec­tion 3.9.3) and the Permissivinversiv (see Sec­tion 3.10.4) use the same construction with lassen, but they also show different role-remappings.

(3.27) a. Die Visagistin schminkt ihn.
Er lässt sich (von der Visagistin) schminken.
b. Der Pförtner schließt die Tür.
Die Tür lässt sich (von dem Pförtner) schließen.

3.8.7 Rezipientenpassiv (bekommen/kriegen/erhalten+Partizip)

[3.42] The rezipientenpassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.5.21) has become a mainstay in the German grammatical literature. It consists of the light verb bekommen with a participle (alternatively, the light verbs kriegen or erhalten can be used). With this diathesis, a dative recipient is turned into the nominative subject. Again, the erstwhile nominative can be retained as a prepositional phrase, though it mostly is not used (as with all passives). Note that the same construction can also be used in a different “achievement” interpretation without diathesis, called Effektiv here (see Sec­tion 4.5.6).

(3.28) a. Der Friseur schneidet mir die Haare.
b. Ich bekomme die Haare geschnitten (vom Friseur).

3.8.8 Pertinenzpassiv (haben+Partizip)

[3.43] The pertinenzpassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.5.22) is a special construction because it looks identical to the Perfekt (see Sec­tion 4.3.1), often even being ambiguous among the two interpretations. However, the Pertinenzpassiv is functionally much closer to the Rezipientenpassiv. The new nominative subject der Minister ‘the minister’ (3.29 b) is the (dative) experiencer/beneficiary of the cutting (3.29 a). The original agent of the cutting Friseur ‘barber’ can only be retained with difficulty, so this diathesis looks closer to an anticausative. However, there is a well-known effect that this Pertinenzpassiv becomes much more common when stacked with a modal auxiliary like wollen ‘to want’ (3.29 c). In such a stack, the original agent can clearly be retained.

[3.44] The designation pertinenz refers to the fact that the new subject is necessarily the possessor of the accusative object Haare ‘hair’. Such inherent possessors turn up in various diatheses, and all instances will be designated with the qualifier pertinenz. The most famous one is the pertinenzdativ (see Sec­tion 3.13.4), but there are various others, like the pertinenzinversiv (see Sec­tion 3.10.2) and the ortspertinenzinversiv (see Sec­tion 3.10.3).

(3.29) a. Der Friseur schneidet dem Minister die Haare.
b. Der Minister hat die Haare geschnitten ?(durch den Friseur).
c. Der Minister will die Haare vom Friseur geschnitten haben.

3.9 Conversive diatheses (obj › sbj › pbj)

[3.45] A conversive is a diathesis that removes the role marked as subject and promotes an object to be the new subject. The erstwhile subject can optionally be expressed as a governed prepositional phrase. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.3.1, specifically starting at paragraph 2.101.

3.9.1 Reflexiv Erlebniskonversiv

[3.46] The reflexiv erlebniskonversiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 7.5.6) is a diathesis in which a verb, like empören ‘to appall’ (3.30 a), can be used both with and without a reflexive pronoun. The effect of adding the reflexive pronoun is a remapping of the accusative to nominative and demoting the erstwhile nominative to a prepositional phrase (3.30 b). The prepositional phrase is a governed preposition (3.30 c). The verbs that allow this diathesis are typically verbs that express an experience. This diathesis is functionally similar to the sein-Erlebniskonversiv (see Sec­tion 3.9.2) and the lassen-Permissivkonversiv (see Sec­tion 3.9.3). There are even many verbs that allow for all three diatheses, like empören (3.30 d,e). However, not all verbs allow for both diatheses, like verärgern (3.31 d,e).

(3.30) a. Der Preis empört den Kunden.
b. Der Kunde empört sich über den hohen Preis.
c. Der Kunde empört sich darüber, dass der Preis schon wieder gestiegen ist.
d. Der Kunde ist empört über den hohen Preis.
e. Der Kunde lässt sich nicht empören vom hohen Preis.

3.9.2 Erlebniskonversiv (sein+Partizip)

[3.47] The erlebniskonversiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.5.23) is constructed with the light verb sein and a participle. The form of this diathesis is identical to the Zustandspassiv (see Sec­tion 3.8.2), but there is a crucial difference in the remapping of the original nominative. Verbs that take a Zustandspassiv, like öffnen ‘to open’ only allow for the retention of the nominative with a von prepositional phrase, and only in special circumstances. In contrast, the verbs that take the Erlebniskonversiv can regularly retain the agent with a governed preposition. For example, with the verb verärgern ‘to displease’ the original nominative can be expressed with an über prepositional phrase (8.42 b), which is a governed preposition (3.31 c). Verbs that take the Erlebniskonversiv are typically verbs the express an experience, similar to the next other two conversive diatheses, the Reflexiv Erlebniskonversiv (3.31 d), see Sec­tion 3.9.1 and the Permissivkonversiv (3.31 e), see Sec­tion 3.9.3.

(3.31) a. Die schlechte Nachricht verärgert mich.
b. Ich bin verärgert über die schlechte Nachricht.
c. Ich bin verärgert darüber, dass die schlechte Nachricht verbreitet wurde.
d. * Ich verärgere mich über die schlechte Nachricht.
e. Ich lasse mich nicht durch die schlechte Nachricht verärgern.

3.9.3 Permissivkonversiv (lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.48] The permissivkonversiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.5.7) uses a light verb lassen with an infinitive and an obligatory reflexive pronoun. In this diathesis, the original dative is promoted to nominative subject, while the original nominative is demoted to a prepositional phrase, like with the verb begeistern ‘to be enthusiastic’ (3.32 a,b). The preposition is a governed preposition (3.32 c). The verbs that allow for this diathesis are highly similar, but not identical, to the verbs that take the Erlebniskonversiv (3.32 d), see Sec­tion 3.9.2, and the Reflexiv Erlebniskonversiv (3.32 e), see Sec­tion 3.9.1. However, note the different prepositions in these constructions, as illustrated below.

(3.32) a. Der neue Aufsatz begeistert die Forscherin.
b. Die Forscherin lässt sich von dem Aufsatz begeistern.
c. Die Forscherin lässt sich davon begeistern, dass der Aufsatz gut geschrieben ist.
d. Die Forscherin begeistert sich für den Aufsatz.
e. Die Forscherin ist begeistert über den Aufsatz.

3.10 Inversive diatheses (obj › sbj › obj)

[3.49] An inversive is a diathesis that switches subject and object. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.3.3, specifically starting at paragraph 2.114.

3.10.1 Restinversiv (bleiben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.50] The restinversiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.9.1) uses the light verb bleiben with zu and an infinitive. This diathesis reverses the expression of the subject and object roles, in that the accusative is promoted to a nominative, while the original nominative is demoted to an (optional) dative. Because the demotion is “larger” than the promotion this diathesis can be interpreted as a demoted inversive. Semantically, this diatheses expresses that (some part of) the patient is still left over to be acted on.

(3.33) a. Ich räume den letzten Schrank ein.
b. Dieser letzte Schrank bleibt (mir) noch einzuräumen.

3.10.2 Pertinenzinversiv (haben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.51] The pertinenzinversiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 13.9.1) is constructed with the light verb haben with an am‑In­fi­ni­tiv. This diathesis also reverses the expression of the subject and object roles, though in the different direction from the previous Restinversiv (see Sec­tion 3.10.1). In this diathesis the dative is promoted to nominative, while the nominative is demoted to accusative (3.34). Because the promotion is “larger” than the demotion this can be called a promoted inversive. Further, the dative dem Mieter ‘tenant’ is necessarily the possessor (pertinenz) of the nominative die Wohnung ‘apartment’, so it is a Pertinenzdativ (see Sec­tion 3.13.4). Both in form and meaning this diathesis is strongly connected to the ensuing ortspertinenzinversiv (see Sec­tion 3.10.3), in which the dative is the possessor of the obligatory location.

(3.34) a. Dem Mieter brennt die Wohnung.
b. Der Mieter hat die Wohnung am Brennen.

3.10.3 Ortspertinenzinversiv (haben+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.52] The ortspertinenzinversiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.9.2) is closely related to the previous Pertinenzinversiv (see Sec­tion 3.10.2). Again, a dative is promoted to nominative, while the nominative is demoted to accusative. Also in both diatheses, the participant expressed by the dative is necessarily the possessor (pertinenz) of another participant. The difference is that with the current Ortspertinenzinversiv this other participant is an obligatory location, e.g. an der Nase ‘on the nose’ in (3.35). The dative in this diathesis is thus an Ortspertinenzdativ (see Sec­tion 3.13.5). An further curious difference to the otherwise highly similar Pertinenzinversiv in (3.34 b) is that the infinitive hängen does not allow for the preposition am in this construction (3.35 c).

(3.35) a. Ein Tropfen hängt ihm an der Nase.
b. Er hat einen Tropfen an der Nase hängen.
c. * Er hat einen Tropfen an der Nase am Hängen.

3.10.4 Permissivinversiv (lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.53] The permissivinversiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.9.1) is yet another diathesis using the construction lassen with obligatory reflexive and infinitive, this time with verbs that take a dative, but no accusative, like schmecken ‘to taste’ (3.36). In this diatheses a dative is promoted to nominative with an obligatory dative reflexive pronoun. The original nominative is demoted to accusative. Because the promotion is “larger” than the demotion this can considered to be a promoted inversive. Among the various lassen diatheses, this one is particularly close to the Permissivpassiv (see Sec­tion 3.8.6) and the Permissivkonversiv (see Sec­tion 3.9.3).

(3.36) a. Der Kuchen schmeckt ihr.
b. Sie lässt sich den Kuchen schmecken.

3.11 Novative diatheses (ø › sbj › obj)

[3.54] A novative is a diathesis that introduces a new subject, while demoting the erstwhile subject to an object. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.3.2, specifically starting at paragraph 2.104.

3.11.1 Kausativ

[3.55] The unmarked kausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 5.6.2) is found with verbs like schmelzen ‘to melt’, trocknen ‘to dry’ or zerbrechen ‘break’ (3.37 a,b). These verbs both occur as intransitive and as transitive with the intransitive subject being the object of the transitive. The new nominative subject of the transitive is a causer. Because this alternation is unmarked, it is not immediately clear whether such a diathesis is an examples of a Kausativ or an Antikausativ. There are various indications pointing in the direction of causation (see full discussion). As a formal characteristic for the identification of this category I propose to look at the auxiliaries of the intransitive perfect: anticausatives allow for both haben and sein (see Sec­tion 3.7.1), while causatives only allow for sein (3.37 c,d). Various umlaut-causatives like fallen/fällen and biegen/beugen also belong in this category (full discussion in Sec­tion 5.6.3).

(3.37) a. Der Krug zerbricht.
b. Der Junge zerbricht den Krug.
c. Der Krug ist zerbrochen.
d. * Der Krug hat zerbrochen.

3.11.2 Ortskausativ

[3.56] The ortskausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.6.1) is similar to the previous Kausativ (see Sec­tion 3.11.1), only that verbs like stürzen ‘to fall/topple’ (3.38 a,b) obligatory need a location (especially in the caused transitive). Just like the previous Kausativ, the current Ortskausativ only allows for an intransitive perfect with sein (3.38 c,d). There is a parallel Ortsantikausativ in which the intransitive allows for both a sein and a haben perfect (see Sec­tion 3.7.2). Various umlaut-causatives like liegen/legen ‘to lie/to lay’ and sitzen/setzen ‘to sit/to put’ also belong in this category (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.6.2).

(3.38) a. Der Elefant stürzt ins Wasser.
b. Ich stürze den Elefanten ins Wasser.
c. Der Elefant ist ins Wasser gestürzt.
d. * Der Elefant hat ins Wasser gestürzt.

3.11.3 Präverb Kausativ

[3.57] The präverb kausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.6.1 and subsequent sections) overtly marks the causative by a preverb (3.39), i.e. either by a verb prefix (e.g. enden/beenden ‘to end’) or by a verb particle (e.g. bruzeln/anbruzeln ‘to sizzle/to fry’). Preverbs are also frequently used with adjectival stems forming a causative transitive verb, e.g matt/ermatten ‘lacklustre/to tire’ or fähig/befähigen ‘capable/to enable’ (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.6.3).

(3.39) a. Der Wettkampf endet.
b. Ich beende den Wettkampf.

3.11.4 Direktivkausativ (schicken+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.58] The direktivkausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.6.3) is a novative in which the new subject is gives orders rather than directly causing something to happen. This diathesis is constructed with the light verb schicken with an infinitive. The meaning of the construction is rather close to the full lexical meaning of schicken ‘to send’. However, this construction is coherent, and thus monoclausal (3.40 c).

(3.40) a. Er schläft
b. Ich schicke ihn schlafen.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich ihn schlafen schicke.

3.11.5 Permissivkausativ (lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.59] The permissivkausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.6.2) consists of the light verb lassen with an infinitive. This diathesis is widely acknowledged in German grammar. It is often simply called a Kausativ but this construction has actually at least two different interpretations, namely a causative (3.41 c) and a permissive (3.41 d). It is widely used in German and there are only few verbs that do not allow for this diathesis (e.g. gefallen ‘to like’ or interessieren ‘to interest’ cannot be used).

(3.41) a. Ich wasche die Kleider.
b. Sie lässt mich die Kleider waschen.
c. (= Sie verursacht, dass ich die Kleider wasche.)
d. (= Sie erlaubt, dass ich die Kleider wasche.)

3.11.6 Möglichkeitskausativ (geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.60] The möglichkeitskausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.6.1) adds a new subject by using the light verb geben with a zu-In­fi­ni­tiv. In this diathesis the erstwhile subject becomes a dative and not an accusative. In many examples the meaning of this diathesis is very close to the meaning of the lexical verb geben ‘to give’. For example with the verb trinken ‘to drink’ (3.42 a) the construction allows both for a literal interpretation “he gives X to Y for drinking” and for a causative-permissive interpretation “he causes/offers Y to drink X”. The causative-permissive interpretation of geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is more clearly exemplified with verbs that take clausal complements, like bedenken ‘to consider’ (3.42 b).

[3.61] This construction is coherent, and thus monoclausal (3.42 c), so, whatever the precise semantic interpretation, this alternation is structurally clearly a diathesis. Complicating things even more, the geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is also used for a semantically and structurally quite different diathesis, namely the Möglichkeitsdesubjektiv (see Sec­tion 3.4.1).

(3.42) a. Das Kind trinkt Milch.
Er gibt dem Kind Milch zu trinken.
b. Ich bedenke, dass es schon spät ist.
Er gibt mir zu bedenken, dass es schon spät ist.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) er dem Kind Milch zu trinken gibt.
(Es ist bekannt, dass) er mir zu bedenken gibt, dass es schon spät ist.

3.11.7 Fortsetzungskausativ (halten+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.62] The fortsetzungskausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 13.6.1) uses the light verb halten with an am‑In­fi­ni­tiv. This diathesis adds a causer to an intransitive verb. It is typically used with the verb laufen ‘to run’ (3.43 a), but it is also attested with other agentive intransitive verbs. However, the subject of the intransitive is typically an inanimate object, like Laden ‘shop’ in (3.43 a). Additionally, verbs describing heat production like brennen ‘to burn’ (3.43 b) are frequently attested with this diathesis. The halten+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis expresses that a process is kept ongoing by the newly added causer. The light verb halten is also used in the related Kausativkontinuativ epithesis (see Sec­tion 4.3.11).

(3.43) a. Der Laden läuft.
Er hält den Laden am Laufen.
b. Das Feuer brennt.
Der Wind hält das Feuer am Brennen.

3.11.8 Aufforderungskausativ (machen/heißen+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.63] The aufforderungskausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.6.4) is probably the most pure causative of all the various novative diatheses. It uses the light verb machen ‘to make’ and adds a causer (3.44 a). It is not in widespread use and often sounds like an English calque (cf. ‘he makes me cry’), though it is probably an old Germanic construction. A highly similar construction uses the light verb heißen (9.20 b), though this is old-fashioned (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.6.5).

(3.44) a. Ich weine.
Deine Späße machen mich weinen.
b. Er kniete nieder.
Der Henker hieß ihn niederknien.

3.11.9 Perzeptiv (sehen/hören/fühlen/spüren+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.64] The perzeptiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.6.6 and subsequent sections) is a novative that consists of one of the verbs of sensation sehen/hören/fühlen/spüren with an infinitive. The new nominative is an observer/experiencer of the main verb. The erstwhile nominative is turned into an accusative. This diathesis sometimes results in a double accusative construction, viz. when there already was an accusative present (3.45 a,b). This diathesis can be used with all verbs that can be experienced as an observer. Note that these verbs of perception can also be used with an explicit dass complement clause (3.45 c), but such constructions are not coherent, and thus there is no diatheses in these constructions.

(3.45) a. Der Bäcker backt einen Kuchen.
b. Ich sehe den Bäcker einen Kuchen backen.
c. Ich sehe, dass der Bäcker einen Kuchen backt.

3.11.10 Opiniativ (wissen/glauben/sehen/finden+Partizip)

[3.65] The opiniativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.6 and subsequent sections) is constructed with one of the light verbs wissen/glauben/sehen/finden with a participle. Applied to an patientive intransitive verb like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ it adds an opinionator who believes with more or less certainty (depending on the light verb that is used) whether the einschlafen has occurred or not. The original nominative is changed into an accusative.

(3.46) a. Der Säugling schläft ein.
b. Sie glaubt den Säugling eingeschlafen.
(= Sie glaubt, dass der Säugling eingeschlafen ist.)

3.12 Novative-with-demotion diatheses (ø › sbj › adj)

[3.66] A novative with demotion is a diathesis that introduces a new subject, while demoting the erstwhile subject to a prepositional phrase. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.3.2, specifically starting at paragraph 2.110.

3.12.1 Transitiv Opiniativ (wissen/glauben/sehen/finden+Partizip)

[3.67] The transitiv opiniativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.6.5 and subsequent sections) is the same construction as the previous Opiniativ (see Sec­tion 3.11.10) but applied to transitive verbs. I have included this as a separate diathesis because with transitive verbs it shows a rather different role-remapping as with intransitive verbs. When used with a transitive verb like aufheben ‘to preserve’ (3.47 a) the erstwhile nominative Archiv ‘archive’ is demoted to a prepositional adjunct or completely left out (3.47 b). The accusative Nachlass ‘inheritance’ remains unchanged.

(3.47) a. Das Archiv hebt den Nachlass gut auf.
b. Sie weiß den Nachlass (im Archiv) gut aufgehoben.
(= Sie weiß, dass der Nachlass (im Archiv) gut aufgehoben ist.)

[3.68] This Transitiv Opiniativ can of course easily be united with the previous Opiniativ into a single diathesis by noticing, for example, that both can be rephrased with a complement clause with sein and a participle, compare (3.46 b) and (3.47 b). However, when both Opiniativ diatheses are united, this implies that the sein-Perfekt in (3.46 b), see Sec­tion 4.3.1, and the Zustandspassiv in (3.47 b), see Sec­tion 3.8.2, have to be united as well (there is a perfect parallelism here). Now, there is nothing speaking against both these unifications, but exactly the unification of sein-Perfect and Zustandspassiv has been rather controversially discussed in the German grammatical literature (see Sec­tion 10.2.8 for a discussion). So either both are unified, or both are separated. Because I have separated the Zustandspassiv and the sein-Perfekt in this summary, I consequently also separate the two Opiniativ diatheses.

3.12.2 Passivkausativ (lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[3.69] The passivkausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.6.1) can be seen as a variant of the Permissivkausativ (see Sec­tion 3.11.5). Both use the lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv construction to add a new causer to the sentence. Additionally, in a Passivkausativ (3.48 b) the original nominative is demoted to a prepositional phrase (or it is left out completely). Different from the Permissivkausativ, the current Passivkausativ is only used to express causation. For a complete discussion of all different lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv diatheses, see Sec­tion 11.2.5.

(3.48) a. Die Wäscherei reinigt den Teppich.
b. Der neue Besitzer lässt den Teppich (von der Wäscherei) reinigen.

3.13 Applicative diatheses (adj › obj)

[3.70] An applicative is a diathesis in which a prepositional phrase is promoted to an object. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.4.1. Applicatives in German are typically marked by a preverb or an adverb, though possessor and beneficiary datives are also included under this heading.

3.13.1 Präverb Applikativ

[3.71] The präverb applikativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.8.8 and subsequent sections) is a diathesis in which a prepositional phrase of an intransitive verb is turned into an accusative through the addition of a preverb. For example, the alternation from steigen to besteigen ‘to climb’ additionally induces a change from a preposition phrase with auf to an accusative (3.49 a,b). There is a wide variety in preverbs (both Verbpräfixe and Verbpartikel) and a wide variety of prepositions that show such a diathesis. This diathesis is also attested with governed prepositions, for example with an as used with the verb arbeiten ‘to work’ (3.49 c). The prepositional phrase turns into an accusative with erarbeiten ‘to work something out’ (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.8.9).

(3.49) a. Ich steige auf den Berg.
b. Ich besteige den Berg.
c. Ich arbeite an einem Plan.
Ich arbeite daran, den Plan zu verbessern.
d. Ich erarbeite einen Plan.

3.13.2 Resultativ Applikativ

[3.72] The resultativ applikativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.8.1) is also an alternation that turns a prepositional phrase into an accusative, though in this instance the diathesis is induced by a resultative adjective, like leer‑ ‘empty’ or gesund‑ ‘healthy’. When used with an intransitive verb like fischen ‘to fish’ (3.50 a) the prepositional phrase is turned into an accusative. The effect of this diathesis is that the new accusative Teich ‘pond’ is in the state described by the resultative preverbial leer‑ ‘empty’ as a result of the verbal action fischen ‘to fish’ (3.50 b). This diathesis is also attested with governed prepositions, for example with the verb beten für ‘to pray for’ (3.50 c,d).

(3.50) a. Ich fische im Teich.
b. Ich fische den Teich leer.
(= Ich fische, und dadurch ist der Teich leer.)
c. Ich bete für den Kranken.
Ich bete dafür, dass der Kranke gesund wird.
d. Ich bete den Kranken gesund.
(= Ich bete, und dadurch ist der Kranke gesund.)

3.13.3 Präverb Dativ Applikativ

[3.73] The präverb dativ applikativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.8.13 and subsequent sections) is an alternation in which the prepositional phrase is turned into a dative (as opposed to an accusative as in the previous diatheses). Although the prepositions in this diathesis are often strongly lexicalised, like stammen aus ‘originate from’ (3.51 a), they do never allow for the daraus, dass… reformulation that is considered definitional here for them to be governed prepositions (3.51 c).

(3.51) a. Ich stamme aus einem Adelsgeschlecht.
b. Ich entstamme einem Adelsgeschlecht.
c. * Ich stamme daraus, dass ich dort geboren bin.

3.13.4 Pertinenzdativ

[3.74] The pertinenzdativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 5.8.3 and subsequent sections) is a dative that is inherently the possessor of another lexical role. The term Pertinenz (from lat. pertinere ‘to belong to’) was proposed by Polenz (1969: 160ff.) In proposing the term pertinenz Polenz was inspired by work by Isačenko using the term in the context of inalienable possession. for this phenomenon and for the closely connected Ortspertinenzdativ, as discussed in the next section. I have extended the usage of this term to various other diatheses that involve a possessor of another role, see Pertinenzpassiv (Sec­tion 3.8.8), Pertinenzinversiv (Sec­tion 3.10.2) and Pertinenzakkusativ (Sec­tion 3.21.1). The Pertinenzdativ is attested both for the possessor of a nominative subject of intransitives (3.52 a), see Sec­tion 5.8.3, and for the possessor of the accusative object of transitives (3.52 b), see Sec­tion 5.8.4. As for any Pertinenz-relation, it is crucial that the dative is necessarily the possessor of another lexical role. The term “possessor raising” is also often found in the literature to describe this phenomenon.

(3.52) a. Meine Hände zittern.
Mir zittern die Hände.
b. Ich schneide seine Haare.
Ich schneide ihm die Haare.

3.13.5 Ortspertinenzdativ

[3.75] The ortspertinenzdativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.8.12 and subsequent sections) is closely connected to the previous Pertinenzdativ (Sec­tion 3.13.4). The dative in (3.53) is likewise obligatorily a possessor of another lexical role, though in this diathesis this other role is an obligatory location. For example, the verb hängen ‘to hang’ (3.53 a) necessarily needs a location where the hanging is taking place. The possessor of this location can be replaced by a dative. The obligatory location can also be introduced by another diathesis first, e.g. by a caused-movement diathesis (see Sec­tion 3.17.3). For example, the verb wehen ‘to blow (of wind)’ can be used with a caused movement, forcing the object (die Blätter ‘the leaves’) into an obligatory direction (in mein Gesicht ‘in my face’). The possessor of this location can subsequently be turned into a dative by an Ortspertinenzdativ diathesis (3.53 b).

(3.53) a. Das Hemd hing aus seiner Hose.
Das Hemd hing ihm aus der Hose.
b. Es weht.
Der Wind weht die Blätter in mein Gesicht.
Der Wind weht mir die Blätter ins Gesicht.

3.13.6 Benefaktivdativ

[3.76] The benefaktivdativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.8.10) is a dative that alternates with a für prepositional phrase describing the beneficiary of an action. For example with the verb kochen ‘to cook’ the beneficiary of the cooking can be expressed with a für prepositional phrase (3.54 a) or with a dative (3.54 b). Not all beneficiary für phrases can be turned into a dative. The Benefaktivdativ is only attested with transitive verbs. With intransitives like arbeiten ‘to work’ a für beneficiary is possible (3.54 c), but a beneficiary dative is not (3.54 d).

(3.54) a. Ich koche eine Suppe für dich.
b. Ich koche dir eine Suppe.
c. Ich arbeite für dich.
d. * Ich arbeite dir.

3.13.7 Beurteilerdativ

[3.77] The beurteilerdativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.8.11) is a dative that expresses an evaluator of an action. Such a dative can only be added together with an evaluation in the form of an adverbial phrase with zu ‘too much’ (3.55 a) or genug ‘enough’ (3.55 b) and a gradable adjective like schnell ‘quick’ or warm ‘warm’.

(3.55) a. Paul fuhr zu schnell (für den Geschmack von seiner Mutter).
Paul fuhr seiner Mutter zu schnell.
b. Das Zimmer war warm genug (für seinen Geschmack).
Das Zimmer war ihm warm genug.

3.14 Antipassive diatheses (obj › adj)

[3.78] An antipassive is a diathesis in which an object is demoted to a prepositional phrase. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.4.1. Antipassives in German are typically unmarked or marked by a reflexive pronoun.

3.14.1 Antipassiv

[3.79] The unmarked antipassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.7.8 and subsequent sections) is a diathesis in which an accusative argument alternates with a prepositional phrase. This typically occurs without any overt marking other than the antipassive alternation itself. For example, the verb schießen ‘to shoot’ can be used both with an accusative and with an auf prepositional phrase (3.56 a). The semantic effect of this diathesis is that the object is less affected when marked as a prepositional phrase. In some instances, like with glauben an ‘to believe in’ (3.56 b) the prepositional phrase is a governed preposition (see Sec­tion 6.7.12).

(3.56) a. Ich schieße den Bären.
Ich schieße auf den Bären.
b. Ich glaube deine Aussage.
Ich glaube an deine Aussage.
Ich glaube daran, dass deine Aussage stimmt.

3.14.2 Reflexiv Antipassiv

[3.80] The reflexiv antipassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 7.7.4) is an antipassive in which additionally a reflexive pronoun is added. For example, the verb beklagen ‘to lament’ (3.57) has a lamented object-role Lärm ‘noise’ that is expressed either as an accusative (3.57 a) or as a prepositional phrase with über (10.140 b). The reflexive pronoun in (3.57 b) is not a self-inflicting reflexive, i.e. the lamenting is not about oneself. These reflexive antipassives always have governed prepositional phrases (3.57 c).

(3.57) a. Ich beklage den Lärm.
b. Ich beklage mich über den Lärm.
c. Ich beklage mich darüber, dass es so laut ist

3.14.3 Präverb Reflexiv Antipassiv

[3.81] The präverb reflexiv antipassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.7.4) is an antipassive with a reflexive pronoun and a preverb. For example, the verb kalkulieren ‘to calculate’ (3.58 a) allows for an antipassive diathesis in which an accusative argument is turned into an (optional) prepositional phrase when adding a prefix ver‑ to form verkalkulieren ‘to miscalculate’. Additionally, an obligatory accusative reflexive pronoun is part of this diathesis.

(3.58) a. Ich kalkuliere die Miete.
b. Ich verkalkuliere mich bei der Miete.

3.14.4 Dativ Antipassiv

[3.82] The unmarked dativ antipassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.7.10 and subsequent sections) is a diathesis in which a dative argument alternates with a prepositional phrase. In a few instances this is attested with a dative without accusative, like with entfliehen ‘to escape’ (3.59 a). However, this diathesis is more widespread with verbs like berichten ‘to report’ (3.59 b) that allow for both an accusative and a dative argument.

(3.59) a. Er entflieht dem Gefängnis.
Er entflieht aus dem Gefängnis.
b. Er berichtet dem Vorstand die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung.
Er berichtet die Ergebnisse an den Vorstand.

3.14.5 Präverb Dativ Antipassiv

[3.83] The präverb dativ antipassiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.7.6) is a diathesis in which a preverb induces the demotion of a dative argument. For example, schenken ‘to gift’ (3.60 a) has a dative recipient, while verschenken ‘to give away’ (3.60 b) has no dative anymore. The dative can be retained as a prepositional phrase, but it is typically omitted. Such antipassives marked by a preverb mainly occur with verbs that take both a dative and an accusative argument.

(3.60) a. Ich schenke dem Kindergarten meine Bücher.
b. Ich verschenke meine Bücher (an den Kindergarten).

3.14.6 Reziprokativ

[3.84] The reziprokativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 7.7.3) is a special kind of antipassive in which an accusative is replaced by a mit prepositional phrase and additionally a reflexive pronoun is added, as shown for the verb treffen ‘to meet’ in (3.61). This reflexive pronoun does not have self-inflicting reference, i.e. the meeting is not with oneself. Semantically this diathesis is found with verbs that can be construed as either reciprocal or non-reciprocal. For example, the verb treffen ‘to meet’ can be used without reflexive pronoun (3.61 a) meaning something like ‘to bump into someone’, while with a reflexive pronoun the meaning is clearly reciprocal ‘to meet’ (3.61 b).

(3.61) a. Ich treffe dich.
b. Ich treffe mich mit dir.

3.15 Objective diatheses (ø › obj)

[3.85] An objective is a diathesis in which a new object is added. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.4.2, specifically starting at paragraph 2.137.

3.15.1 Ergebnisakkusativ

[3.86] The unmarked ergebnisakkusativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 5.8.1) is highly similar to the optionaler akkusativ diathesis (Sec­tion 3.16.1), but in reverse. In both diatheses, the same verb can be used with and without an accusative argument (a phenomenon sometimes called “labile” or “ambitransitive”). The special characteristics of the verbs in this section, like laufen ‘to walk, to run’ (3.62), is that they are (a) basically intransitive and (b) the accusative represents the added result of the intransitive action. The difference between such an unmarked added accusative (Ergebnisakkusativ, this section) and an unmarked dropped accusative (Optionaler Akkusativ, Sec­tion 3.16.1) is arguably small, and it remains to be seen whether this separation can be backed up by further distinguishing grammatical characteristics.

(3.62) a. Er läuft.
b. Er läuft den Marathon.

3.15.2 Resultativ Akkusativ

[3.87] The resultativ akkusativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.8.2) is a diathesis in which the addition of a resultativ preverbial leads to an additional accusative argument. For example, the intransitive bellen ‘to bark’ (3.63 a) becomes a transitive wachbellen ‘to wake by barking’ (3.63 b) with the addition of the resultative adjective wach‑ ‘awake’. Crucially, the new accusative object (Kinder ‘children’) is not expressible without a resultative adjective (like wach-) or a preverb (like an-, see the next Sec­tion 3.15.3). Care has to be taken to distinguish this diathesis from the highly similar Resultativ Applikativ (Sec­tion 3.13.2).

(3.63) a. Der Hund bellt.
b. Der Hund bellt die Kinder wach.

3.15.3 Präverb Akkusativ

[3.88] The präverb akkusativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.8.1 and subsequent sections) is a diathesis in which the addition of a preverb leads to an additional accusative argument. For example, the diathesis from zaubern ‘to perform magic’ to verzaubern ‘to enchant’ (3.64) adds a completely new role in the accusative.

(3.64) a. Sie zaubert.
b. Sie verzaubert mich.

3.15.4 Präverb Reflexiv Akkusativ

[3.89] The präverb reflexiv akkusativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.8.5) is a special variant of an objective diathesis in that the addition of the preverb leads to a new accusative argument, but also includes an obligatory reflexive pronoun. The new accusative role is semantically the result of the action of the main verb, which is actually similar to the Ergebnisakkusativ (Sec­tion 3.15.1) and different from the Präverb Akkusativ (Sec­tion 3.15.3). For example, the diathesis from tanzen ‘to dance’ to antanzen ‘to incur from dancing’ (3.65) adds the incurrence Muskelkater ‘sore muscles’ and a dative reflexive pronoun mir.

(3.65) a. Ich habe gestern viel getanzt.
b. Ich habe mir gestern einen Muskelkater angetanzt.

3.15.5 Präverb Dativ

[3.90] The präverb dativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.8.6 and subsequent sections) is similar to the previous Präverb Akkusativ in that the addition of the preverb also induces a new role, in this diathesis marked with a dative case. This diathesis is attested both with intransitive verbs like gehen ‘to walk’ when derived into preverbal entgehen ‘to evade’ (5.69 a) and with transitive verbs like lesen ‘to read’ when derived into preverbal vorlesen ‘to read out’ (3.66 b).

(3.66) a. Ich gehe (nach Hause).
Ich entgehe dem Urteil.
b. Ich lese ein Buch.
Ich lese dir ein Buch vor.

3.16 Deobjective diatheses (obj › ø)

[3.91] A deobjective is a diathesis in which an object is removed. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.4.2.

3.16.1 Optionaler Akkusativ

[3.92] An unmarked optionaler akkusativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 5.7.1) is a diathesis in which an accusative object can be left out without any further change in the construction (often discussed under the heading of “ambitransitive” or “labile” verbs). This is for example attested with the verb stören ‘to disturb’ (3.67).

[3.93] Various different kinds of “labile” verbs have to be distinguished and not all belong in the current category. First, when the accusative object of a verb allows for an Antipassiv diathesis (Sec­tion 3.14.1), then this argument can also be dropped. However, such antipassives should not also be included here. Second, in some examples the drop of an accusative is induced by an adverbial, which leads to an action-oriented focus, discussed below as the Aktionsfokus diathesis (Sec­tion 3.16.3). Verbs with such a diathesis should not also be included here. Finally, there is also a highly similar ergebnisakkusativ diathesis (Sec­tion 3.15.1) that should be distinguished. Once all those diatheses are separated, there turn out to be relatively few truly labile verbs with an Optionaler Akkusativ, mainly verbs that can be interpreted both as something one can do as well as something one can be.

(3.67) a. Du störst die Veranstaltung.
b. Du störst.

3.16.2 Optionaler Dativ

[3.94] The unmarked optionaler dativ, i.e. the dropping of a dative argument without any further change in the construction, is both attested with nominative-dative verbs like entkommen ‘to get away’ (3.68 a), full discussion in Sec­tion 5.7.4, and with nominative-accusative-dative verbs like erzählen ‘to tell’ (3.68 b), full discussion in Sec­tion 5.7.5. Like with Optionaler Akkusativ (Sec­tion 3.16.1), datives that allow for a dative antipassive (Sec­tion 3.14.4) should not also be included here.

(3.68) a. Er entkommt seinem Feind.
Er entkommt.
b. Ich erzähle dir eine Geschichte.
Ich erzähle eine Geschichte.

3.16.3 Aktionsfokus

[3.95] The aktionsfokus (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.7.1) is another diathesis in which object arguments can be left out to put the focus on the action of the verb itself, but only when also adding an adverbial to the sentence. For example, a transitive verb like sehen ‘to see’ (3.69 a) cannot be used without an object (3.69 b). The occurrence of a dropped object is only possible here in combination with an adverbial specification (8.25 c). The effect of such a diathesis is that the focus of the utterance is put on the manner in which the action is performed.

(3.69) a. Ich sehe das Haus.
b. * Ich sehe.
c. Ich sehe gut.

3.16.4 Endoreflexiv

[3.96] The endoreflexiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 7.7.1 and subsequent sections) is a special kind of object drop in which a reflexive pronoun is added. Such a diathesis looks superficially very similar to a regular self-inflicting reflexive (Sec­tion 4.7.3), but there is a crucial semantic difference. In a self-inflicting reflexive (e.g. ‘he washes himself’) the agent is doing something to him/herself. In contrast, an Endoreflexiv describes an action that is performed with the body of the agent, not to the body of the agent. For example, the verb äußern ‘to remark’ (3.70 a) can be used with a reflexive pronoun and without accusative object in the meaning of ‘to express oneself’ (3.70 b).

(3.70) a. Er äußert sein Bedauern über den Fall.
b. Er äußert sich über den Fall.

3.16.5 Präverb Endoreflexiv

[3.97] The präverb endoreflexiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.7.1) is similar to the previous Endoreflexiv (Sec­tion 3.16.4) but with the addition of a preverb. For example, the verb wählen ‘to choose/to dial’ shows a diathesis with sich verwählen ‘to misdial’ (3.71 a) in which the accusative object is dropped. There are also a few very special endoreflexive verbs in which an adverbial is necessary instead of a preverb, for example fühlen ‘to feel’ (3.71 b), see Sec­tion 9.7.2.

(3.71) a. Er wählt die falsche Nummer.
Er verwählt sich.
b. Ich fühle den Schmerz.
Ich fühle mich gut.

3.17 Locative diatheses (ø › pbj)

[3.98] A locative diathesis is a diathesis in which an obligatory location phrase is added to the clause. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.4.3. Note that there is no di­rect grammatical connection between a locative diathesis and a locative case. Both terms simply use the same modifier because both are somehow related to the marking of location.

3.17.1 Bewegungsart

[3.99] The bewegungsart diathesis (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.8.1 and subsequent sections) is a diathesis that is specifically attested with verbs of movement like tanzen ‘to dance’ (3.72). In some contexts, movement verbs take an obligatory location phrase. This obligatory location coincides with the choice of auxiliary in the perfect, i.e. haben or sein. There is a crucial difference between these two options in that with sein in the perfect there is an additional directional phrase necessary (3.72 c,d).

[3.100] Semantically, this construction expresses primarily a movement, here durch den Garten ‘through the garden’, in which the main lexical verb tanzen ‘to dance’ designates what kind of movement is performed. In a sense, the main lexical verb functions more like an adverbial designation in such constructions, i.e. sich tanzend bewegen ‘to move in a dancing manner’. The same construction can also be used with non-movement verbs, but then an additional reflexive pronoun is necessary (see Sec­tion 3.17.2).

(3.72) a. Ich habe im Garten getanzt.
b. Ich habe getanzt.
c. Ich bin durch den Garten getanzt.
(= Ich habe mich tanzend durch den Garten bewegt.)
d. * Ich bin getanzt.

3.17.2 Reflexiv Bewegungsart

[3.101] The reflexiv bewegungsart diathesis (full discussion in Sec­tion 7.8.1) is the same diathesis as the non-reflexive Bewegungsart diathesis in Sec­tion 3.17.1 but with an additional reflexive pronoun. This extra reflexive pronoun has to be added for verbs like zittern ‘to shiver’ that do not describe a change-of-location (3.73 a,b). With the reflexive pronoun there needs to be an obligatory movement phrase (3.73 c). Semantically, this construction describes an movement (‘making the playoffs’) that is achieved (metaphorically) by performing the intransitive verb (i.e. by shivering).

(3.73) a. Das Kind zittert.
b. Die Mannschaft zitterte sich in die Playoffs.
c. * Die Mannschaft zittert sich.

3.17.3 Verursachte Bewegung

[3.102] The verursachte bewegung diathesis is attested in two variants. With intransitive verbs (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.8.3 and subsequent sections) like schwitzen ‘to sweat’ (3.74 a) this diathesis adds both an accusative and an obligatory location. Semantically, this diathesis expresses that the verb causes the motion of the new accusative object role to be in the location. With transitive verbs (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.8.4) like befehlen ‘to command’ the effect is similar, though there is no new accusative added. With an added location the semantic effect is that the verb causes the accusative object to move to the location (3.74 b).

(3.74) a. Ich schwitze.
Ich schwitze einen Fleck in mein Hemd.
(= Ich schwitze, und dadurch entsteht ein Fleck in meinem Hemd.)
b. Ich befehle eine Armee.
Ich befehle die Armee an die Front.
(= Ich befehle, und dadurch geht die Armee an die Front.)

3.17.4 Ergänzende Wirkung

[3.103] The ergänzende wirkung diathesis (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.8.5) expresses the result of performing the main verb. For example, a transitive verb like machen ‘to make’ can either take an object that is made, e.g. Aufgaben ‘tasks’ (3.75 a), or it can be used in a special construction (3.75 b) with an object, like Wiese ‘meadow’, that is changed into something else, like Garten ‘garden’, by performing the action. The term Ergänzende Wirkung originated in the influential educational grammatical work of Karl Ferdinand Becker (1833: 81) almost 200 years ago, but never caught on in the German grammatical tradition.

(3.75) a. Er macht seine Aufgaben.
b. Er macht die Wiese zu einem Garten.
(= Er macht etwas, und dadurch wird die Wiese zu einem Garten.)

3.18 Delocative diatheses (pbj › adj)

[3.104] A delocative diathesis is a diathesis in which an obligatory location phrase is made optional and is regularly completely removed from the clause. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.4.3, specifically starting at paragraph 2.143.

3.18.1 Präverb Delokativ

[3.105] The präverb delokativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.7.9 and subsequent sections) is a diathesis in which an obligatory location loses its obligatoriness by adding a preverb. For example, the diathesis between steigen aus and aussteigen ‘to get out’ (3.76) shows a small but crucial difference in that the prepositional phrase aus dem Auto loses its obligatory status.

(3.76) a. Der Man steigt aus dem Auto.
b. * Der Mann steigt.
c. Der Mann steigt aus dem Auto aus.
d. Der Mann steigt aus.

3.18.2 Resultativ Delokativ

[3.106] The resultativ delokativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.7.6 and subsequent sections) is a parallel diathesis to the previous Präverb Delokativ (Sec­tion 3.18.1). Instead of adding a preverb, this diathesis adds an obligatory resultative adjective, either los‑ ‘loose’, fest‑ ‘tight’ or frei‑ ‘free’. For example, the diathesis between binden ‘to tie’ (3.77 a,b) and festbinden ‘to fixate’ (3.77 c,d) removes the obligatory status of the locative prepositional phrase.

(3.77) a. Ich binde den Hund an die Leine.
b. * Ich binde den Hund.
c. Ich binde den Hund an der Leine fest.
d. Ich binde den Hund fest.

3.19 Promoted object exchanges (ø › obj › pbj)

[3.107] A promoted object exchange is a chained diathesis in which a new object is introduced, while at the same time an existing object is demoted. The combination of these two changes is an overall promotion. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.5.1. The newly introduced object is always a component part (meronym) of the original encompassing object (holonym).

3.19.1 Teil/weg-Objekttausch

[3.108] The unmarked teil/weg-objekttausch diathesis (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.8.8) is a chained diathesis. A new role is introduced, marked as accusative, and the erstwhile role marked as accusative is demoted to an obligatory aus or von prepositional phrase. These two remappings are tightly intertwined and have to occur together. Crucially, the new accusative role is a part of the old accusative role (hence Teil in the German name). Additionally, this construction is used to express that something is removed as a result of an action (hence weg in the German name). An example is shown in (3.78) with the verb waschen ‘to wash’. This verb can be used with an accusative argument describing the role of the washee, here Hose ‘trousers’ (3.78 a). Alternatively, a different role can be introduced as accusative, here Fleck ‘stain’ (3.78 b). This new accusative role is necessarily a component part of the former accusative. In this usage, a directional location aus meiner Hose ‘from my trousers’ is obligatory present in the sentence (3.78 c). This obligatory location represents the former accusative role, i.e. the washee. Semantically, the new object (Fleck) is a part that is removed from the encompassing old object (Hose).

(3.78) a. Ich wasche meine Hose.
b. Ich wasche den Fleck aus meiner Hose.
c. * Ich wasche den Fleck.

3.19.2 Teil/fest-Objekttausch

[3.109] The Teil/fest-Objekttausch exists in three closely related variants, (i) as an unmarked “covert” diathesis discussed in this section, (ii) with a preverb discussed in the next section, and (iii) with a resultative adjective discussed in the section after that. Syntactically, in all these diatheses the object is exchanged. Crucially, the old object can be retained as an in or an prepositional phrase. The new object is always a component part (meronym) of the old encompassing object (holonym), hence the German name Teil. Additionally, the new object is physically attached to the old object, hence the German name fest.

[3.110] The unmarked teil/fest-objekttausch (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.8.9) is exemplified with kleben ‘to glue’ (3.79). This verb shows a diathesis, but the direction of the alternation is not marked, viz. it is a “covert” diathesis. The verb takes either just an accusative object (here Vase ‘vase’) that is glued together, or an accusative object that is a component part (here Henkel ‘handle’), which is glued to the erstwhile accusative object (Vase). Thus, the new object after the diathesis Henkel is a meronym that is attached to the old holonymic object Vase. Completely independent from this diathesis, the verb kleben also allows for a covert anticausative (see Sec­tion 3.7.2).

(3.79) a. Ich klebe die zerbrochene Vase.
b. Ich klebe einen Henkel an die zerbrochene Vase.

3.19.3 Präverb Teil/fest-Objekttausch

[3.111] The präverb teil/fest-objekttausch (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.9.1) shows the same diathesis as the previous unmarked one, but now marked with a preverb ver-, be‑ or ein-. Without a preverb, the verb massieren ‘to massage’ (3.80 a) has an accusative object describing the massaged entity (here Muskel ‘muscle’). Different from the previous diathesis, the new object to be introduced by the diathesis (here Salbe ‘ointment’) can already be expressed here with an optional mit prepositional phrase. After the diathesis, the verb einmassieren ‘to massage in’ (3.80 b) has the objects exchanged, optionally retaining the old object as a in prepositional phrase (11.53 c). The preposition thus changes from mit to in/an, and this is exactly the reverse of the Präverb Ganz/voll-Objekttausch (see Sec­tion 3.20.3). After this diathesis has been applied, the new object Salbe is a meronym that has become a part of the old holonymic object Muskel.

(3.80) a. Ich massiere den Muskel (mit einer Salbe).
b. Ich massiere die Salbe in den Muskel ein.
c. Ich massiere die Salbe ein.

3.19.4 Resultativ Teil/fest-Objekttausch

[3.112] The resultativ teil/fest objekttausch (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.8.3) is a parallel diathesis to the previously discussed diatheses, but marked with the addition of a resultative preverbial fest-. For example, the accusative object Bluse ‘blouse’ of the verb nähen ‘to sew’ (3.81 a) is replaced with with another accusative object Knopf ‘button’ with the verb festnähen ‘to tie by sewing’ (3.81 b). The original object can be retained with an optional an prepositional phrase (3.81 c). Before the diathesis the accusative object describes a whole (Bluse ‘blouse’), while after the diathesis the accusatives expresses a component part (Knopf ‘button’) that is attached to the whole.

(3.81) a. Ich nähe eine Bluse.
b. Ich nähe den Knopf an der Bluse fest.
c. Ich nähe den Knopf fest.

3.20 Demoted object exchanges (pbj › obj › ø)

[3.113] A demoted object exchange is a chained diathesis in which an obligatory location phrase is promoted to object, while at the same time the existing object is demoted or even removed. The combination of these two changes is an overall demotion. For details on the definition see Sec­tion 2.7.5.1. The new object is always an encompassing entity (holonym) of which the old object is a component part (meronym).

3.20.1 Präverb Ganz/leer-Objekttausch

[3.114] The Ganz/leer-Objekttausch exists in two closely related variants, with a preverb (this section) or with a resultative preverbial (next section). Syntactically, in both variants the object is exchanged and, crucially, the original object cannot be retained after the diathesis. The prepositional phrase before the diathesis takes the prepositions aus or von. Semantically, the old object is a part of the new object and is removed from it. Both structurally and semantically this is the reverse of the Teil/weg-Objekttausch (Sec­tion 3.19.1).

[3.115] The präverb ganz/leer-objekttausch (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.7.12) is marked by various different preverbs (typically, but not exclusively, aus‑ or ab‑). For example, the verb klopfen ‘to pound’ (3.82 a) can take an accusative result, here Staub ‘dust’, and then the verb also needs an obligatory location from which the result originates, here von meinem Mantel ‘from my coat’ (3.82 b). With a preverb aus-, the verb ausklopfen ‘to pound thoroughly’ (3.82 c) completely drops the accusative Staub and the prepositional object Mantel is turned into a new accusative role. Semantically, the old accusative object Staub is a component part (meronym) of the new accusative Mantel (holonym). Additionally, the old accusative Staub is removed from the new accusative Mantel. The new accusative is thus a holonym (hence the word Ganz in the German name) that is emptied (hence the word leer in the German name).

(3.82) a. Ich klopfe den Staub von meinem Mantel.
b. * Ich klopfe den Staub.
c. Ich klopfe meinen Mantel aus.

3.20.2 Resultativ Ganz/leer-Objekttausch

[3.116] The resultativ ganz/leer-objekttausch (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.7.4) is basically the same diathesis as the previous one, but marked with a resultative preverbial leer‑ or frei‑ instead of with a preverb. For example, the verb pumpen ‘to pump’ can be turned into leerpumpen ‘to pump until empty’ (3.83). Just as above, the role marked as accusative (Wasser ‘water’) is completely removed and the obligatory location phrase is promoted to accusative (Keller ‘cellar’). Also identically to the previous diathesis, the new accusative object Keller is semantically a container from which the former accusative object Wasser is removed.

(3.83) a. Ich pumpe das Wasser aus dem Keller.
b. * Ich pumpe das Wasser.
c. Ich pumpe den Keller leer.

3.20.3 Präverb Ganz/voll-Objekttausch

[3.117] The Ganz/voll-Objekttausch exists in two closely related variants, with a preverb (this section) or with a resultative preverbial (next section). Syntactically, in both variants the object is exchanged. Different from the previous diatheses (see Sec­tion 3.20.1), the old object can be retained as an optional mit prepositional phrase. The prepositional phrase before the diathesis takes the prepositions in, an or auf. Semantically, the new object is a holonym (hence the word Ganz in the German name) that is filled with the meronymic old object (hence the word voll in the German name).

[3.118] The präverb ganz/voll-objekttausch (full discussion in Sec­tion 8.7.13) is marked by various different preverbs. Almost all preverbs occur, though be‑ and ver‑ are particularly frequent. For example, laden ‘to load’ (3.84 a,b) takes an accusative object that is loaded (here Gepäck ‘luggage’) and an obligatory location onto which it is loaded (here in den Wagen ‘into the car’). The diathesis to beladen ‘to load onto/into’ turns the locational object (Wagen) into a new accusative, while the old accusative (Gepäck) is turned into an optional mit prepositional phrase (10.125 c,d). Note that the prepositional change from in/an/auf/um to mit is the reverse of the Präverb Teil/fest-Objekttausch (see Sec­tion 3.19.3). Semantically, the new object (Wagen) is the holonym and it is filled with the old object (Gepäck).

(3.84) a. Ich lade das Gepäck in den Wagen.
b. * Ich lade das Gepäck.
c. Ich belade den Wagen mit dem Gepäck.
d. Ich belade den Wagen.

3.20.4 Resultativ Ganz/voll-Objekttausch

[3.119] The resultativ ganz/voll-objekttausch (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.7.5) is basically the same diathesis as the one in the previous section, but marked with a resultative preverbial voll‑ instead of a preverb. For example, the verb pumpen ‘to pump’ can be turned in vollpumpen ‘to pump until full’ (3.85) with the same object exchange. Starting from pumpen (3.85 a,b) with an accusative object (Luft ‘air’) and an obligatory prepositional location (Reifen ‘tire’), the diathesis to vollpumpen turns the prepositional phrase into an accusative and the accusative into an optional mit prepositional phrase (3.85 c,d). Again, the semantics are such that the new object Reifen is a container that is filled with the old object Luft.

(3.85) a. Ich pumpe Luft in den Reifen.
b. * Ich pumpe Luft.
c. Ich pumpe den Reifen mit Luft voll.
d. Ich pumpe den Reifen voll.

3.21 Other object exchanges (adj › obj › pbj)

3.21.1 Pertinenzakkusativ

[3.120] Completely different from the various kinds of Objekttausch discussed previously, the pertinenzakkusativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 6.8.14) is an accusative that alternates with a possessor of another accusative. A verb like bewundern ‘to admire’ marks the admired thing, e.g. Ehrlichkeit ‘honesty’ as an accusative (3.86 a). After the diathesis, the possessor of this accusative seine ‘his’ is raised to accusative ihn ‘him’ (3.86 b), at the same time demoting the admired thing to a governed prepositional object with für (3.86 c).

(3.86) a. Ich bewundere seine Ehrlichkeit.
b. Ich bewundere ihn für seine Ehrlichkeit.
c. Ich bewundere ihn dafür, dass er ehrlich ist.

4 Summary of major epitheses

4.1 Verbal categories reconsidered

[4.1] Browse any grammatical description of verbal categories in German and terms like Plusquamperfekt (4.1 a) or Futur II (4.1 b) will surely pass by. There is nothing wrong with those terms, but they just describe very specific combinations of verbal markers that are mostly transparently interpretable (e.g. Plusquamperfekt is just a perfect with a past-tense finite verb). In contrast, there are many verbal constructions that are only sparingly discussed in German grammars, if at all. The pflegen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv habitual (4.1 c) or the sein+In­fi­ni­tiv absentive (7.86 d) are probably the most well-known among those, but they are still not widely acknowledged in general grammars of German.

(4.1) a. Wer hatte dir die Adresse gegeben?
b. Dann wird man Ihnen die Adresse gegeben haben.
c. Sie pflegt sonntags auszuschlafen.
d. Ich bin einkaufen.

[4.2] As a case in point, the Duden grammar spends 20 pages on details of tense marking (2009: 496–516), while only a few other verbal constructions are discussed in just four pages (2009: 848–852) and some incidental references scattered throughout. This chapter can be read as an attempt at a complete survey of all those remaining German verbal categories, besides tense.

[4.3] This chapter arose as a byproduct of the main goal of this book, namely listing all German diatheses. To clearly delimit what counts as a diathesis, I also collected constructions that are structurally similar to diathesis, but that do not involve any role remapping. Such a structure is called an epithesis and the various instances are listed in-full in the respective .4 sections of the following data chapters. These epitheses express various notions in the grammatical domain commonly designated as tame, i.e. the marking of tense-aspect-mood-evidentiality. This chapter summarises and organises the major epitheses that I have been able to find. I will also propose Latinate-German names for all of these constructions. This results in an all-encompassing but rather unconventional perspective on the verbal categories of German.

[4.4] Quickly recapitulated, an epithesis is a monoclausal construction in which the lexical roles are not remapped in comparison to a basic clause (i.e. a clause with just a single finite lexical verb). For example, a basic clause with the finite verb erzählen ‘to tell’ (4.2 a) might have the roles of “teller” (Großvater, in the nominative), “tellee” (Enkelin, in the dative) and “story told” (Witz, in the accusative). A construction like pflegen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is an epithesis because when applied to erzählen all these roles remain encoded in exactly the same grammatical form (4.2 b). Additionally, this construction is monoclausal because the finite pflegte is placed at the end when the sentence is used as a subordinate clause (i.e. the clause is coherent, see Sec­tion 1.3.1).

(4.2) a. Der Großvater erzählt seiner Enkelin einen Witz.
b. Der Großvater pflegte seiner Enkelin einen Witz zu erzählen.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) der Großvater seiner Enkelin einen Witz zu erzählen pflegte.

[4.5] The constructions listed in this chapter are not haphazardly collected out of some infinite pool of possible analytical combinations of German verb forms. Quite to the contrary, the constructions listed here are claimed to be an exhaustive list of all epithetical German verb forms. Only a few rare and/or old-fashioned constructions are left out from this summary (but they can still be found in the following data chapters). The list of major epitheses in this chapter is quite long (about 40 constructions), but manageable. Any 1000-plus-page grammar could easily add a few pages listing them all (or at least the most commonly attested ones). This number of epitheses is also quite a bit less than the number of major diatheses presented in the previous chapter (about 80 constructions). This indicates that from a purely grammatical perspective, diathesis (“grammatical voice”) is about a two-times more elaborate topic than epithesis (“tense-aspect-mood marking”).

4.2 Classifying epitheses

[4.6] The epitheses listed in this chapter map out all grammaticalised verbal categories of the German language. However, it is crucial to realise that not every lexical verb can be combined with each of these constructions. Just as with diatheses, each epithesis has a limited domain of applicability, i.e. each epithesis has a specific set of verbs to which it can be applied (cf. Sec­tion 1.3.4). It is a very worthwhile future endeavour to specify these domains in more detail than I have been able to do here. Additionally, this restricted applicability means that one cannot simply take a random lexical verb and paradigmatically list all different epithetical forms for this verb, like traditional grammars like to do with tense forms. Quite to the contrary, it becomes a matter of lexicographic research to determine for each individual verb which epitheses are possible.

[4.7] Epitheses mostly express a rather clear semantic content, but they are not obligatorily used to express that content. For example, the pflegen+In­fi­ni­tiv epithesis, as mentioned above, expresses a habitual aspect. However, this construction is far from the only way to express a habitual aspect in German. Habitual aspect will typically be expressed by a verb in the present tense with an adverbial phrase expressing the habitual recurrence, like regelmäßig ‘regularly’ or a concrete timeframe with jeden, like jeden Morgen ‘every morning’. So, the characterisation of pflegen+In­fi­ni­tiv as a habitual verb form is actually only part of the story. What needs to be added in future research is a more detailed description of the kind of contexts in which this construction is actually used, in contrast to other options that are available to the speaker.

[4.8] This desideratum holds for all epitheses discussed here: it is necessary to specify what determines their usage. A famous case in point is the werden+In­fi­ni­tiv construction, which is called Futur in the German grammatical tradition (see Sec­tion 11.4.9). This construction can indeed express events in the future, so the name Futur is not necessarily wrong. However, future events are much more commonly expressed with a verb in the present tense with a future time adverbial. So, a more detailed characterisation of the werden+In­fi­ni­tiv is required to explain under what circumstances it is actually used. A description like “expectation/presumption” is probably less flawed than “future”.

[4.9] The epithetical constructions listed in this chapter are organised along the lines of the tame categorisation (tense-aspect-modality-evidentiality). This subdivision is not always clear-cut, it is more of a continuum. This means that the placement of a specific construction in one or the other group is more a matter of practical convenience than of strict definitional categorisation.

[4.10] tense will almost not be mentioned here, mainly because it does not play an important role in German epithesis. The discussion of aspect is separated into two kinds: temporal aspect (Sec­tion 4.3) and spatial aspect (Sec­tion 4.4). modality includes the well-described modal verbs, but also some other less-widely discussed modal constructions (Sec­tion 4.5). evidentiality deals with the marking of the evidence available to the speaker for the statement made in an utterance. This turns out to be a very useful category for the analysis of various German epithetical constructions (Sec­tion 4.6).

[4.11] Additionally, I have added a section with epithetical constructions that are functionally alike to a diathesis, but there is no formal remapping of roles. These constructions are on the boundary between epithesis and diathesis. Structurally they are clearly epithetic, because there is no role-remapping. Yet, these constructions express a change in the relation between the participants and the lexical verb, so functionally they belong in the realm of diathesis. For lack of a better term I will call such constructions diathetical epitheses (Sec­tion 4.7).

4.3 Temporal aspect

[4.12] The grammatical category of aspect is commonly defined as linguistic marking that specifies the “internal temporal constituency of a situation” (Comrie 1976: 3). In this sense, the title of this section, temporal aspect, might appear to be tautological. However, this designation is used here in opposition to a different set of constructions that specify the spatial constituency of a situation, spatial aspect, described in the next Sec­tion 4.4. Temporal aspect in German includes a surprisingly large number of continuative constructions, many of which express different facets of the continuation of a state.

4.3.1 Perfekt (haben/sein+Partizip)

[4.13] The perfekt (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.4.1 and subsequent sections) is the name from the German tradition for the haben/sein+Partizip construction (4.3). The light verbs haben and sein are used in almost complete complementary distribution with only few verbs that allow for both. The name Perfekt is developing into a misnomer because the haben/sein+Partizip construction is clearly not marking perfect aspect (see Sec­tion 10.2.6). It appears to be slowly taking over the function of past marking in contemporary German.

(4.3) a. Das Kind schläft.
Das Kind hat geschlafen.
b. Das Kind schläft ein.
Das Kind ist eingeschlafen.

[4.14] There are two diathetical constructions that are structurally similar to the Perfekt, namely the Zustandspassiv (marked with sein+Partizip, see Sec­tion 3.8.2) and the Pertinenzpassiv (marked with haben+Partizip, see Sec­tion 3.8.8). From an aspectual point of view, these passive constructions are perfects.

4.3.2 Inchoativ (los-)

[4.15] The inchoativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.4.1) consists of the preverbial adjective los- added as a separable verb particle with intransitive verbs, like losradeln ‘to start biking’ (4.4). This construction indicates that an activity starts. It is typically used with manner-of-movement verbs and manner-of-speaking verbs. However, it is in general applicable to all agentive intransitives. Originally, the adjective los means ‘loose’ in contemporary German. In that meaning it is used in the Resultativ Delokativ diathesis (see Sec­tion 3.18.2). In contrast, the preverbial inchoative use of los‑ is derived from an older usage meaning ‘free’.

(4.4) a. Er radelt täglich zur Schule.
b. Er radelt früh los.
Er ist früh losgeradelt.

4.3.3 Kontinuativ (weiter-)

[4.16] The kontinuativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.4.2) consists of the preverbial adjective weiter-, added as a separable verb particle with intransitive and transitive verbs, like weiterentwickeln ‘to develop further’ (4.5). This construction indicates that an activity is being continued. The stem weiter is originally the comparative form of the adjective weit ‘far’ and it has various adverbial uses in contemporary German, meaning for example ‘spatially further’ or ‘still’. However, these adverbial uses can syntactically be clearly separated from the preverbial continuative aspect marker presented here.

(4.5) a. Der Forscher entwickelt eine neue Technik.
b. Die Forscherin entwickelt die Technik weiter.
Sie hat die Technik weiterentwickelt.

4.3.4 Habituativ (pflegen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.17] The habituativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.1) is an aspectual category that expresses an activity that is performed regularly as a habit. Such an aspect is widespread among the world’s language and in German it can be expressed by using a light verb pflegen with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.6 a,b). The verb pflegen has a lexical meaning ‘to nurse, to maintain’, but in this construction this meaning has changed to a grammatical marker of aspect. This grammaticalisation has not only happened semantically, but also structurally. The pflegen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is clearly monoclausal, as can be seen by the final position of the finite verb when used as a subordinate clause (4.6 c). An archaic and nowadays mostly ironical alternative to pflegen is to use the light verb belieben (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.2).

(4.6) a. Sie lacht laut.
b. Sie pflegt laut zu lachen.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) sie laut zu lachen pflegte.

4.3.5 Progressiv (sein+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.18] The progressiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 13.4.1) consists of sein with the prepositional am‑In­fi­ni­tiv. In this construction the infinitive is clearly a nominalised form of the verb, so it is regularly (though not universally) written with a capital letter in German orthography (4.7). The sein+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv expresses a progressive aspect, though its usage is frowned upon in a formal written register and a simple Präsens is preferred, possibly using adverbs for disambiguation of the aspectual structure. In spoken language the sein+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv appears to be pervasive, though.

(4.7) a. Das Kind jammert.
b. Das Kind ist am Jammern.

4.3.6 Mutativprogressiv (sein+im‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.19] The mutativprogressiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 13.4.2) is a variant of the Progressiv (see Sec­tion 4.3.5), using the preposition im instead of am. The sein+im‑In­fi­ni­tiv is much less frequent than the am progressive. However, the available examples suggest a clear semantic characterisation. The im progressive is typically used with verbs that either describe an ongoing process of expansion (4.8 a) or an ongoing process of reduction (4.8 b).

(4.8) a. Die eigene Fahrerflotte entsteht.
Die eigene Fahrerflotte ist im Entstehen
b. Die Schwellung klingt ab.
Die Schwellung ist im Abklingen.

4.3.7 Kontinuativprogressiv (bleiben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.20] The kontinuativprogressiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 13.4.3) is the first of various continuative constructions that use the light verb bleiben. Parallel to the Progressiv with the light verb sein (see Sec­tion 4.3.5), the Kontinuativprogressiv (4.9) uses the light verb bleiben with the am‑In­fi­ni­tiv to express that an activity is ongoing (progressive) and remains ongoing (continuative).

(4.9) a. Er lebt.
b. Er bleibt am Leben.

4.3.8 Zustandskontinuativ (bleiben+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.21] The zustandskontinuativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.4.4) is constructed with bleiben and an infinitive. This construction and the next three construction all express different ways in which a state is continued. The current Zustandskontinuativ is frequently used with state verbs like stehen ‘to stand’, liegen ‘to lie’ or sitzen ‘to sit’ (9.42 a,b). These combinations are so prominent that their infinitives are usually written as single words in German orthography, i.e. stehenbleiben, liegenbleiben, sitzenbleiben. These constructions are often even listed as single verbs in German dictionaries. Yet, there is no grammatical reason to give these combinations a special status compared to other constructions of bleiben+In­fi­ni­tiv that are usually separated by a space, like for example wohnen bleiben ‘to remain living somewhere’(4.10 c).

(4.10) a. Er liegt im Bett.
b. Er bleibt im Bett liegen.
c. Er bleibt in München wohnen.

4.3.9 Perfektkontinuativ (bleiben+Partizip)

[4.22] The perfektkontinuativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.4.10) is constructed with bleiben and a participle. It expresses simultaneously that a process is finished (perfect) and that the resulting state continues (continuative). Only participles of intransitive verbs can be used in this construction. Additionally, applicable verbs need to have a sein perfect (see Sec­tion 4.3.1) and should describe a potentially reversible event, like verschwinden ‘to vanish’ (4.11). When used with transitive verbs this construction results in a passive diathesis, here called the Fortsetzungspassiv (see Sec­tion 3.8.3).

(4.11) a. Der Schlüssel verschwindet.
b. Der Schlüssel bleibt verschwunden.

4.3.10 Permissivkontinuativ (lassen+Partizip)

[4.23] The permissivkontinuativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.4.11) uses the light verb lassen with a participle (4.12). It expresses the permission of the nominative subject for the result of a transitive action to continue. The name establishes a connection to the Permissiv­kau­sativ diathesis (constructed as lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv, see Sec­tion 3.11.5), while highlighting the fact that semantically this construction is one the various continuative constructions.

(4.12) a. Ich schalte den Fernseher ein.
b. Ich lasse den Fernseher eingeschaltet.

4.3.11 Kausativkontinuativ (halten+Partizip)

[4.24] The kausativkontinuativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.4.12) uses the light verb halten with a participle (4.13). It expresses an explicit action by the nominative subject to keep a finished state in place. The same light verb halten is also used in the related Kontinuitäts­kausativ (constructed as halten+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv, see Sec­tion 3.11.7).

(4.13) a. Ich schließe die Tür.
b. Ich halte die Tür geschlossen.

4.4 Spatial aspect

[4.25] The grammatical marking of aspect is commonly defined as linguistic expressions that specify the “internal temporal constituency of a situation” (Comrie 1976: 3). In this sense, the term spatial aspect might seem contradictory. However, spatial aspect simply expresses a change in the spatial constituency of an event. In German, there are few “pure” examples of such spatial aspect, like the Absentiv. However, most categories described in this section actually combine spatial and temporal aspects. The light verb gehen and kommen are used here in a few different, but highly similar constructions.

4.4.1 Absentiv (sein+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.26] The absentiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.4.1) uses sein with an infinitive (4.14 b). This construction is a kind of progressiv with the additional twist that the nominative participant is absent because s/he is pursuing the activity as described by the verb. An absentive is commonly classified as a kind of aspect. However, different from most aspectual categories it is not the temporal structure of the event that is crucial here, but the spatial structure.

(4.14) a. Ich besuche meinen Freund.
b. Ich bin meinen Freund besuchen.

4.4.2 Abitiv (gehen/fahren+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.27] The abitiv (from Lat. abire ‘to depart’, full discussion in Sec­tion 11.4.2) consists of the light verbs gehen or fahren together with an infinitive (4.15). This construction express that the subject is leaving to pursue the activity as described by the verb. It is closely related to the Absentiv (see Sec­tion 4.4.1).

(4.15) a. Ich besuche meinen Freund.
b. Ich gehe/fahre meinen Freund besuchen.

4.4.3 Aditiv (kommen+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.28] The aditiv (from Lat. adire ‘to approach’, full discussion in Sec­tion 11.4.3) consists of the light verb kommen with an infinitive (4.16). It conveys that the subject is approaching to pursue an activity, i.e. the reversal of the Abitiv (see Sec­tion 4.4.2).

(4.16) a. Ich besuche meinen Freund.
b. Ich komme meinen Freund besuchen.

4.4.4 Absentivfrequentativ (sein+beim‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.29] The absentivfrequentativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 13.4.4) is a variant of the Absentiv (see Sec­tion 4.4.1). It also uses the verb sein, but now with a beim‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.17). It still expresses that the subject is not present (absentive), but there is a an extra semantic aspect added, namely that the activity if performed regularly or habitually (frequentative).

[4.30] Parallel to the previous Absentiv, Abitiv and Aditiv there also exist frequentative variants of all these three constructions using different prepositions in each, namely sein+beim, gehen/fahren+zum and kommen+vom (discussed subsequently).

(4.17) a. Ich arbeite.
b. Ich bin beim Arbeiten.

4.4.5 Abitivfrequentativ (gehen/fahren+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.31] The abitivfrequentativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 13.4.5) uses gehen/fahren, just like the Abitiv (see Sec­tion 4.4.2), but now with a zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.18). It expresses a movement away (abitive) to pursue an activity that is frequently or habitually performed (frequentative).

(4.18) a. Sie schwimmt.
b. Sie geht zum Schwimmen.

4.4.6 Aditivfrequentativ (kommen+vom‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.32] The aditivfrequentativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 13.4.6) uses kommen with a vom‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.19) to express the reversal of the Abitivfrequentativ (see Sec­tion 4.4.5). It conveys a movement approaching a point of reference (aditive) coming from an activity that is frequently or habitually performed (frequentative).

[4.33] Note that the preposition used with kommen is vom. There exists also a construction using kommen with zum, but that one has completely different semantics (see Sec­tion 4.4.8).

(4.19) a. Er ist einkaufen.
b. Er kommt vom Einkaufen.

4.4.7 Aditivprogressiv (kommen+(an‑)+Partizip)

[4.34] The aditivprogressiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.4.9) expresses both a temporal aspect (progressive) and a spatial aspect (aditive). It uses the light verb kommen with a participle (4.20 a) to convey that the subject is approaching while performing a specific kind of movement. A frequent variant uses a participle with the prefix an-, even when the finite verb with this prefix does not exist. For example, the verb anrennen does not exist, only the participle angerannt exist in the construction with the light verb kommen (4.20 b). Note that there does not exists any symmetrically opposing abitive construction with gehen.

(4.20) a. Die Kinder laufen herbei.
Die Kinder kommen herbeigelaufen.
b. Die Kinder rennen.
Die Kinder kommen angerannt.

4.4.8 Bewegungsende (kommen+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.35] The bewegungsende (full discussion in Sec­tion 13.4.7) again uses the light verb kommen to express a spatial aspect, this time with a zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.21). However, in contrast the previous uses of kommen, this construction does not express an approaching movement. The kommen+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv indicates that a movement has come to an end. There does not exists any symmetrically opposing construction with gehen.

(4.21) a. Das Auto steht vor der Ampel.
b. Das Auto kommt vor der Ampel zum Stehen.

4.5 Modality

[4.36] The grammatical marking of modality expresses a personal stance of the speaker towards the state-of-affairs. In grammars of European languages it is commonly discussed in the context of modal verbs, like können, müssen or dürfen. However, German has various other monoclausal structures to express modality. This includes some categories from the less-trodden paths of grammatical description like the (almost Caesarian) trinity of Kogativ ‘to intend’, Konativ ‘to try’ and Effektiv ‘to succeed’.

4.5.1 Modalverben

[4.37] The modalverben (full discussion in Sec­tion 11.4.7) are dürfen, können, mögen, müssen, sollen and wollen. These light verbs are combined with an infinitive (4.22 a). Functionally, the light verbs brauchen (4.22 b), see Sec­tion 11.4.8, and werden (10.137 c), see Sec­tion 11.4.9, should probably also be included in this group. Especially the status of werden+In­fi­ni­tiv is widely discussed in the German grammatical literature. It is traditionally analysed as a marker of future tense, but future reference in German is mostly expressed without it. A modal meaning of expectation and/or presumption seems to be a more suitable analysis.

(4.22) a. Ich baue ein Haus.
Ich will ein Haus bauen.
b. Du brauchst nicht kommen.
c. Ich werde ein Haus bauen.

4.5.2 Obligativ (haben/brauchen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.38] The obligativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.5) consist of the light verb haben with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (6.109 a). This construction is closely related to the English to have to construction, both in form and meaning. This epithesis expresses an obligation to perform an activity (i.e. similar to modal müssen). The German construction is clearly monoclausal, because the finite verb is positioned at the end of the clause in subordinate position (4.23 b).

(4.23) a. Die Schüler lösen die Aufgaben.
Die Schüler haben die Aufgaben zu lösen.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) die Schüler die Aufgaben zu lösen haben.

[4.39] A related construction uses the light verb brauchen ‘to need’ (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.6). When brauchen is used with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv a negative element (4.24 a) or a particle like nur or bloß (4.24 b) has to be present. This construction is monoclausal (4.24 c). Note that brauchen can also be used with a bare infinitive without zu without any obvious change in meaning (see Sec­tion 4.5.1). The meaning of this construction is similar to English need not. It expresses ‘not be obliged’, but often it is quite close to ‘should not’ or even ‘ought not’.

(4.24) a. Du brauchst nicht zu schreien.
b. Du brauchst nur zu rufen.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) du nur (zu) rufen brauchst.

4.5.3 Abilitiv (wissen/verstehen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.40] The abilitiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.3) uses the verb wissen with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.25 a) in a coherent monoclausal construction (4.25 b). The independent lexical verb wissen means ‘to know’, but in this construction it expresses the ability to perform an action (i.e. similar to modal können). Instead of wissen it is also possible to use the verb verstehen. Likewise, the verb verstehen has a lexical meaning, namely ‘to understand’, but in a construction with zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv it is grammaticalised to express ability. There is no obvious difference between wissen and verstehen when used in this construction. A more formal variant exists with the light verb vermögen (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.4).

(4.25) a. Der Lehrer begeistert die Schüler.
Der Lehrer weiß/versteht die Schüler zu begeistern.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) der Lehrer die Schüler zu begeistern weiß/versteht.

4.5.4 Kogitativ (denken+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.41] The kogitativ (from Lat. cogitare ‘to consider, to intend’, full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.9) uses the verb denken with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.26 a). In this old-fashioned or maybe just slightly poetic construction the verb denken has lost its lexical meaning ‘to think’. Instead, it expresses an intention to perform a certain action (i.e. similar to modal wollen). In this light-verb usage it is coherent (4.26 b). In its lexical meaning ‘to think’ it is not coherent (4.26 c). This construction is used infrequently.

(4.26) a. Ich überrasche ihn.
Ich denke ihn zu überraschen.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich ihn zu überraschen denke.
c. Er denkt mich überraschen zu können.
(Es ist bekannt, dass) er denkt, mich überraschen zu können.

4.5.5 Konativ (suchen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.42] The konativ (from Lat. conor ‘to try’, full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.8) is a category that expresses an attempt at an activity. In German it can be expressed with suchen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.27 a). In this construction, the meaning of suchen is similar to versuchen ‘to try’ and not to the lexical meaning of suchen ‘to search’. In the meaning of ‘to try’ the construction is coherent (4.27 b), while the semantically similar versuchen does not result in a coherent construction (4.27 c). This construction is used infrequently.

(4.27) a. Er hilft ihr.
Er suchte ihr zu helfen.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) er ihr zu helfen suchte.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) er versuchte, ihr zu helfen.

4.5.6 Effektiv (bekommen/kriegen+Partizip)

[4.43] The aspired outcome when intending something (Kogativ, see Sec­tion 4.5.4) or when trying something (Konativ, see Sec­tion 4.5.5) is to achieve something. This achievement can be expressed with the effektiv (from Lat. effectus ‘accomplishment’, full discussion in Sec­tion 10.4.13), consisting of the light verbs bekommen or kriegen with a participle (4.28 a). The same construction is also used for the Rezipientenpassiv (see Sec­tion 3.8.7). It is even possible to construct ambiguous sentences that can both have an Effektiv and a Rezipientenpassiv interpretation (4.28 b).

(4.28) a. Der Eigentümer vermietet die Wohnung nicht.
Der Eigentümer kriegt die Wohnung nicht vermietet.
b. Der Zahnarzt kriegt den Zahn gezogen.
(Effektiv = Der Zahnarzt schafft es, den Zahn zu ziehen.)
(Rezipientenpassiv = Dem Zahnarzt wird der Zahn gezogen.)

4.5.7 Fortunativ (haben+gut/leicht+In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.44] The fortunativ (from Lat. fortunatus ‘blessed, lucky’, full discussion in Sec­tion 11.4.5) consists of haben with an infinitive and an obligatory adverbial. It is only possible with intransitive verbs. The adverbial is almost always positiv, usually leicht ‘easy’ (4.29 a) or gut ‘well’ (4.29 b). This construction expresses that the subject is in a fortunate situation to perform the action described by the verb. This contrasts to the closely related constructions with sein (see Sec­tion 3.3.3) and lassen (see Sec­tion 3.3.4) that occur both with positiv and negativ evaluations.

(4.29) a. Er lacht.
Er hat gut lachen.
b. Er redet.
Er hat leicht reden.

4.6 Evidentiality

[4.45] The grammatical marking of evidentiality is a linguistic structure by which the speaker indicates the evidence for the stated utterance. It has been observed in languages all over the world. In German, grammaticalised evidentials exist in various variants. As for the German names for these categories, I propose to distinguish between Inferenz for inferential evidentials and Evidenz for direct evidentials.

4.6.1 Imperfektinferenz (scheinen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.46] The marking of imperfektinferenz (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.10) is expressed by the verb scheinen with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.30 a). This construction conveys an inferential evidential, in which the speaker expresses some confidence in the stated event based on a deduction from available information. There is also a closely related Perfektinferenz as discussed in the next Sec­tion 4.6.2. The main difference between the two is the perfectivity of the verb. By using the zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv the construction is marked as imperfect. The verb scheinen has various further uses, among them a lexical meaning expressing ‘to shine’. Crucially, in its evidential usage with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv this construction is coherently monoclausal (4.30 b).

(4.30) a. Der Plan scheitert.
Der Plan scheint zu scheitern.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) der Plan zu scheitern scheint.

4.6.2 Perfektinferenz (scheinen/erscheinen+Partizip)

[4.47] The marking of perfektinferenz (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.4.14) consists of the verbs scheinen or erscheinen with a participle of an intransitive verb (4.31 a). Typical agentive intransitive verbs like schlafen ‘to sleep’ do not allow for this construction (4.31 b). Similar to the previous Imperfektinferenz (see Sec­tion 4.6.1) it expresses an inferential evidential, in which the speaker indicates confidence in the state-of-affairs based on a deduction from available information. By using the participle the event is marked as perfective. When used with a transitive verb the (er)scheinen+Partizip construction leads to an anticausative diathesis called Inferenzantikausativ (see Sec­tion 3.7.5).

(4.31) a. Der Plan scheitert.
Der Plan scheint gescheitert.
b. * Das Kind scheint geschlafen.

4.6.3 Sinnesevidenz (aussehen/wirken+Partizip)

[4.48] sinnesevidenz (full discussion in Sec­tion 10.4.15) is marked by the verbs aussehen or wirken with a participle of an intransitive verb (4.32). Typical agentive intransitive verbs like schlafen ‘to sleep’ do not allow for this construction (4.32 b). This structure expresses that the speaker has first-hand knowledge based on sensory evidence that the state-of-affairs holds. When used with a transitive verb this construction results in an anticausative diathesis called Sinnesantikausativ (see Sec­tion 3.7.6).

(4.32) a. Er schläft aus.
Er wirkt ausgeschlafen.
b. * Er wirkt geschlafen.

4.6.4 Negative Bewertungsevidenz (drohen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.49] The marking of negative bewertungsevidenz (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.11) consists of the verb drohen with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.33 a). This construction conveys that the speaker of the utterance has direct evidence for the proposition, while implying a negative evaluation from the speaker’s point of view. When used as a speech-act verb drohen means ‘to threaten’ and can also be used with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv. However, only in its evidential usage will drohen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construct coherently (4.33 b). The meaning of ‘to threaten’ does not result in a coherent construction (4.33 c).

(4.33) a. Das Wetter droht schlecht zu werden.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) das Wetter schlecht zu werden droht.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) er droht, das Licht auszuschalten.

4.6.5 Positive Bewertungsevidenz (versprechen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.50] The marking of positive bewertungsevidenz (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.11) is composed of the verb versprechen with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.34 a). Similar to the previous construction with drohen, the verb versprechen with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv also expresses a direct evidential, though now with a positive evaluation. When used as a speech-act verb versprechen means ‘to promise’ and is commonly used with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv. However, only in its evidential usage will versprechen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construct coherently (4.34 b). The meaning of ‘to promise’ does not result in coherent constructions (4.34 c).

(4.34) a. Das Wetter verspricht gut zu werden.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) das Wetter gut zu werden verspricht.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) er verspricht, das Licht auszuschalten.

4.7 Diathetical epithesis

[4.51] By definition (see Sec­tion 1.2), diathesis has to include changes to the grammatical marking of the participants. The alternations described in this section do not show any change in the marking of the participants, so, again by definition, they are classified as examples of epithesis. However, functionally these constructions are close to diatheses in that the relation between the participants and the verb is changed in some way. For lack of a better term I call such a construction a diathetical epithesis.

4.7.1 Zustandskausativ (kommen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.52] Covert causatives exists in two variants. The first kind, the (verborgener) zustandskausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.12), uses the light verb kommen with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.35 a,b). This construction conveys that there is some unexpressed force or agent that has caused a state to be reached. It can only used with intransitive state verbs like stehen and is obligatorily coherent (4.35 c). This construction is no diathesis because the roles are not remapped.

(4.35) a. Sie stand neben mir.
b. Sie kam neben mir zu stehen.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) sie neben mir zu stehen kam.

4.7.2 Rezipientenkausativ (bekommen/kriegen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv)

[4.53] The (verborgener) rezipientenkausativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 12.4.13) consists of the light verbs bekommen or kriegen with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (4.36 a,b). Like with kommen (see Sec­tion 4.7.1), there is an unnamed force or agent that causes the situation to come about. The light verb bekommen/kriegen is typically combined with a transitive verb of sensation, like sehen ‘to see’, or consumption, like essen ‘to eat’. By using this covert causative construction, the nominative subject is semantically depicted as an experiencer of the verb. The centrality of the experiencer role is reminiscent of the Rezipientenpassiv (see Sec­tion 3.8.7). However, in this construction there is no role-remapping, so it is not a diathesis.

(4.36) a. Die Schüler sehen einen Film.
b. Die Schüler bekommen/kriegen einen Film zu sehen.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) die Schüler einen Film zu sehen bekommen/kriegen.

4.7.3 Selbstbezogenes Reflexiv

[4.54] The selbstbezogener reflexiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 7.4.5 and subsequent sections) is marked with a reflexive pronoun and can optionally be reinforced by adding selbst. This construction is traditionally simply called Reflexiv in German grammar (and beyond). However, reflexive pronouns have a bewildering number of different functions, including many diatheses, so a more precise naming is necessary (see Chapter 7 for an extensive discussion). Crucially, the marking of roles do not change in a Selbstbezogener Reflexiv, so there is no diathesis.

[4.55] The Selbstbezogener Reflexiv can be identified by the following characteristics:

  1. There is a reflexive pronoun that can be negated and stressed.
  2. The pronoun selbst can optionally be added.
  3. The roles of the verb do not change, i.e. (4.37 b) still contains the roles of “washer” and “washee”.
  4. The reflexive pronoun references an object role (here “washee”).
  5. The participant who takes the role of subject (here “washer”) is identical to the participant that is encoded by the reflexive pronoun.
(4.37) a. Der Vater wäscht das Kind.
b. Der Vater wäscht sich (selbst).

4.7.4 Reziprok

[4.56] The reziprok (full discussion in Sec­tion 7.4.14 and subsequent sections) often looks similar to the Selbstbezogener Reflexiv. However, there are various characteristics that clearly distinguish the two. The Reziprok can be identified by the following characteristics:

  1. There is a reflexive pronoun or einander in the sentence.
  2. When there is a reflexive pronoun, then gegenseitig can be added optionally. In contrast, selbst is not possible.
  3. The roles of the verb do not change, i.e. (4.38 b) still contains the roles of “crosser” and “crossee”.
  4. The subject is obligatorily plural, as it references the participants of both roles simultaneously.
  5. The reflexive pronoun/einander marks that both participants take both roles simultaneously.
(4.38) a. Die Straßen kreuzen den Fluss.
b. Die Straßen kreuzen sich (gegenseitig).

4.7.5 Freies Reflexiv

[4.57] The freier reflexiv (full discussion in Sec­tion 7.4.1 and subsequent sections) is a somewhat mysterious alternation in German in which a reflexive pronoun can be added without any obvious change in meaning. For example, the verb ansehen ‘to look at’ can be used both with reflexive pronoun (4.39 a) and without reflexive pronoun (4.39 b). The difference between these expressions needs more investigation, but intuitively there appears to be a slight difference in the affectedness of the subject-participant.

(4.39) a. Ich habe mir das Haus angesehen.
b. Ich habe das Haus angesehen.

4.7.6 Reflexiv Resultativ

[4.58] The reflexiv resultativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.4.3) is an alternation that can be used with a subset of all intransitive verbs, for example with schlafen ‘to sleep’ (4.40 a). By adding a reflexive pronoun and a resultative preverbial, like gesund‑ ‘healthy’ (4.40 b), the sentence conveys that the subject participant achieves a state (expressed by the preverbial) by performing an action (expressed by the verb). In other words, (4.40 b) means approximately ‘by sleeping I will become healthy’. The combination of gesund‑ with the verb schlafen arguably is a new separable verb gesundschlafen (4.40 c), syntactically similar to a Partikelverb like einschlafen.

(4.40) a. Ich schlafe.
b. Ich schlafe mich gesund.
(= Durch zu schlafen werde ich gesund.)
c. Ich werde mich gesundschlafen.

4.7.7 Transitiv Resultativ

[4.59] The transitiv resultativ (full discussion in Sec­tion 9.4.5) is the transitive counterpart to the previous Reflexiv Resultativ (see Sec­tion 4.7.6). The only difference is that no reflexive pronoun is necessary with transitive verbs. For example, the verb pflegen ‘to nurse’ (4.41 a) can be combined with a resultative gesund‑ ‘healthy’ (4.41 b) to form a new separable verb gesundpflegen ‘to heal by nursing’ (4.41 c). The preverbial gesund‑ has a resultative meaning, expressing the effect of the action (pflegen ‘to nurse’) on the accusative object (Mutter ‘mother’), i.e. ‘by nursing my mother will be healed’.

(4.41) a. Ich pflege meine Mutter.
b. Ich pflege meine Mutter gesund.
(= Durch meine Pflege wird meine Mutter gesund.)
c. Ich werde meine Mutter gesundpflegen.

4.8 Summary of recurrent light verbs

[4.60] The light verbs listed in Table 4.1 occur in more than one derived clause construction. Shown in the table is whether these constructions induce epithesis (E) or diathesis (D). The ordering of the rows and columns in the table reflects an approximate top-left to bottom-right cline of the frequency of diathesis. More research is needed to establish whether there is any deeper insights to be gained from this distribution.

Table 4.1: Summary of light verbs that occur in more than one derived clause construction (D = diathesis, E = epithesis)
Partizip zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv In­fi­ni­tiv Präpositions­infinitiv
haben D+E E D+E D
sein D+E D E D+E
bleiben D+E D E E
gehen D D E E
geben D D - -
sehen D D
werden D E
scheinen D+E E -
bekommen D+E E -
wissen D E -
halten E - - D
lassen E E D -
kommen E E E E

5 Case-marking alternations

5.1 Introduction

[5.1] Diathesis typically involves variation in the marking of case as governed by the verb, including alternations between case marked arguments and adpositional phrases. The notion of “flagging” was (re)introduced in Haspelmath (2005: 2) as a cover term to capture the intuition that case marking and adpositional marking express very similar functions in linguistic marking. The first two data chapters in this book discuss exactly those kind of marking, viz. case and adpositional marking as governed by a verb. This chapter discusses diatheses involving case-marked constituents, and the next chapter focusses on prepositional constituents.

[5.2] All diatheses in this chapter are covert diatheses. Covert case-marking diatheses are characterised by (a) one and the same verb that can be used with different case-marked roles and, crucially, (b) the fact that there is no additional overt morphosyntactic marking of the alternating constructions. Such alternations include, for example, possessor raising like (5.1 a) or anticausative alternations like (5.1 b).

(5.1) a. Ich schneide seine Haare.
Ich schneide ihm die Haare.
b. Die Sonne verbrennt den Rasen.
Der Rasen verbrennt.

[5.3] The crucial (and somewhat problematic) aspect of such alternations is that there is no formal indication of the presence of a diathesis, except for the marking of the arguments themselves. Prototypical examples of diathesis (as defined in Sec­tion 1.2) include some overt linguistic marking that indicates that a diathesis has taken place (i.e. some affix, particle, light verb, or other morphosyntactic means). And indeed, all diatheses that will be discussed in Chapters 7-13 will be of that kind. In contrast, the diatheses discussed in this chapter and the next Chapter 6 are “covert” alternations, or “zero marked” alternations, in that there is no other indication of a diathesis, except for the marking of the arguments themselves (Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019 introduce the term “covert” diathesis for this). The problem with such covert diatheses is that there is no overt directionality in the alternation – there is no way to distinguish between a base form and a derived form. Both alternants have an equal status as far as the morphosyntax is concerned. Still, I have attempted to infer a direction based on parallels to other diatheses.

[5.4] The unmarked nature of covert diatheses implies that there is some slight redundancy and fuzziness in presentation. This redundancy arises because, for example, when a verb occurs in four different constructions, then there are logically six different alternations. I have nonetheless decided to approach the descriptive organisation in this chapter from the perspective of such pairwise alternations, because (i) it highlights the possible connections attested between constructions, and (ii) very many verbs only occur in just one or two alternations anyway (with only a smaller subset of verbs appearing across many different constructions).

[5.5] There are seven diatheses that seem prominent enough to be given a German name. I propose the following names for these:

5.2 Delimiting case-marked arguments

5.2.1 Identifying case marking

[5.6] The German case marking system is rather straightforward. Noun phrases in German occur in one of four case forms. There are various syncretisms in the case paradigm, which conceal the identity of the case in many sentences. For this reason, I will attempt to use first/second person singular pronouns or masculine singular nouns in constructed examples. These forms can easily be unambiguously identified, as shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: German marking of case
Case 1st 2nd 3rd Masc. Masc. noun
Nominative ich du er der Tisch
Genitive meiner deiner seiner des Tisches
Dative mir dir ihm dem Tisch
Accusative mich dich ihn den Tisch

[5.7] Basically, almost all case-marked constituents are governed arguments. Yet, there are a few situations (to be discussed in detail below) in which overtly case-marked constituents are not arguments (or, alternatively, a very special type of arguments): quantified objects (5.2 a), named objects (5.2 b), cognate objects (5.2 c), lexicalised noun-verb combinations (5.2 d) and adnominal constituents (5.2 e).

(5.2) a. Er schläft [den ganzen Tag].
b. Er nennt mich [einen Egoisten].
c. Er hat [einen gesunden Schlaf] geschlafen.
d. Er stirbt [einen qualvollen Tod].
e. Ich beschuldige den Verdächtigten [des Diebstahls] von weiteren Gegenständen.

5.2.2 Quantified object

[5.8] A special kind of constituent is a quantified object (cf. “Mensuralergänzung”, Eroms 2000: 203–204), exemplified in (5.3 a-e). Quantified objects are overtly mark­ed accusative objects that often contain numerals, like in (5.3 d) or (5.3 e), in which einen is not an article, but the numeral one. Except for numerals, the quantification can also be instantiated by adjectives, e.g. ganzen ‘complete’ in (5.3 a), indefinites, e.g. jeden ‘each’ in (5.3 b), or measure phrases, e.g. zu laut ‘too noisy’ in (5.3 c).

(5.3) a. Er schläft den ganzen Tag. (wie lange? ‘how long’)
b. Er fällt jeden Tag. (wann? ‘when’)
c. Er hustet einen Tick zu laut. (wie? ‘how’)
d. Er ist drei mal gefallen. (wie oft? ‘how often’)
e. Er steigt einen Stock höher. (wo? ‘where’)

[5.9] These quantified constituents are not governed arguments. First, they can easily be left out (all verbs in the examples are typical intransitive verbs). Second, and more importantly, they cannot be replaced by a pronoun nor be questioned by a question pronoun (viz. wen/was). Instead, they are questioned by adverbial interrogative words as listed at the examples above, indicating that the quantified constituents are adverbial phrases, not arguments. Still, there are a few verbs that obligatorily require such a quantified object, like kosten ‘to cost’ or dauern ‘to last’. With those verbs, quantified constituents can be considered to be arguments. These verbs will be discussed in Sec­tion 5.3.4.

5.2.3 Named objects

[5.10] A special group of verbs can be used to performatively name persons or things. When realised with proper names, such arguments are arguably without case in standard German (10.90 a), but with regular nouns these phrases are clearly accusatives (5.4 b). The result of such accusatively marked names are constructions with two accusative arguments. These arguments are normally questioned by the manner interrogative wie ‘how’, though in some situations was ‘what’ seems possible (5.4 c). The small group of verbs like nennen ‘to name’ that obligatorily takes such arguments will be discussed in Sec­tion 5.3.10.

(5.4) a. Ich nenne dich [Lukas].
b. Ich nenne dich [einen Egoisten].
c. Was nennst du [dein Eigen]?

5.2.4 Cognate objects

[5.11] There is a special construction available for many verbs to add an object that is a nominalisation of the verb itself, exemplified here in (5.5 a,b).

(5.5) a. Er hat einen gesunden Schlaf geschlafen.
b. Er hat viele Träume geträumt.

[5.12] This construction is known as a cognate object construction (e.g. Levin 1993: 95–96), because the object is etymologically related to the verb. In many cases, this cognate object is simply a zero nominalisation (conversion) of the verb stem (e.g. schlafen – der Schlaf, ‘to sleep – the sleep’), but in some cases different nominalisations like the infinitive are used (e.g. lächeln – das Lächeln, ‘to smile – the smile’).

[5.13] Examples like (5.5 a,b) seem to suggest that intransitive verbs like schlafen ‘to sleep’ and träumen ‘to dream’ allow for accusative arguments. However, besides these cognate objects there are no other accusative arguments allowed with these verbs. Further, such cognate objects seem to be theoretically possible for all verbs, though often quite some imagination is needed to find a suitable context to use verb and nominalised verb together. Because of their special status, such cognate object nominalisations are not counted as regular arguments here.

5.2.5 Lexicalised noun-verb combinations

[5.14] There is a common pattern in German in which nouns are combined with a verb, like eislaufen ‘ice skating’. Such constructions are highly reminiscent of the typologically widespread process of noun incorporation. However, in German such noun incorporation only occurs with individual lexeme combinations, so they are probably better interpreted as grammaticalised noun-verb collocations (Eisenberg 2006b: 339ff.; Gallmann 1999). For a survey of different kinds of noun incorporation see Berik & Gehrke (2015). Using their terminology, the German constructions might be analysed as “pseudo” incorporation.

[5.15] Most such combinations are written as separate words in German orthography, e.g. Wache stehen ‘stand guard’, so they might look like nominal arguments. However, they normally do not allow for any determiners or modifiers (5.6 a). Only very few fixed combinations allow for an adjective (5.6 b) and/or a determiner (5.6 c).

(5.6) a. Er hat (*das) Blut gehustet.
b. Er hat bittere Tränen geweint.
c. Er stirbt einen qualvollen Tod.

[5.16] The typical examples like Blut ‘blood’ in (5.6 a) do not show much indication of case-marking. It is clearly not a genitive (because then it should be Blutes), but nominative, dative or accusative are all possible. The few examples with determiners and/or adjectives seem to indicate that these constituents are accusatives. However, even in undoubtedle accusative examples like (5.6 c) the accusative is not an argument, because it is strange (if not completely ungrammatical) to pronominalise (5.7 a) or question (5.7 b) this accusative. Also, the accusative seems unusable as an answer to a manner question (5.7 c). Just like cognate objects, such nouns in lexicalised noun-verb combinations are not counted as arguments here.

(5.7) a. * Er stirbt es.
b. * Was ist er gestorben?
c. Wie ist er gestorben? ? Einen qualvollen Tod.

5.2.6 Adnominal case-marked constituents

[5.17] Semantically, adnominal constituents can easily be identified as modifiers inside a noun phrase. However, there is no formal difference between adnominal and sentential case-marked constituents, leading possibly to ambiguous sentences like (5.8 a). In this sentence, both the accusative constituent for the accusee den Verdächtigen and the genitive constituent for the accusation des Diebstahls can be read as arguments being governed by the verb beschuldigen ‘to accuse’ (5.8 b). Alternatively, these two constituents can be interpreted as a single complex noun phrase, as can be seen by the possibility to add a further constituent describing a different accusation (5.8 c). Such adnominal constituents are (obviously) not counted as arguments of the main predicate.

(5.8) a. Ich beschuldige den Verdächtigten des Diebstahls.
b. Ich beschuldige [den Verdächtigten] vor Gericht [des Diebstahls].
c. Ich beschuldige [den Verdächtigten des Diebstahls] auch des Mordes.

5.3 Deponent verbs

[5.18] Before delving into the actual alternations, I will first present an inventory of verbs that do not show alternation as far as flagging is concerned. These verbs can, and many will, occur in other diatheses as discussed in subsequent chapters, but for the alternations discussed in this chapter (on case-marked arguments) and the next chapter (on prepositional arguments) these verbs are invariable. The most interesting insight from building this collection is that it is not easy at all to find verbs that do not allow for at least some kind of flagging variation.

5.3.1 [ – ] No arguments

[5.19] Some verbs do not need any argument at all, not even a nominative subject. These include the well-known weather verbs like schneien ‘to snow’ (5.9 a). However, most weather verb actually allow for some nominative subjects as well (5.9 b), see Sec­tion 5.6.1, or accusative arguments (5.9 c), see Sec­tion 5.8.2. There do not seem to be any verbs that only allow for constructions without any arguments.

(5.9) a. Heute schneit es.
b. Die Granaten regneten auf uns.
c. Gestern hat es riesengroße Körner gehagelt.

5.3.2 [ N ] Nominative

[5.20] Some verbs only allow a nominative argument, which necessarily also shows agreement with the finite verb. Such verbs are traditionally called “intransitive”. The verbs discussed in this section are strictly intransitive, in that they do not allow for any other case marked arguments or governed prepositions (see Sec­tion 6.2). Intransitive verbs, of course, allow for additional non-governed prepositional phrases, e.g. locational (5.10 a) or temporal (5.10 b), instrumental/comitative with mit (5.10 c,d), or beneficiary/goal with für (10.12 e,f).

(5.10) a. Er reist immer in die Berge.
b. Er reist immer am Wochenende.
c. Er reist immer mit dem Bus.
d. Er reist immer mit seinem Freund.
e. Er reist immer für seinen Chef.
f. Er reist immer für seine Arbeit.

[5.21] An attempt has been made below to classify the strictly intransitive verbs into broad semantic categories. However, these categories are in no way intended to define the kind of verbs allowed in this class. Yet, the semantic classes give a good indication of the kind of verbs that tend to be strictly intransitive. Note that this list is in no way intended to be exhaustive, but only illustrative.

Attested verbs

Notes

[5.22] Some of the verbs of housing allow for accusative arguments in non-housing related meanings, like ausziehen ‘to undress’ (5.11 a), einziehen ‘to build’ (5.11 b), aufziehen ‘to build’ (5.11 c) or wegziehen ‘to pull away’ (5.11 d).

(5.11) a. Ich ziehe meine Hose aus.
b. Ich ziehe eine Wand ein.
c. Ich ziehe die Mauer auf.
d. Ich ziehe die Karre weg.

5.3.3 [ NA ] Nominative+accusative

[5.23] The verbs in this class are strict transitives: they need a nominative subject argument and an additional accusative argument. Further arguments are not allowed, and no governed prepositions are allowed either. It turns out that this group is not very large, because very many verbs allow for dative arguments (traditionally called “free” datives) or alternations with governed prepositions. For example, an apparently typical transitive verb like bauen ‘to build’ allows for a dative to mark the beneficiary of the building, as in Ich baue dir ein Haus ‘I will build a house for you’ (see Sec­tion 6.8.10). Conversely, there are also many apparently typical transitive verbs that can just as well be used without accusative object, including well-known ambitransitive verbs like essen ‘to eat’ (see Sec­tion 5.7.1). All such verbs are discussed in their respective sections. Still, even with all those verbs removed, the current set of “pure” transitive verbs can easily be extended and the list given below is not at all intended to be complete.

[5.24] The number of monomorphemic “strictly” transitive verbs seems to be very limited. Preverbs (see Chapter 8) regularly induce an applicative alternation and subsequently often lexicalise, leading to transitive verbs (5.12 a,b).

(5.12) a. Ich schreite über den Teppich.
b. Ich schreite den Teppich ab.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.3.4 [ NA ] Nominative+quantified object

[5.25] A special kind of arguments are quantified objects (cf. “Mensuralergänzung”, Eroms 2000: 203–204), exemplified in (5.13 a-e). Quantified objects are overtly mark­ed accusative objects that often contain numerals (like in (5.13 d) or (5.13 e), in which einen is not an article, but the numeral one). Except for numerals, the quantification can also be instantiated by adjectives (like ganzen in (5.13 a)), indefinites (like jeden in (5.13 b)) or measure phrases (like zu laut in (10.108 c)).

(5.13) a. Er schläft den ganzen Tag. (wie lange? ‘how long’)
b. Er fällt jeden Tag. (wann? ‘when’)
c. Er hustet einen Tick zu laut. (wie? ‘how’)
d. Er ist drei mal gefallen. (wie oft? ‘how often’)
e. Er steigt einen Stock höher. (wo? ‘where’)

[5.26] These quantified constituents are mostly not arguments. First, they can easily be left out (all verbs in the examples above are typical intransitive verbs). Second, and more importantly, they cannot be replaced by a pronoun, nor be questioned by a question pronoun (viz. wen/was). Instead, they are questioned by adverbial interrogative words as listed at the examples above, indicating that the quantified constituents are adverbial phrases, not governed arguments.

[5.27] Yet, there is a special class of verbs that appear to obligatorily need such a quantified object, like kosten ‘to cost’ (5.14 a), called measure stative dimensional verbs in Gamerschlag (2014: 318). These objects are interrogated by wie viel? ‘how much’ (though interrogation with was ‘what’ seems also possible with some of them). Though debatable, I tend to classify these accusative constituents as arguments. Whatever the interpretation, whether they are arguments or not, there is something special with these verbs.

[5.28] A further argument to consider these accusative constituents as something special is that these verbs cannot be passivised, just like typical intransitive verbs (5.14 a). Even with non-quantified objects, these verbs still prohibit passivisation (5.14 b).

(5.14) a. Die Aussage kostet sie den Wahlsieg.
b. Ich bin der Herausforderung gewachsen.

[5.29] An exception to this rule blocking passivisation for quantified objects are the verbs verdienen ‘to earn’ and zahlen ‘to pay’. They can be used with quantified objects (5.15 b) and with non-quantified objects (5.15 a), similarly to kosten above. However, with these verbs passivisation is possible (5.15 c,d), so these verbs are considered to be taking regular accusative objects.

(5.15) a. Er verdient 50 Euro. Er verdient den Nobelpreis.
b. Er zahlt (mir) 50 Euro. Er zahlt (mir) die Miete.
c. Praktisch der gesamte Umsatz wird mit Werbung verdient.
d. Die Miete wird monatlich gezahlt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.3.5 [ ND ] Nominative+dative

[5.30] The verbs in this class need both a nominative subject and a dative argument, like trauen ‘to trust’ (5.16 a). Both arguments are obligatory and cannot be dropped (except in extremely marked meta-linguistic contexts) and no other case-marked arguments or governed prepositions are possible. A noteworthy subset of such nominative+dative verbs are verbs like unterlaufen ‘to occur’ (5.16 b), for which human participants can only occur in the dative. Yet, there does not appear to be any structural difference between verbs with (typically) human participants in the nominative, like trauen, and verbs with (typically) human participants in the dative, like unterlaufen.

(5.16) a. Ich traue der Sache nicht.
b. Mir unterläuft ein Fehler.

[5.31] There are more nominative+dative verbs in which the dative is not obligatory. Those verbs will be discussed in subsequent sections. Some of these verbs allow for the dative to be completely dropped (see Sec­tion 5.7.4) and a few allow for the dative to be replaced by a prepositional phrase (see Sec­tion 6.7.10) or by a possessor (see Sec­tion 5.8.3).

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[5.32] The following verbs also exist as intransitive “only nominative” verbs (see Sec­tion 5.3.2), but in a clearly different lexical meanings.

(5.17) a. Mir bleibt nur harte Arbeit. Ich bleibe noch eben.
b. Mir gehört die Schreibmaschine. Die Schreibmaschine gehört auf den Tisch.
c. Mir liegt diese Sportart. Ich liege am Boden.
d. Mir steht der Mantel. Ich stehe um die Ecke.
e. Der Journalist verfiel dem Alkohol. Das Haus verfiel.

5.3.6 [ NG ] Nominative+genitive

[5.33] There are a few verbs in German that have a genitive argument. These verbs are slowly disappearing from the German language, and many of the verbs that are still around are considered old-fashioned. They are listed for comprehensiveness only, as they do not play an important role in the current German language anymore. The verbs listed here need a genitive argument and there seems to be no possibility for alternations with other case or adpositional marking.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.3.7 [ NAD ] Nominative+accusative+dative

[5.34] This class consists of the classical ditransitive verbs with an obligatory nominative, accusative and dative arguments. It turns out to be extremely hard to find good examples of verbs that always, or at least in the large majority of their uses, overtly show all three arguments. Most apparently ditransitive verbs, like geben ‘to give’, easily allow for the dative to be dropped or replaced by a prepositional phrase (for the verb geben, see De Vaere, De Cuypere & Willems 2018 for an in-depth study). The few remaining obligatorily ditransitive verbs seem to be semantically more specialised verbs, in which a very specific meaning is forcing the overt marking of all three roles, in contrast to the more broader semantic range of a verb like geben.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.3.8 [ NAG ] Nominative+accusative+genitive

[5.35] There are also verbs that allow nominative, accusative and genitive, but those verbs often have a possible alternation dropping the genitive (see Sec­tion 5.7.8). In a few cases, the genitive argument seems to be in a process of replacement by an accusative (see Sec­tions 5.9.5-5.9.6). I have only found a single verb that obligatorily requires case-marked nominative, accusative and genitive arguments, viz. bezichtigen ‘to accuse’ (5.18).

(5.18) a. Ich bezichtige dich des Diebstahls.
b. * Ich bezichtige dich.
c. * Ich bezichtige des Diebstahls.

Attested verbs

5.3.9 [ NAA ] Nominative+accusative+accusative

[5.36] There are a few verbs that allow for two accusative objects, like with lehren (5.19 a) or abfragen (5.19 b). However, all of these verbs also allow for other constructions, either dropping one of the accusative arguments (see Sec­tion 5.7.2) or allowing an alternation between an accusative and a dative (see Sec­tion 5.9.4). There do not seem to be any verbs that obligatorily need two accusative objects.

(5.19) a. Er lehrt mich den Trick.
b. Er fragt mich den Stoff ab.

[5.37] Double accusatives further appear with quantified objects (5.20 a), see Sec­tion 5.3.4, and with named objects (5.20 b), see Sec­tion 5.3.10. Also these verbs regularly allow for one of the accusatives to be dropped (5.20 c,d).

(5.20) a. Das Buch kostet mich keinen Pfennig.
b. Ich nenne dich einen Egoisten.
c. Das Buch kostet viel.
d. Er nennt den Namen des Kindes.

[5.38] In summary, there are only few verbs in German with double accusatives. In general, there seems to be a strong generalisation that the German language disprefers verbs that govern multiple noun phrases in the same case. However, there are a few diatheses that result in multiple accusatives in the same clause (see Sec­tion 11.2.3).

5.3.10 [ NAA ] Nominative+accusative+named object

[5.39] A special group of verbs can be used to performatively name persons or things. As proper names, such arguments are arguably without case in standard German (5.21 a), but with regular nouns these phrases are clearly accusatives (5.21 b). The effect are constructions with two accusative arguments. These arguments are normally questioned by the manner interrogative wie ‘how’, though in some situations was ‘what’ seems possible (5.21 c).

(5.21) a. Ich nenne dich [Lukas].
b. Ich nenne dich [einen Egoisten].
c. Was nennst du [dein Eigen]?

[5.40] The name in such naming constructions cannot be passivised (5.22 a,b), which also indicates that these accusative arguments have a special status in the grammar of the German language.

(5.22) a. Du wirst einen Egoisten genannt.
b. * Ein Egoist wird dich genannt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.4 Alternations without diathesis

[5.41] This section is empty. It is only added here for the numbering to be parallel across chapters. By definition, alternations without diathesis do not exist for covert alternations as discussed in this chapter.

5.5 Diatheses with subject demotion

5.5.1 sbj › ø : [ N | – ] Nominative drop

[5.42] In German it is typically not possible to have a sentence in which the nominative subject is dropped. For the few verbs that allow the nominative subject to be absent, a valency-simulating pronoun es has to be inserted (see Sec­tion 2.2.3 for more details on this pronoun). For example, with some intransitive dispersion verbs like stinken ‘to stink’ (5.23 a) it is possible to leave out the origin of the dispersion (5.23 b) to indicate the effect without knowledge of the cause. In German I propose to use the term auslöserentfall for this diathesis.

(5.23) a. Der Müll stinkt.
b. Hier stinkt es aber.

[5.43] For weather verbs like wehen ‘to be windy’ (5.24) it is arguably not a nominative that is dropped, but a nominative that is optionally added. I will discuss such additions separately (see Sec­tion 5.6.1). However, there does not appear to be a clear overt grammatical distinction between a verb like stinken that allows for an optional nominative drop and a verb like wehen an optional nominative addition.

(5.24) a. Es weht.
b. Der Wind weht.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.5.2 sbj › ø : [ NA | –A ] Nominative drop+accusative

[5.44] A few additinoal apparently dropped nominatives are discussed here for completeness’ sake. They appear to be highly idiosyncratic. Both examples allow for the nominative to be dropped, but an accusative argument is obligatorily present and cannot be dropped. The first example is the drop of the nominative with the verb geben when used in the meaning of ‘to produce’ (5.25). Note that there is close connection to another diathesis with a light verb geben ‘to give’ (see Sec­tion 12.5.4). The second example of a nominative drop with a retained object is with the verb brauchen ‘to need’ (5.26).

(5.25) a. Die Trauben geben dieses Jahr einen guten Wein.
b. Dieses Jahr gibt es einen guten Wein.
(5.26) a. Ich brauche euch alle.
b. Es braucht euch alle im Kampf gegen die Diktatur.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.5.3 sbj › ø : [ ND | –D ] Nominative drop+dative

[5.45] In a few exceptional examples a verb with a nominative and a dative allows for the nominative to be dropped and replaced by a valency-simulating pronoun es, like with gefallen ‘to appeal’ (5.27 a,b).

(5.27) a. Das Buch gefällt mir.
b. Hier gefällt es mir gar nicht.

[5.46] In contrast, in most sentences with a pronoun es and a dative the pronoun es is either phoric (5.29 a) or position-simulating (5.29 b), both of which do not count as the drop of an argument (cf. Sec­tion 2.2.3).

(5.28) a. Es galt mir.
b. Es ist mir ein Unfall widerfahren.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.5.4 sbj › ø : [ NG | –G ] Nominative drop+genitive

[5.47] A few verbs with nominative and genitive arguments allow the nominative to be dropped, but the genitive to be retained, like with bedürfen ‘to require’ (5.29) and entbehren ‘to do without’ (5.30).

(5.29) a. Der Kranke bedarf der Ruhe.
b. Hier bedarf es körperlicher Kraft.
(5.30) a. Der Vorwurf entbehrt jeglichen Beweises.
b. Insofern entbehrt es jeglichen Beweises.

Attested verbs

5.5.5 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] haben anticausative

[5.48] A typical anticausative verb allows for both a transitive (5.31 a) and an intransitive construction (5.31 b) in which the intransitive nominative expresses the same participant as the transitive accusative. This is attested in German with verbs like beginnen ‘to start’ (5.31). However, because this diathesis is formally unmarked it is difficult to decide whether this should be classified as an anticausative or as a causative (cf. Scheibl 2006: 355).

[5.49] Whatever the ultimate best analysis will be, it is important to realise that there are two different classes of verbs in German. With verbs like beginnen the perfect of the intransitive exists with both auxiliaries sein (5.31 c) and haben (5.31 d). In contrast, with verbs like zerbrechen ‘to break’ the intransitive perfect only allows for sein (see Sec­tion 5.6.2 for an extensive discussion). These two classes of verbs should be distinguished and I propose to consider the beginnen-class as an anticausative diathesis (this section) and interpret the zerbrechen-class as a causative diathesis (see Sec­tion 5.6.2).

[5.50] Semantically, the intransitive haben-construction in (5.31 d) seems to be the regular perfect of the intransitive (5.31 b). The intransitive sein-construction in (5.31 c) is probably best analysed as the Zustandspassiv (see Sec­tion 10.5.16) of the transitive (5.31 a). The temporal structure of the two intransitive participle constructions agrees with this proposal. As argued in Sec­tion 10.2.6, the Zustandspassiv is result-oriented and as such not compatible with gradual time specification, like schrittweise ‘gradually’ (5.31 c,d). Note that the adverbial schrittweise would be possible in the ist begonnen worden construction. However, though superficially similar, that is clearly a different construction (see Sec­tion 10.5.16 for a detailed discussion).

(5.31) a. Er beginnt den Krieg.
b. Der Krieg beginnt.
c. Der Krieg ist (*schrittweise) begonnen.
d. Der Krieg hat (schrittweise) begonnen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[5.51] A causative reading seems to be available with duschen ‘to take a shower’ (5.32 a). With an accusative this verbs means ‘to give someone else a shower’ (5.32 b). However, both intransitive perfekt auxiliaries haben and sein are possible (5.32 c,d), so I classify this alternation here with the anticausatives (and not with the causatives). A parallel situation arises with baden ‘to bathe’.

(5.32) a. Ich dusche.
b. Ich dusche den Elefanten.
c. Ich habe geduscht.
d. Der Elefant ist geduscht.

[5.52] The verb abnehmen is possibly better analysed as two different lexemes, either with the meaning ‘to take away’ (5.33 a) or ‘to reduce’ (5.33 b).

(5.33) a. Ich habe (dir) den Ausweis abgenommen.
Der Ausweis ist (dir) abgenommen.
b. Der Regen hat abgenommen.

[5.53] Similarly, the verb anhalten has two different meanings. In the meaning ‘to stop’ this verb can clearly be used both transitively and intransitively with a haben-Perfekt (5.34 a). However, the sein-Zustandspassiv is not possible (5.34 b). The lexeme anhalten has another meaning, viz. ‘to admonish’ which does allow for a sein-Zustandspassiv (5.34 c), but not for an intransitive haben-Perfekt.

(5.34) a. Ich habe den Bus angehalten.
Der Bus hat angehalten.
b. * Der Bus ist angehalten.
c. Ich habe meinen Sohn angehalten, pünktlich zu sein.
Mein Sohn ist angehalten, pünktlich zu sein.

[5.54] The verbs öffnen ‘to open’ and schließen ‘to close’ appear here in a special usage, for example when related to the opening and closing of a Laden ‘shop’ (5.35 a). In that context an unmarked anticausative can be used (5.35 b). In contrast, with other objects like Tür ‘door’ (5.35 c) the anticausative needs an obligatory reflexive pronoun (5.35 d), see Sec­tion 7.5.2. The exact conditions governing this difference need more research.

(5.35) a. Der Mitarbeiter öffnet den Laden.
Der Laden ist geöffnet.
b. Der Laden öffnet.
Der Laden hat geöffnet.
c. Er öffnet die Tür.
Die Tür ist geöffnet.
d. Die Tür öffnet sich.
Die Tür hat sich geöffnet

5.5.6 obj › sbj › ø : [ NAD | –ND ] haben anticausative+dative

[5.55] The verb anhängen literally (but not commonly) means ‘to attach to’ (5.36 a). However, more widespread is the metaphorical extension with a meaning of ‘to put a burden on somebody’ with the ‘somebody’ encoded in the dative case (5.36 b). In this meaning it can be used intransitively (8.32 c) and the dative cannot be dropped (5.36 d). Note that there is variation in the form of the participle (angehängt vs. angehangen), which is a vestige of causative morphology (see paragraph 6.52). Also note that the auxiliary sein does not seem to be possible in the intransitive (5.36 e), so this verb does not align with other vestiges of causative morphology in German (see Sec­tion 5.6.3).

(5.36) a. Das ist der Titel einer Abhandlung, die er dem “ABC der Anschauung” angehängt hat. dwds: Blättner, Fritz: Geschichte der Pädagogik, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer 1961 [1951], S. 202.
b. Ich habe meinem Widersacher einen Prozess angehängt.
c. Er hat einer Illusion angehangen.
d. * Ich habe angehangen.
e. * Er ist einer Illusion angehangen.

Attested verbs

5.6 Diatheses with promotion to subject

5.6.1 ø › sbj : [ – | N ] Weather agents

[5.56] With some weather verbs like wehen ‘to be windy’ it seems to be semantically rather obvious that the addition of an agent (5.37 b) is an extension of a basically avalent verb (5.37 a). However, formally there is no difference between an unmark­ed “nominative addition” as discussed in this section and an unmarked “nominative drop” as discussed in Sec­tion 5.5.1. One possible avenue to distinguish these two classes is to consider the range of possible nominative agents. For verbs like wehen there appears to be only a small closed class of options for the nominative.

(5.37) a. Es weht.
b. Der Wind weht.

[5.57] Such additions of an agent like with wehen appear to be rare. It is crucial to distinguish agent-like subjects that are the originators of the phenomenon expressed by the verb, like Wind ‘wind’ in (5.37 b), from patient-like subjects that are propelled by the phenomenon, like Blätter ‘leaves’ (5.38 a). These patient-like nominatives can be easily identified because a location phrase is necessary (5.38 b). These constructions are discussed in Sec­tion 6.8.2. Another diathesis adding arguments to weather verbs is the addition of objects, discussed in Sec­tion 5.8.2.

(5.38) a. Die Blätter wehen durch die Luft.
b. * Die Blätter wehen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.6.2 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] sein causative

[5.58] A typical causative verb like zerbrechen ‘to break’ allows for both an intransitive (5.39 a) and a transitive construction (5.39 d), in which the participant in the intransitive nominative (here Krug ‘jar’) is the same as the participant in the transitive accusative.

(5.39) a. Der Krug zerbricht.
b. Der Krug ist zerbrochen.
c. * Der Krug hat zerbrochen.
d. Der Junge zerbricht den Krug.

[5.59] The crucial characteristic of the causative verbs discussed in this section is that they only allow for a perfect with sein in the intransitive (5.39 b,c). This differentiates these verbs from verbs like kochen ‘to cook’ that allow for both haben and sein in the intransitive perfect (5.40). I propose to analyse verbs like zerbrechen with only sein in the intransitive as causatives (this section), while verbs like kochen with both haben and sein in the intransitive are classified as anticausatives (see Sec­tion 5.5.5).

(5.40) a. Der Kaffee kocht.
b. Der Kaffee ist gekocht.
c. Der Kaffee hat gekocht.
d. Der Junge kocht den Kaffee.

[5.60] Note that the intransitive perfekt with sein is strongly reminiscent of an anticausative construction known in German linguistics as the Zustandspassiv (see Sec­tion 10.5.16). However, that construction is available for a much larger group of predicates like bauen ‘to build’ (5.41). Crucially different from zerbrechen, a verb like bauen does not allow for the anticausative to occur in the present tense (5.41 a). The resulting three classes of verbs can be distinguished by comparing the grammaticality judgements of the four constructions listed here for the verbs zerbrechen (5.39), kochen (5.40) and bauen (5.41).

(5.41) a. * Das Haus baut.
b. Das Haus ist gebaut.
c. * Das Haus hat gebaut.
d. Der Junge baut ein Haus.

[5.61] Although there is no overt derivational direction in German between an unmarked anticausative like kochen and an unmarked causative like zerbrechen, there are a few indications substantiating this analysis. First, many verbs with only sein in the intransitive have preverbs like zer‑ and such preverbal derivations are typically causatives, resulting in transitive constructions (see Chapter 8 on preverbal diatheses). Crucially, almost all verbs in the current causative class are attested both with and without preverb with often only minimal differences in meaning, e.g. compare brechen ‘to break’ in (5.42) with zerbrechen ‘to break’ in (5.40).

(5.42) a. Der Stock bricht.
b. Ich breche den Stock.
c. Der Stock ist gebrochen.
d. * Der Stock hat gebrochen.

[5.62] Second, there are very many (though not exclusively) verbs denoting natural processes in this class, like altern ‘to age’ or verderben ‘to rot’, which can be argued semantically to be basically intransitive.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[5.63] The verbs zuschneien ‘to block by snow’ (5.43 a) and reifen ‘to mature’ (5.43 b) only appear to be possible as transitives with weather agents (see Sec­tion 5.6.1).

(5.43) a. Der Garten ist zugeschneit. Der Garten schneit zu.
Der Schnee hat den Garten zugeschneit.
b. Die Frucht reift. Die Frucht ist gereift.
Die Sonne hat die Frucht gereift.

[5.64] The verb fliehen ‘to flee’ can be used transitively, but this seems to be unusual (5.44 a). The intransitive and transitive uses of wegtreten seem to be rather far apart semantically, meaning ‘to step away’ vs. ‘to kick away’ (5.44 b).

(5.44) a. Er floh vor dem Feind.
Er floh ihren Blick.
b. Ich bin (von der Tür) weggetreten.
Ich habe den Ball weggetreten.

5.6.3 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] Umlaut causative

[5.65] Originally based on the Germanic suffix ‑jan, which turned into an umlaut, some verbs have an intransitive (e.g. fallen ‘to fall’) and a transitive causative (e.g. fällen ‘to fell’) only separated by a vowel-quality difference (5.45).

(5.45) a. Der Baum ist gefallen.
b. Ich habe den Baum gefällt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.6.4 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] Umlaut adjectival causative

[5.66] The process to form a causative with the suffix ‑jan also applied to adjectival predicates. There are still a few remnants of such pairs found in contemporary German, in which the old suffix is retained as an umlaut (5.46). More cases are available with additional preverbs, see Sec­tion 8.6.3.

(5.46) a. Die Kiste ist schwarz.
b. Ich schwärze den Text.

Attested verbs

5.6.5 obj › sbj : [ A | N ] Accusative-to-nominative promotion

[5.67] Some verbs with experiencer subjects needed an accusative subject in older stages of German (cf. Nübling et al. 2006: 103–104), but these verbs either were completely lost, like dürsten ‘to be thirsty’ (5.47 a), or the accusative tends to be replaced by a nominative, like with frieren ‘to be cold’ (5.47 b,c). The verb frieren with a human experiencer is currently in the middle of this transition, allowing for both constructions.

(5.47) a. Mich dürstet.
b. Mich friert.
c. Ich friere.

Attested verbs

5.7 Diatheses with object demotion

[5.68] This section concerns alternations in which a non-nominative case-marked argument can be removed. When considered in this direction (e.g. “an accusative is removed”), then such alternations are known as antipassives. Conversely, when this same alternation is analysed reversely (e.g. “an accusative is added”) then such alternations are known as applicatives. Because this chapter deals with unmarked “covert” alternations, there is no structural difference between these two situations. Rather, they are two different ways to look at at the same phenomenon. Still, I have tried to classify diathesis into either of these two options based on (debatable) semantic arguments and parallels to other diatheses with overt derivations. This section lists the diathesis in which a case-marked argument is removed. Examples of the reverse diathesis are discussed in Sec­tion 5.8.

5.7.1 obj › ø : [ NA | N– ] Accusative drop

[5.69] Drops, or covert antipassives, i.e. the removal of an accusative object, is a well-known phenomenon under the name of ambitransitive or labile verbs, exemplified here with stören ‘to interrupt’ (5.48).

(5.48) a. Du störst die Veranstaltung.
b. Du störst.

[5.70] This phenomenon is often exemplified with the verb essen ‘to eat’ (5.49 a,b). However, essen will not be considered an example of a strict accusative drop here, because the object can also be turned into a prepositional phrase (5.49 c). All such prepositional antipassives also allow a bare antipassive expression, so they will not be repeated here (see Sec­tion 6.7.8).

(5.49) a. Ich esse einen Apfel.
b. Ich esse.
c. Ich esse von dem Apfel.

[5.71] Also, there are verbs with an accusative and a dative argument (5.50 a) that allow both to be dropped (5.50 b,c). These are also discussed elsewhere and will not be repeated here as examples of an accusative drop (see Sec­tion 6.7.11).

(5.50) a. Ich backe dir einen Kuchen.
b. Ich backe einen Kuchen.
c. Ich backe.

[5.72] Similarly, dropping of an accusative argument is very widespread when focus is placed on the action itself. In such contexts the addition of an adverbial construction is necessary (5.51). Such verbs do not belong to the present group of accusative drop verbs (see Sec­tion 9.7.1).

(5.51) a. Ich sehe das Haus.
b. ?Ich sehe.
c. Ich sehe gut.

[5.73] What is left is an apparently small group of transitive verbs that allow for the accusative to be dropped – and that neither allow for a (free) dative, nor for a prepositional antipassive. These verbs are formally similar to verbs that allow for an accusative to be added (see Sec­tion 5.8.1). The only difference between adding or removing an accusative is an (admittedly rather vague) semantic intuition about whether the intransitive or the transitive meaning is more “basic”.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.7.2 obj › ø : [ NAA | NA– ] Accusative drop+accusative

[5.74] Most verbs that allow for two accusative arguments allow for one of these arguments to be dropped (5.52 a,b). In some situations even both can be dropped (5.52 c).

(5.52) a. Er lehrt mich den Trick.
b. Er lehrt den Koran.
c. Er lehrt an einer Hochschule.

[5.75] Double accusatives also regularly appear with quantified objects (5.53 a), see Sec­tion 5.3.4, and named objects (5.53 b), see Sec­tion 5.3.10. Also these verbs regularly allow for one of the accusatives to be dropped (5.53 c,d).

(5.53) a. Das Buch kostet mich keinen Pfennig.
b. Ich nenne dich einen Egoisten.
c. Das Buch kostet viel.
d. Er nennt den Namen des Kindes.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[5.76] The verb unterrichten ‘to instruct’ also allows for two different accusative objects, either referring to the recipient of the instruction (5.54 a) or the object of the instruction (5.54 b). However, these two accusative objects do not seem to occur together easily. When the recipient is in the accusative, the object of instruction typically is encoded as a prepositional phrase (5.54 c). When the object is in the accusative, the recipient is normally not expressed. Interestingly, both these accusative objects can be passivised (5.54 d,e). Note that the verb unterrichten can also mean ‘to notify’. However, that meaning has different roles discussed in Sec­tion 6.3.2.

(5.54) a. Ich unterrichte dich.
b. Ich unterrichte den Koran.
c. Ich unterrichte dich im Koran.
d. Du wirst (von mir) unterrichtet.
e. Der Koran wird (von mir) unterrichtet.

5.7.3 obj › ø : [ NAD | N–D ] Accusative drop+dative

[5.77] This is the pattern as attested with the verb danken ‘to thank’ as exemplified in (5.55 a-c). The accusative can be left out, but only when the dative is retained. The dative cannot be dropped. This pattern seems to be extremely rare. There seems to be a generalisation that the accusative can normally not be dropped before also a governed dative is dropped (see also Sec­tion 6.7). From informal discussion, it appears that the sentence in (5.55 a) is rejected by many German speakers, but it is clearly attested.

(5.55) a. Ich danke dem Arzt mein Leben. Adapted from dwds dictionary at https://www.dwds.de/wb/danken, accessed 5 April 2022.
b. Ich danke dem Arzt.
c. * Ich danke mein Leben.

[5.78] This pattern of danken might have arisen out of a confusion of danken with verdanken. The verb danken allows for a governed preposition für instead of the accusative (5.56 a). In contrast, verdanken needs an accusative and a dative (5.56 b-d).

(5.56) a. Ich danke dir für mein Leben.
b. Ich verdanke dir mein Leben.
c. * Ich verdanke dir.
d. * Ich verdanke mein Leben.

Attested verbs

5.7.4 obj › ø : [ ND | N– ] Dative drop

[5.79] Verbs that take a dative, but do not allow for an accusative, are well attested, though not very frequent in German. Some of these verbs do not allow the dative to be dropped (see Sec­tion 5.3.5) and a few allow for the dative to be replaced by a prepositional phrase (see Sec­tion 6.7.10) or by a possessor (see Sec­tion 5.8.3).

[5.80] In this section only verbs are listed for which the only alternative for the dative is a complete drop, like entkommen ‘to escape’ (5.57 a). Some of the verbs in this class only allow for inanimate subjects, like gelingen ‘to succeed’ (5.57 b).

(5.57) a. Er entkommt (seinem Feind).
b. Die Torte gelingt (mir).

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.7.5 obj › ø : [ NAD | NA– ] Dative drop+accusative

[5.81] Ditransitive verbs like verbieten ‘to prohibit’ (5.58 a-c), that allow for the dative but not the accusative to be dropped, are common. Semantically, this diathesis seems to be restricted to performative verbs, typically verbs of verbal communication.

(5.58) a. Ich verbiete dir das Rauchen.
b. * Ich verbiete dir.
c. Ich verbiete das Rauchen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[5.82] The verb nahelegen is used without dative in combination with an inanimate subject (5.59 a), but with dative in case of an animate subject (5.59 b).

(5.59) a. Das Foto hat seine Verwicklung in das Doping-System nahegelegt.
b. Der Trainer hat ihm das Doping nahegelegt.

5.7.6 obj › ø : [ NAD | N– – ] Dative drop+accusative drop

[5.83] Although it is not impossible, it seems to be rather unusual for “real” ditransitive verbs like vorlesen ‘to read aloud’ (5.60 a) to allow for either the accusative (5.60 b) or the dative (5.60 c) to be dropped.

(5.60) a. Ich lese dir ein Buch vor.
b. Ich lese dir vor.
c. Ich lese ein Buch vor.

Attested verbs

5.7.7 obj › ø : [ NG | N– ] Genitive drop

[5.84] This theoretically possible diathesis is listed here only for the sake of completeness, as there do not seem to be any genuine examples attested in contemporary German. Genitive arguments without accusative are extremely unusual. They appear to be vanishing from the German language (see Sec­tion 5.3.6). Also genitive antipassives are practically unattested (see Sec­tion 6.7.14). Genitive arguments with an additional accusative argument seem to be slightly more common (see Sec­tion 5.7.8 and 6.7.15).

5.7.8 obj › ø : [ NAG | NA– ] Genitive drop+accusative

[5.85] Given that there are already very few verbs with genitive arguments in German, it is no surprise that there appear to be only a handful of genitive ditransitives, i.e. verbs that can occur with nominative, accusative and genitive arguments. On closer inspection, almost all such verbs allow for alternative constructions in which the genitive argument is changed (for the only known exception, see Sec­tion 5.3.8). The verbs listed in the current class allow for the complete drop of the genitive argument, like with würdigen ‘to acknowledge’ (5.61). Some further verbs with genitive and accusative arguments allow for a von prepositional phrase instead of a genitive (see Sec­tion 6.7.15).

(5.61) a. Er würdigte den Vorschlag einer eingehenden Prüfung.
b. Er würdigt den Vorschlag.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.8 Diatheses with promotion to object

[5.86] In this chapter, I have tried to distinguish between the demotion of an object (antipassive or drop, see Sec­tion 5.7) and the promotion of an accusative (applicative or addition, this section). However, for “covert” diatheses I cannot find any substantial difference between these phenomena, except for a faint semantic impression that covert applicatives do not imply an accusative object (but allow it), while bare antipassives imply an accusative object (but allow it to be dropped). It remains a clear desideratum to put this intuitive differentiation on stricter grammatical footing. This section discusses those diathesis that I deem to be promotions, while demotions are discussed in Sec­tion 5.7.

5.8.1 ø › obj : [ N– | NA ] Added result

[5.87] There are various kinds of objects that can be added to (apparent) intransitives as the result of the activity. For example: a competitive entity in sports (5.62 a), the result of an action (5.62 b), the name of the result of an action (5.62 c) and possibly many others (5.62 d,e). In German I propose to call this diathesis ergebnisakkusativ.

(5.62) a. Er ist/hat den Marathon gelaufen.
b. Er ist/hat den Salto gesprungen.
c. Er hat den Tango getanzt.
d. Er hat den Staub geatmet.
e. Er hat den Tatort geschaut.

[5.88] A similar phenomenon is attested with manner-of-speaking verbs like stottern ‘to stutter’ (5.63 a). Such verbs can take an accusative object with a meaning like ‘to utter something in a stuttering manner’ (5.63 b). Note that by adding a possessed prepositional phrase (5.63 c), see Sec­tion 6.8.3, it is even possible to use a possessor-dative alternation (5.63 d), see Sec­tion 6.8.13, leading to an apparently “intransitive” verb with a dative, accusative and an obligatory location argument.

(5.63) a. Er stotterte vor Aufregung
b. Er stotterte eine Entschuldigung.
c. Ich flüsterte die Lösung in sein Ohr.
d. Ich flüsterte ihm die Lösung ins Ohr.

[5.89] These verbs are formally similar to verbs that allow for an accusative to be dropped (see Sec­tion 5.7.1). The only difference between these two classes is a (rather vague) semantic intuition about whether the intransitive or the transitive meaning is more “basic”. As a rule-of-thumb the verbs in this section have an object that is the result of the action as described by the verb (hence the German name ergebnisakkusativ). Whether this is a useful separation has to be determined by future research.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.8.2 ø › obj : [ – | A ] Weather result

[5.90] Some verbs that allow for the nominative to be absent (see Sec­tion 5.6.1) can have an accusative object without a nominative, although this possibility seems to be strongly limited to weather phenomena (5.64 a) and is often used metaphorically (11.48 b).

(5.64) a. Gestern hat es riesengroße Körner gehagelt.
b. Im Jahre 1932 hagelte es einen Schauer neuer Gesetze.
Es schneit Absagen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.8.3 adj › obj : [ Ng | ND ] Possessor-of-nominative dative

[5.91] For some verbs, an experiencer dative (5.65 a) is an alternative expression for the possessor of the nominative (5.65 b). Crucially, the participant is the same person in these two expressions, as can be seen by the possibility of (5.65 c) but the impossibility of (5.65 d).

[5.92] This experiencer dative with intranstive verbs is closely related to a similar dative with transitive verbs as discussed in the next Sec­tion 5.8.4. In German I propose to call both these diatheses pertinenzdativ. The German term pertinenz is used throughout this book when the remapped role is necessarily a possessor of another rolel.

(5.65) a. Mir brennen die Füße.
b. Meine Füße brennen.
c. Meine Füße brennen mir.
d. * Meine Füße brennen dir.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[5.93] Coreference (i.e “reflexive double marking”) is possible (5.66 a), but in the third person this does not lead to a reflexive pronoun sich (5.66 b,c):

(5.66) a. Mir stinken meine Socken.
b. Ihm stinken seine Socken.
c. * Sich stinken seine Socken.

[5.94] It might seem that bare causative verbs like abbrennen ‘to burn down’ (cf. Sec­tion 5.6.2), also allow for this alternation (5.67 a,b). However, there is no necessary coreference between the dative and the possessor in these cases (5.67 c). This characteristics is crucial for distinguishing different classes of verbs.

(5.67) a. Das Haus brennt mir ab.
b. Mein Haus brennt ab.
c. Mein Haus brennt dir ab.

5.8.4 adj › obj : [ NAg | NAD ] Possessor-of-accusative dative

[5.95] A widespread dative alternation is the so-called possessor-to-dative raising. Specifically, with some ditransitive datives the experiencer dative can be reformulated as the possessor of the accusative (5.68 a,b).

(5.68) a. Ich schneide ihm die Haare.
b. Ich schneide seine Haare.

[5.96] This alternation occurs with all verbs with the von and für dative antipassive (see Sec­tion 6.7.11). Additionally, there are many verbs in the realm of destruction and repair that allow for this diathesis.

[5.97] For some verbs there is a possible ambiguity of the datives, like in (5.69 a) and (5.70 a). There is a difference between the interpretation as a für beneficiary alternant ‘on your behalf’ (5.69 b), (5.70 b), see Sec­tion 6.8.10, and the interpretation as a possessive alternant (5.69 c), (5.70 c), as discussed in this section.

(5.69) a. Ich koche dir die Suppe.
b. Ich koche die Suppe für dich.
(Das ist mein Plan, vielleicht kriegst du die Suppe aber nie.)
c. Ich koche deine Suppe.
(d.h. die Suppe, die du bestellt hast)
(5.70) a. Ich beantworte dir die Frage.
b. Ich beantworte die Frage für dich.
(weil du willst, dass ich das mache)
c. Ich beantworte deine Frage.
(d.h. die Frage, die du gestellt hast)

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.9 Symmetrical diatheses

5.9.1 obj › sbj › obj : [ NA | AN ] Accusative/accusative inversive

[5.98] The verb erwarten ‘to expect’ has an exceptional valency alternation in that the accusative and nominative arguments can be reversed with a very similar meaning (5.71 a,b). There is a slight difference in meaning between ‘to expect’ (5.71 a) and ‘to be imminent’ (5.71 b).

(5.71) a. Er erwartet einen Test.
b. Der Test erwartet ihn.

[5.99] This alternation is possibly best interpreted as the effect of two different metaphorical extensions of warten ‘to wait for’. The first extension is from ‘to wait for’ (5.72 a) to ‘to expect’ (5.72 b). The second usage of warten is typically found with inanimate subjects, meaning roughly ‘to be ready for the object’s arrival’ (5.72 c). In this second meaning the metaphorical extension leads to the meaning ‘to be imminent’ (10.136 d).

(5.72) a. Ich warte auf den Test.
b. Ich erwarte den Test.
c. Zuhause wartet ein Geschenk auf dich.
d. Ein Geschenk erwartet dich.

Attested verbs

5.9.2 obj › sbj › obj : [ NA | DN ] Accusative/dative inversive

[5.100] The verb nutzen either means ‘to use’ (5.73 a) or ‘to benefit’ (5.73 b) with almost reversed argument marking.

(5.73) a. Der Arbeiter nutzt den Hebel.
b. Der Hebel nutzt dem Arbeiter wenig.

[5.101] I know of only a few verbs with this very special passive-like diathesis. There are a few more cases of this alternation with reflexive marking (cf. Sec­tion 7.9.1). Note that the alternant with the dative (5.73 b) needs a very special adverbial, typically nichts, was, or wenig (i.e. negative polarity).

Attested verbs

Further examples

[5.102] Some verbs allow for the same role expressed with different case marking. These seem to be all incidental cases, mostly verbs in the midst of a diachronic change.

5.9.3 obj › obj : [ A | D ] Accusative-to-dative

[5.103] A few experiencer verbs with an original accusative argument are currently considered rather old-fashioned in German (5.74 a). Instead of the original accusative they sometimes are attested with a dative (5.74 b). Note that some of these verbs also have a governed preposition (6.18 c) and a reflexive alternation (5.74 d), see also Sec­tion 7.6.1.

(5.74) a. Mich graut.
b. Mir graut.
c. Mich ekelt vor dem Spinat.
d. Ich ekle mich vor dem Essen.

Attested verbs

5.9.4 obj › obj : [ NAA | NAD ] Accusative-to-dative+accusative

[5.104] Some verbs that allow for two accusative objects appear to disambiguate this situation by optionally changing one of the accusative arguments to a dative (5.75 a,b).

(5.75) a. Er lehrt mich den Trick.
b. Er lehrt mir den Trick.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[5.105] The verb nennen seems to have a rather clear semantic difference between ‘to name’ (with two accusative arguments) and ‘to mention’ (with an accusative and a dative argument).

5.9.5 obj › obj : [ NG | NA ] Genitive-to-accusative

[5.106] The verb achten ‘to watch for, to respect’ has an old-fashioned alternative possibility to take a genitive argument, but only as a negative polarity element. Most examples have an explicit negation, but examples with niemand ‘nobody’ or gering ‘a bit’ are also attested (see examples below). The more widespread usage is with an accusative argument (also without negation).

(5.76) a. Man achtete unser nicht. dwds: https://www.dwds.de/wb/achten, accessed 14 April 2022.
b. Man achtete uns nicht.

Attested verbs

Further examples

5.9.6 obj › obj › obj : [ NGA | NAD ] Genitive-to-accusative-to-dative

[5.107] The verb versichern ‘to assure’ appears to be a combination of the previous two alternations. The apparently older usage with accusative and genitive (5.77 a) exists with an alternative construction with dative and accusative (5.77 b). This “double swap” was possible because most sentences with versichern have a subordinate clause instead of a clear genitive/accusative (5.77 c,d). The theoretical intermediate stages (with genitive/dative or double accusative) are unattested (5.77 e,f).

(5.77) a. Ich versichere dich meines Vertrauens.
b. Ich versichere dir mein Vertrauen.
c. Ich versichere dich, dass ich dir vertraue.
d. Ich versichere dir, dass ich dir vertraue.
e. * Ich versichere dich mein Vertrauen.
f. * Ich versichere dir meines Vertrauens.

Attested verbs

6 Prepositional alternations

6.1 Introduction

[6.1] Prepositional phrases play a crucial role in many diatheses throughout this book. This chapter catalogues only the covert (“unmarked”) alternations that involve a change in pure flagging, i.e. between case-marked constituents and prepositional phrases. Many more such diatheses will be discussed in subsequent chapters, but those alternations display additional overt marking, like reflexive pronouns, verb prefixes, or light verbs.

[6.2] As surveyed in this chapter, there are many different covert alternations that involve prepositions, like antipassives (6.1 a), see Sec­tion 6.7.8, anticausatives (6.1 b), see Sec­tion 6.5.4, applicatives (6.1 c), see Sec­tion 6.9.2, and many more.

(6.1) a. Ich schlürfe meinen Tee.
Ich schlürfe an meinem Tee.
b. Er quietscht mit den Reifen.
Die Reifen quietschen.
c. Er füllt Schnaps in die Flasche.
Er füllt die Flasche mit Schnaps.

[6.3] There are also various diatheses that introduce obligatory local prepositional phrases, like causatives (6.2 a), see Sec­tion 6.5.10, caused-motion objectives (6.2 b), see Sec­tion 6.8.3, and raised possessors (6.2 c) see Sec­tion 6.8.12.

(6.2) a. Der Pullover hängt im Schrank.
Ich hänge den Pullover in den Schrank.
b. Der Wind weht.
Der Wind weht die Blätter durch die Luft.
c. Er schaut über meine Schulter.
Er schaut mir über die Schulter.

[6.4] Prepositional phrases in German are partly governed arguments and partly non-governed adverbial phrases. This distinction is not overtly marked and leads to recurrent ambiguity, e.g. between warten auf ‘to wait for something’ and warten auf ‘to wait while being on top of something’ (6.3). It is of central importance to clearly delimit governed from non-governed prepositions, as discussed extensively in Sec­tion 6.2.

(6.3) Der König wartet auf seinem alten Thron auf seinen neuen Thron.

[6.5] There are fifteen diatheses that seem prominent enough to be given a German name. I propose the following names for these:

6.2 Delimiting governed prepositional phrases

6.2.1 Identifying governed prepositions

[6.6] As a general rule (with only few exceptions, see below) I propose to define prepositional phrases as lexically governed arguments when they allow for a paraphrase of the form da(r)-preposition, dass clause (cf. Engelen 1986: 110–112). For example, the verb warten ‘to await’ has a possible governed preposition auf designating the object that is waited for (6.4 a). In this reading, (6.4 a) can be paraphrased by (6.4 b) with a darauf, dass subordinate clause. This combination warten auf can best be considered a fixed collocation, to be translated into English as ‘waiting for’. However, the preposition auf can also have its adverbial local meaning ‘on top of’ (6.4 c). This leads to another interpretation in which the prepositional phrase is not a governed preposition but an adverbial phrase with a local meaning, paraphrased in (6.4 d). These two readings can even be combined (6.4 e), with an interesting difference in case marking between the two prepositional phrases.

(6.4) a. Der König wartet auf seinen neuen Thron.
b. Der König wartet darauf, dass sein neuer Thron kommt.
c. Der König wartet auf seinem alten Thron.
d. Der König wartet, während er auf seinem alten Thron sitzt.
e. Der König wartet auf seinem alten Thron auf seinen neuen Thron.

[6.7] The possibility of a da(r)+Präposition, dass paraphrase for governed prepositional phrases has a parallel in question-constructions with wo(r)+Preposition (6.5 a). In contrast, the local interpretation of a prepositional phrase is questioned with a bare question word wo (6.5 b).

(6.5) a. Worauf wartet der König?
b. Wo wartet der König?

[6.8] Some prepositional phrases without the option of a da(r)+Präposition, dass paraphrase still have a special status as an argument-like role of a verb, namely when they can be substituted by a case-marked constituent. This is typical for antipassive alternations like (6.6 a), in which the accusative role den Bären can alternatively be expressed by a prepositional phrase auf den Bären with a difference in affectedness of the object, see Sec­tion 6.7.8. In this situation the prepositional phrase cannot be replaced by a darauf, dass phrase, so it is not a governed preposition. However, because of the alternation with a case marked constituent, this participant (viz. Bär) is still an argument. Not all prepositional phrases allow such an alternation, notably most local expressions do not (6.6 b). However, there are also some distinctly local expressions that still allow for an antipassive alternation (6.6 c). In general, the semantic content is not a suitable definition of argument status.

(6.6) a. Ich schieße auf den Bären.
Ich schieße den Bären.
b. Ich sitze auf dem Stuhl.
* Ich sitze den Stuhl.
c. Ich reite auf dem Pferd.
Ich reite das Pferd.

6.2.2 Identifying non-governed prepositions

[6.9] Non-governed prepositional phrases are typically adverbial phrases, describing either a local (6.7 a), temporal (6.7 b), manner (6.7 c) or purpose/causal (6.7 d) situation. In some contexts, such adverbial prepositional phrases do not have an article after the preposition, like in gegen Abend ‘early evening’, aus Gold ‘golden’, or mit größter Sorgfalt ‘carefully’.

(6.7) a. Ich arbeite in dem Arbeitszimmer.
b. Ich arbeite vor dem Frühstück.
c. Ich arbeite aus Leidenschaft.
d. Ich arbeite wegen des Regens.

[6.10] Adverbial non-governed prepositional phrases can easily be identified by considering (i) how this information can be questioned and (ii) by which proforms or adverbs the information can be replaced (6.8). However, there are various special considerations to be discussed in the following section. Specifically, a few prepositional phrases allow for the question/replacement tests listed below (so the tests suggest they are non-governed), but they also allow for a da(r)+Präposition, dass paraphrase (so the test suggests they are governed). This happens with purposive für, see Sec­tion 6.2.5, and causal von/durch, see Sec­tion 6.2.6. It seems to make most sense to consider these to be non-governed adverbial phrases.

(6.8) Identifying non-governed prepositional phrases
a. Local prepositional phrases:
are questioned by wo/wohin/woher? ‘where’,
are replaceable by proforms hier/da/dort ‘here/there’,
are replaceable by local adverbs like zuhause ‘at home’ or draußen ‘outside’.
b. Temporal prepositional phrases:
are questioned by wann? ‘when’,
are replaceable by proforms dann/damals ‘then’,
are replaceable by temporal adverbs like gestern ‘yesterday’ or morgen ‘tomorrow’.
c. Manner prepositional phrases:
are questioned by wie? ‘how’,
are replaceable by proforms so ‘thus’,
are replaceable by manner adverbs like schnell ‘quickly’ or viel ‘a lot’.
d. Purpose/cause prepositional phrases:
are questioned by warum? ‘why’,
are replaceable by proforms deshalb/darum ‘therefore’.

6.2.3 Location prepositional phrases

[6.11] As a general rule, location prepositional phrases are not governed by a verb. However, there are a few verbs that obligatory need a local preposition (6.9), see Sec­tion 6.3.4 and 7.3.4.

(6.9) a. Er steckt den Zettel in die Tasche.
b. * Er steckt den Zettel.
c. Ich befinde mich in dem Haus.
d. * Ich befinde mich.

[6.12] Less common are verbs that obligatory need a local preposition (6.10 a,b) that alternatively can be exchanged for a temporal one (6.10 c).

(6.10) a. Der Unfall ereignete sich an der Kreuzung.
b. * Der Unfall ereignete sich.
c. Der Unfall ereignete sich vor Sonnenuntergang.

[6.13] Some locations become obligatory through diatheses, for example with datives that are introduced by raising possessors (6.11), see Sec­tion 6.8.12, or dynamic manner-of movement prepositional phrases (6.12), see Sec­tion 6.8.1.

(6.11) a. Der Ball fällt (auf den Boden).
b. Der Ball fällt dem Spieler vor die Füße.
c. * Der Ball fällt dem Spieler.
(6.12) a. Ich habe (in dem Garten) getanzt.
b. Ich bin durch den Garten getanzt.
c. * Ich bin getanzt.

6.2.4 Comitative/instrumental mit and ohne

[6.14] The prepositions mit ‘with’ and its negative counterpart ohne ‘without’ have a special status in German. With human participants they have a comitative interpretation (6.13), These are questioned with mit wem. With non-human participants an instrumental reading is provoked (6.14). These are questioned with womit. Except for this different interrogative, the comitative interpretation can also be identified by the possibility to add zusammen, which is not possible in the instrumental reading.

(6.13) a. Ich arbeite mit meinem Freund.
b. Mit wem arbeitest du?
c. Ich arbeite zusammen mit meinem Freund.
(6.14) a. Ich arbeite mit einem Hammer.
b. Womit arbeitest du?
c. * Ich arbeite zusammen mit einem Hammer.

[6.15] Both of these reading are non-governed prepositional phrases because the damit, dass periphrasis is not possible (6.15). Another characteristic of such non-governed mit is that it can be replaced by the negative ohne, of course with a negated meaning (6.16).

(6.15) a. * Ich arbeite damit, dass er hilft.
b. * Ich arbeite damit, dass es funktioniert.
(6.16) a. Ich arbeite ohne meinen Freund.
b. Ich arbeite ohne einen Hammer.

[6.16] The non-governed comitative and instrumental interpretation of mit can be added to practically every verb, given a sensible context. In those contexts, the comitative and instrumental roles are not lexical roles, in the sense that they describe a role that is not specific for the main verb of the sentence. However, many verbs have a mit prepositional phrase that expresses a lexeme-specific role. With those verbs the mit phrase is an argument. This occurs in the following situations (with some verbs allowing for multiple options):

(6.17) a. Ich kämpfe mit der Krankheit.
Ich kämpfe damit, dass ich dauernd krank bin.
b. Du überrascht mich mit dem Geschenk.
Das Geschenk überrascht mich.
c. Er füllt die Flasche mit Schnaps.
Er füllt den Schnaps in die Flasche.
d. Ich einige mich mit dir.
Wir einigen uns miteinander.

6.2.5 Purposive/beneficiary für

[6.17] The preposition für has a beneficiary reading with human participants and a more general purposive interpretation with non-human participants. Beneficiary für often appears in alternation with a dative (6.18 a,b), see Sec­tion 6.7.11. However, a beneficiary für is possible with many more verbs as an adverbial phrase (6.18 c), with such a dative alternation being impossible (6.18 d).

(6.18) a. Ich kaufe ein Buch für dich.
b. Ich kaufe dir ein Buch.
c. Ich arbeite für dich.
d. * Ich arbeite dir

[6.18] Adverbial purposive für can be used with almost all verbs and can be identified by the possibility to be paraphrased by an um zu-In­fi­ni­tiv phrase (6.19 a,b). In this usage, it is also possible to use the paraphrase dafür, dass (6.19 c). This is an obvious exception to the claim that this paraphrase identifies governed prepositions.

(6.19) a. Ich arbeite für ein besseres Leben.
b. Ich arbeite um ein besseres Leben zu bekommen.
c. Ich arbeite dafür, dass ich ein besseres Leben bekomme.

6.2.6 Causal durch and von

[6.19] The preposition durch, roughly meaning ‘through’ in its spatial meaning (6.20 a), has a widespread adverbial usage describing a cause (6.20 b). In this non-governed adverbial usage it is often still possible to use the paraphrase dadurch, dass (6.20 c). Together with purposive für from the previous section, this is a second exception to the claim that this da‑ paraphrase is an indication of governed usage.

(6.20) a. Ich laufe durch den Regen.
b. Ich verspäte mich durch den Regen.
c. Ich verspäte mich dadurch, dass es regnet.

[6.20] The preposition von, roughly meaning ‘from’ in its spatial meaning (6.21 a), can also be used for a cause (6.21 b). In this non-governed causal usage it is likewise possible to use the paraphrase davon, dass (6.21 c). This is the third (and last) exception to the test that the da‑ paraphrase is an indication of governed usage.

(6.21) a. Sie kommt von dem Arzt.
b. Sie erwachte von dem Regen.
c. Sie erwachte davon, dass es regnete.

[6.21] This causal durch and von are also found in passives (6.22 a) as a way to express the demoted agent. Actually, this usage of von and durch in passives can be seen as an instance of a regular causal usage (6.22) and might thus not be an integral part of the passive construction (see Sec­tion 10.5.15 on the werden passive).

(6.22) a. Der Sturm zerstörte das Haus.
b. Das Haus wurde zerstört durch den Sturm.
c. Das Haus wurde dadurch zerstört, dass es vernachlässigt wurde.

6.2.7 Adnominal prepositional phrases

[6.22] Prepositional phrases can of course also be used adnominally, i.e. they modify another noun phrase. In such situations they are not governed by the verb. In some rare examples there is potential ambiguity between a governed and an adnominal prepositional phrase (6.23 a,b).

(6.23) a. In seinem Korb knabbert [der Hund] [an der Leine].
b. In seinem Korb knabbert [der Hund an der Leine].

6.3 Deponent verbs

[6.23] There are a few verbs that necessarily need a governed preposition. The number of such obligatory verb-preposition combinations is surprisingly small in German. Most governed prepositional phrases can easily be dropped or show other alternations (as discussed in the remainder of this chapter). Most verbs that obligatorily occur together with a preposition have developed a special meaning for the verb+preposition combination, like kommen auf ‘to conceive’ vs. kommen ‘to come’ (6.24 a,b) and brechen mit ‘to cease relations’ vs. brechen ‘to break’ (6.24 c,d).

(6.24) a. Ich komme nicht auf die Lösung.
b. Ich komme gleich nach Hause.
c. Er bricht mit seiner Vergangenheit.
d. Er bricht das Brot.

[6.24] Only very few verbs seem to have an obligatory preposition and no other meaning without the preposition, like appellieren ‘to appeal’ (6.25 a,b) and gewöhnen ‘to accustom’ (6.25 c,d).

(6.25) a. Er appelliert an dein Gewissen.
b. * Er appelliert.
c. Er gewöhnt seinen Sohn an den Geschmack.
d. * Er gewöhnt seinen Sohn.

6.3.1 [ NP ] Governed preposition

[6.25] This section summarises verbs that obligatorily need a governed preposition. Some examples, like bauen ‘to build’ (6.26 a) have multiple meanings. When they are listed here, then the claim is that the usage with a preposition induces a different lexical meaning, like bauen auf ‘to count on’ (6.26 b). This preposition is a governed preposition (6.26 c).

(6.26) a. Ich baue ein Haus.
b. Ich baue auf deine Unterstützung.
c. Ich baue darauf, dass du mich unterstützt.

[6.26] Not all collocations of verbs with a preposition are governed phrases. For example, stehen vor (6.27 a) and stehen zu (6.27 b) are governed, while stehen zur Diskussion (6.27 c) is not.

(6.27) a. Die Firma stand vor der Übergabe an einen Manager.
Der Planet Krypton steht kurz davor, zu explodieren.
b. Ich stehe zu meiner Zusage.
Ich stehe dazu, daß wir nicht statistikorientiert arbeiten. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 05.11.1996.
c. Das Problem steht zur Diskussion.
* Das Problem steht dazu, daß …

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.27] The combination handeln über is attested (6.28 a), but infrequent. Instead handeln von seems to be preferred (9.69 b). Seperately, the combination kommen zu ‘to achieve’ has negative polarity (6.28 c).

(6.28) a. Ihre Texte handeln über Dinge, die sie jetzt beschäftigen. dwds: Die Zeit, 21.12.2005, Nr. 51.
b. Das Buch handelt von der Vergangenheit.
c. Wir kommen nicht zu einem Ergebnis.

6.3.2 [ NAP ] Governed preposition+accusative

[6.28] Some verbs, like erinnern ‘to remind’ (6.29), combine a governed preposition with an accusative argument.

(6.29) a. Ich erinnere dich an den Termin.
b. Ich erinnere dich daran, dass du einen Termin hast.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.3.3 [NL] Obligatory local preposition

[6.29] Some verbs appear to have an obligatory location argument, like wohnen ‘to live’ (6.30), cf. also the examples in the classes “Extent” and “Location” in Gamerschlag (2014: 319–321).

(6.30) a. Sie wohnt in Berlin.
b. * Sie wohnt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.3.4 [NAL] Obligatory local preposition+accusative

[6.30] The most obvious verbs in this class are historical ablaut causatives like legen ‘to lay, to put down’ (6.31 b) of posture verbs like liegen ‘to lie’ (6.31 a). More examples are attested with obligatory reflexive pronoun, see Sec­tion 7.3.4.

(6.31) a. Der Hund liegt im Korb.
b. Er legt den Hund in den Korb.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.3.5 [ NP ] Accusative es+governed preposition

[6.31] The verb belassen bei ‘to rest a matter with’ (6.32) appears to have an obligatorily empty accusative pronoun es. Such non-phoric pronouns es mostly appears as a fall-back mechanism for missing subjects (see Sec­tion 2.2.3). However, with this verb it is used for a missing object. It does not seem to be possible to use any phoric object with this verb.

(6.32) a. Die Polizistin belässt es bei einer Verwarnung.
b. Die Polizistin belässt es dabei, mich zu verwarnen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.3.6 [ Np ] Bare reciprocal mit

[6.32] A few verbs have a special obligatory reciprocal role marked with the preposition mit (cf. Wiemer & Nedjalkov 2007: 497), e.g. kooperieren ‘to cooperate’ (6.33 a). The verbs in this section normally cannot be used with a singular subject without the mit phrase (6.33 b). Such verbs can be identified by the alternative formulation with a plural subject and the reciprocal marker miteinander (6.33 c), but not with sich (6.33 d). It is possible to add an additional comitative prepositional phrase zusammen mit, but not as an alternative for the reciprocal role (6.33 e).

(6.33) a. Karl kooperiert mit Anna.
b. * Karl kooperiert.
c. Karl und Anna kooperieren miteinander.
d. * Karl und Anna kooperieren sich.
e. Karl kooperiert mit Anna [zusammen mit seinem Freund].

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.4 Alternations without diathesis

[6.33] This section is empty. It is only added here for the numbering to be parallel across chapters. By definition, alternations without diathesis do not exist for covert alternations as discussed in this chapter. In other chapters this section will be well represented by many examples.

6.5 Diatheses with subject demotion

6.5.1 sbj › ø : [ NP | –P ] Nominative drop+governed preposition

[6.34] With verbs like abhängen von ‘depend on’ the nominative can be dropped, and a valency-simulating pronoun es is inserted (6.34 a,b). This pronoun es is not referential with verbs like this. For an apparently similar verb like zeugen von ‘to be evidence of’ this is different (6.34 c,d): with this verb the pronoun es can only be interpreted referentially (“phoric”), so it does not belong in this class.

(6.34) a. Mein Leben hängt von dir ab.
b. Jetzt hängt es ganz von dir ab.
c. Das Resultat zeugt von deinem Einsatz.
d. Es zeugt von deinem Einsatz.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.35] Some dictionaries list hapern an ‘to be lacking’ as having obligatory es (6.35 a). However, in corpora there are various examples with a nominative subject (6.35 b,c).

(6.35) a. Es hapert an der Versorgung. Attested at https://www.dwds.de/wb/hapern, accessed 23 April 2022.
b. Denn der Vergleich hapert immer. dwds: Die Zeit, 29.12.2010, Nr. 52.
c. Eine mögliche Wiedergeburt der Grünen […] hapert an drei Stellen. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 26.03.2001.
d. Nur bei den Bässen hapert der Nachschub. dwds: Die Zeit, 19.03.1993, Nr. 12.

6.5.2 sbj › adj : [ ND | pD ] Nominative demotion+dative

[6.36] Incidental verbs with nominative and dative arguments allow the nominative to be changed into a prepositional phrase with an, while at the same time the dative will be retained, like with fehlen ‘to lack’ (6.36 a,b). The result is a construction without nominative, so a pronoun es is inserted.

(6.36) a. Das Geld fehlt ihm.
b. Ihm fehlt es an Geld.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.5.3 sbj › adj : [ N– | pD ] Nominative demotion+dative addition

[6.37] Some verbs take a nominative argument with non-sentient arguments (6.37 a), but a dative experiencer can only be used with the nominative demoted (6.37 b). This only seems to occur with predicative constructions with copula sein. Maybe this diathesis is better analysed as a stack of two separate changes: a dropping of the nominative and an addition of the dative, with (6.37 c) being an intermediate construction.

(6.37) a. Der Sommer ist kalt.
b. Mir ist kalt (im Sommer).
c. Es ist kalt (im Sommer).

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.5.4 adj › sbj › ø : [ Np | –N ] Intransitive conciliative

[6.38] A conciliative (from Lat. conciliator, ‘intermediary/mediator’) is a diathesis in which an instrument-like artefact is promoted to nominative subject. This instrument is an intermediate that is used by an agent to reach a certain goal, hence the latinate name. In German I propose to use the term instrumentsubjektiv. This diathesis is attested both with intransitive verbs (this section) and transitive verbs (see Sec­tion 6.5.5). For intransitive verbs a (non-governed) prepositional constituent alternates with a nominative subject (6.38 a,b).

(6.38) a. Er klappert mit der Tür.
b. Die Tür klappert.

[6.39] With some verbs the old nominative can be retained as genitive possessor of the new nominative (6.39 b). Because of this possessor, the alternation is referred to by Levin (1993: 77) as “Possessor Subject”. However, the old nominative and genitive possessor need not be the same participant (6.39 c), so this should not be seen as a definitional characteristic. The possessor (if present) in turn can show an alternation with a dative for some verbs (6.39 d), see Sec­tion 5.8.3.

(6.39) a. Ich passe in den Anzug.
b. Mein Anzug passt.
c. Ich passe in deinen Anzug.
d. Mir passt der Anzug.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.5.5 adj › sbj › ø : [ NpA | –NA ] Transitive conciliative

[6.40] This diathesis removes the agent and promotes the mit instrument to a nominative (6.40 a,b). The accusative argument remains unchanged. With some verbs the original nominative can be retained as possessor of the new nominative. However, just like with the previous alternation, this characteristic is not definitional for this diathesis.

(6.40) a. Der Doktor heilt die Wunde mit einer Salbe.
b. Die Salbe des Doktors heilt die Wunde.

[6.41] The instrumental mit phrase is a real non-governed instrument, i.e. an inanimate artefact that is used by the agent to achieve a certain goal. A further structural argument for the status as instrument is that the preposition mit can be replaced by ohne. This defines the differentiation between this diathesis and a fabricative (see Sec­tion 6.5.7). In a fabricative, the mit phrase (i) is a governed preposition, i.e. it can be replaced by a sentence starting with damit, dass, (ii) designates something that the agent has fabricated, and (iii) cannot be replaced by ohne.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.42] Not all instruments allow for this diathesis (6.41). This difference suggests that there are at least two different kinds of instruments (cf. Hooste 2018).

(6.41) a. Ich belade den Laster mit einem Kran.
b. Der Kran belädt den Laster.
c. Ich belade den Laster mit meinen Händen.
d. * Meine Hände beladen den Laster.

6.5.6 adj › sbj › ø : [ NpA | –Np ] Ingredient conciliative

[6.43] This alternation takes a (non-governed) prepositional phrase and turns it into a nominative. However, different from the previous anticausatives, the original nominative agent cannot be retained, and the original accusative is transformed into a prepositional phrase with nach.

(6.42) a. Ich schmecke Pfefferminze in der Suppe.
b. Die Suppe schmeckt nach Pfefferminze.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.5.7 pbj › sbj › ø : [ NPA | –NA ] Transitive fabricative

[6.44] A fabricative (from Lat fabrica, ‘plan, trick, workmanship’) is a diathesis that superficially looks very similar to a conciliative (Sec­tion 6.5.4) because in both diatheses a mit prepositional phrase is promoted to nominative subject. The central difference is that in a fabricative diathesis the mit prepositional phrase is a governed preposition. This structural difference has a parallel semantic difference in that the fabricative mit phrase is an object that is produced by the agent, while a conciliative mit is an instrument. In German I propose to use the term kreationsubjektiv for this fabricative diathesis, in opposition to the Instrumentsubjektiv for the conciliative variant.

[6.45] This diathesis occurs (among others) with verbs of emotional interactions like überraschen ‘to surprise’ (6.43 a). To understand this diathesis, a distinction is needed between the role of the “fabricator”, who produces the thing that evokes the emotion (here: Lehrer, ‘teacher’) and the role of the “fabricated product”, which induces the emotion (here: Aufgabe, ‘assignment’). The fabricator can be expressed with an adnominal genitive (“possessor”) of the product (6.43 a,b). The mit prepositional phrase expressing the fabricated product in (6.43 a) is a governed preposition (6.43 c). As a result of the diathesis, the fabricated product is be promoted to nominative subject and the fabricator is removed from the expression (6.43 a,b). The experiencer in the accusative mich remains unchanged.

(6.43) a. Der Lehrer überraschst mich mit seiner Aufgabe.
b. Die Aufgabe (des Lehrers) überrascht mich.
c. Der Lehrer überrascht mich damit, dass er die Aufgabe schon korrigiert hat.

[6.46] There is a large overlap (but also an interesting difference) between the verbs that allow for this diathesis and the verbs that allow for a reflexive variant (6.44 c), see Sec­tion 7.5.6. Some verbs, like ärgern ‘to irritate’ in (6.44) allow for both diatheses, but other verbs only take part in one or the other diathesis.

(6.44) a. Du ärgerst mich mit deinen Witzen.
b. Deine Witze ärgern mich.
c. Ich ärgere mich über deine Witze.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.47] For a detailed discussion of the verb erschrecken and possible morphophonological differences between the two alternants, see Plank & Lahiri (Plank & Lahiri 2015: 29–31).

6.5.8 pbj › sbj › ø : [ NP | –N ] Intransitive fabricative

[6.48] The verb drängen ‘to urge’ (6.45) shows a special diathesis which is a variant of the previous fabricative. In this case, the role expressed with the governed preposition auf (6.45 a,b) is turned into a nominative with a meaning of ‘to be urgent’ (6.45 c).

(6.45) a. Ich dränge auf eine Änderung.
b. Ich dränge darauf, dass die Regelung geändert wird.
c. Die Änderung drängt.

Attested verbs

6.5.9 pbj › sbj › ø : [ NPD | –ND ] Fabricative+dative

[6.49] The verb drohen ‘to threaten’ (6.46) exhibits a fabricative diathesis with an additional dative argument. The governed preposition mit (6.46 a.b) can be turned into a nominative (6.46 c).

(6.46) a. Er droht mir mit Entlassung.
b. Er droht mir damit, dass ich entlassen werde.
c. Die Entlassung droht mir.

Attested verbs

6.5.10 obj › sbj › ø : [ NAL | –NL ] haben Anticausative+location

[6.50] Some verbs allow for both an intransitive stative location (6.47 a) and caused location (6.47 b) construction. I analyse these verbs as anticausatives (cf. Sec­tion 5.5.5 for a similar diathesis without an obligatory location phrase). In German I propose to use the term ortsantikausativ for this diathesis.

(6.47) a. Ich hänge den Pullover in den Schrank.
b. Der Pullover hängt im Schrank.

[6.51] These verbs use a haben perfect both in the intransitive and transitive usage (6.48 a,b). The Zustandspassiv of the transitive is also possible, leading to another intransitive construction with the auxiliary sein (6.48 c). This is clearly a Zustandspassiv because it cannot be combined with a gradual time specificiation like allmählich ‘gradually’ (cf. Sec­tion 10.2.6).

(6.48) a. Ich habe den Teller an den Tisch geklebt.
b. Der Teller hat (allmählich) am Tisch geklebt.
c. Der Teller ist (*allmählich) am Tisch geklebt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.52] The verb hängen still shows the difference between transitive causative and intransitive stative usage through different forms of the past hing vs. hängte (6.49 a,b) and the participle gehangen vs. gehängt (6.49 c,d). Many speakers of German do not appear to have clear intuitions about any difference between these two inflectional alternatives anymore (see also Plank & Lahiri 2015: 32–33).

(6.49) a. Der Pullover hing im Schrank.
b. ? Ich hängte den Pullover in den Schrank.
c. Der Pullover hat im Schrank gehangen.
d. Ich habe den Pullover in den Schrank gehängt.

6.5.11 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA– | –NP ] haben Anticausative+preposition

[6.53] The verb deuten (6.50) shows a special diathesis in which the accusative is turned into a nominative, but only with an additional obligatory auf prepositional phrase (6.50 a,b). The preposition auf is a governed preposition (6.50 b,c). Although clearly related, these two uses of deuten are semantically already quite far apart, meaning approximately ‘to interpret’ (6.50 a) vs. ‘to forebode’ (6.50 b).

(6.50) a. Ich deute den Traum.
b. Der Traum deutet auf nichts Gutes.
c. Der Traum deutet darauf, dass morgen alles wieder gut sein wird.

Attested verbs

6.6 Diatheses with promotion to subject

6.6.1 ø › sbj › obj : [ –NL | NAL ] sein Causative+location

[6.54] Though superficially similar to the haben anticausatives (see Sec­tion 6.5.10), the verbs in this section are different in that they only have the option of a sein perfect for the intransitive (6.51 a,b). The transitive causative diathesis takes haben in the perfect (6.51 c). In German I propose the term ortskausativ for this diathesis.

(6.51) a. Der Elefant ist ins Wasser gestürzt.
b. * Der Elefant hat ins Wasser gestürzt.
c. Ich habe den Elefanten ins Wasser gestürzt.

[6.55] This alternation is strongly reminiscent of the Zustandspassiv (see Sec­tion 10.5.16), but there is a crucial difference in that with stürzen ‘to plunge’ both the transitive (6.52 a,b) and the intransitive (6.52 c,d) can occur in the present tense. This is crucially different from regular transitive verbs with a Zustandspassiv, like putzen ‘to clean’ (6.53), for which an intransitive present is not possible (6.53 d).

(6.52) a. Ich habe den Elefanten ins Wasser gestürzt.
b. Ich stürze den Elefanten ins Wasser.
c. Der Elefant ist ins Wasser gestürzt.
d. Der Elefant stürzt ins Wasser.
(6.53) a. Ich habe den Tisch geputzt.
b. Ich putze den Tisch.
c. Der Tisch ist geputzt.
d. * Der Tisch putzt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.56] The alternation with the verb rücken ‘to move over’ and ziehen ‘to pull’ are rather idiosyncratic. Possibly, these alternations constructions are better seen as different verbs.

6.6.2 ø › sbj › obj : [ –NL | NAL ] Umlaut Causative+location

[6.57] Vestiges of the old Germanic causative suffix ‑jan can still be found in some verb pairs in contemporary German, as illustrated with the pair liegen/legen ‘to lie/to lay’ (6.54). The verbs in this section obligatorily need a location. Similar causative verb pairs without obligatory location are discussion in Sec­tion 5.6.3.

(6.54) a. Der Hund liegt in dem Korb.
b. Ich lege den Hund in den Korb.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7 Diatheses with object demotion

[6.58] There are two different kinds of object demotions that involve prepositional phrases. First, there are many verbs with governed prepositions (6.55 a,b) that allow for the governed prepositional phrase to be dropped (6.55 c).

(6.55) a. Ich träume von dir.
b. Ich träume davon, dass ich dich treffe.
c. Ich träume.

[6.59] Second, there are prepositional antipassives in which a case-marked argument alternates with a prepositional phrase (6.56 a,b). Note that with antipassives this prepositional phrase cannot be reformulated with a da(r)+preposition, dass phrase (6.56 c).

(6.56) a. Ich schieße den Bären.
b. Ich schieße auf den Bären.
c. * Ich schieße darauf, dass der Bär kommt.

[6.60] There are just a few deobjective “drop”-alternations that are missing, and these missing alternations suggest an interesting generalisation. Missing are the alternations [ nap | n–p ], [ npd | n–d ] and (from the previous chapter) [ nad | n–d ]. These apparently dispreferred alternations suggest that a dative argument has to be dropped before a governed preposition can be dropped, and likewise, a governed preposition has to be dropped before an accusative argument can be dropped, i.e there is a deobjective hierarchy (6.57 a).

(6.57) Deobjective hierarchy: dative › preposition › accusative

[6.61] A similar generalisation can be made for antipassives. If a verb has various case marked objects, then dative and genitive objects can have an antipassive alternation. In contrast, an accusative can only have antipassive alternation when there are no genitive or dative arguments. Note that the drop hierarchy and the antipassive hierarchy are not contradictory, but there is currently insufficient evidence to claim that they are the same hierarchy.

(6.58) Antipassive hierarchy: dative/genitive › accusative

[6.62] Some verbs allow for both a dative and an accusative antipassive. There appears to be recurrent restrictions on the co-occurrence of accusative and dative prepositional alternations, with attested patterns as shown for schießen ‘to shoot’ in (6.59 a-f) and schreiben ‘to write’ (6.59 a-f). The generalisation seems to be (i) that the accusative cannot be demoted into a preposition when there is still a dative around and (ii) dative and accusative can only be both demoted to a preposition if one of the prepositions is für (this is a further indication that the für-to-dative diatheses are better analysed as promotions, see Sec­tion 6.8.10).

(6.59) a. Ich schieße dir den Bären. [ nad ]
b. Ich schieße für dich. [ n-p ]
c. Ich schieße auf den Bären. [ np- ]
d. Ich schieße den Bären für dich. [ nap ]
e. * Ich schieße dir auf den Bären. [ npd ]
f. Ich schieße für dich auf den Bären. [ npp ]
(6.60) a. Ich schreibe dir den Brief. [ nad ]
b. Ich schreibe an dich. [ n-p ]
c. Ich schreibe an dem Brief. [ np- ]
d. Ich schreibe den Brief an dich. [ nap ]
e. * Ich schreibe dir an dem Brief. [ npd ]
f. * Ich schreibe an dich an dem Brief. [ npp ]

6.7.1 pbj › ø : [ NP | N– ] Governed preposition drop

[6.63] Governed prepositions that can be dropped are frequent. There are even various verbs that allow for different governed prepositions, like sprechen über and sprechen von in (6.61 a,b).

(6.61) a. Die Leute sprechen über die Wahl.
Die Leute sprechen darüber, dass es einen neuen Präsidenten gibt.
b. Der Reporter spricht von einem historischen Ereignis.
Der Reporter spricht davon, dass es ein historisches Ereignis ist.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.2 pbj › ø : [ NAP | NA– ] Governed preposition drop‌‌+accusative

[6.64] Some verbs allow for the governed preposition to be dropped, but not the accusative argument (6.62 a–c).

(6.62) a. Ich bereite dich auf die Klausur vor.
b. Ich bereite dich vor.
c. * Ich bereite auf die Klausur vor.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.3 pbj › ø : [ NL | N– ] Location preposition drop

[6.65] A special variant of a dropped preposition of is the removal of an obligatory location phrase. For example, the verb steigen ‘to mount’ has an obligatory location phrase when used with an agentive subject (6.63 a,b). The analysis that the subject is agentive is reinforced by the impossibility for the participle to be used attributively without the location phrase (6.63 c,d), cf. Sec­tion 10.2.4.

(6.63) a. Der Mann steigt aus dem Auto.
b. * Der Mann steigt.
c. Der aus dem Auto gestiegene Mann […].
d. * Der gestiegene Mann […].

[6.66] Crucially, the verb steigen can also be used without a location phrase in the meaning ‘to rise’ (6.64 a) with various inanimate subjects. I thank Jens Fleischhauer for this observation. In such uses the participle can be used attributively (6.64 b).

(6.64) a. Die Temperatur steigt.
b. Die gestiegene Temperatur […].

[6.67] The verbs that allow for such a diathesis have a clear difference in meaning between the two uses, one more agentive and the other more patientive (cf. Sec­tion 10.2.5).

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.4 pbj › ø : [ NAL | NA– ] Location preposition drop‌+accusative

[6.68] The verb durchziehen needs a location phrase when used in the meaning ‘to pull through’ (6.65 a), but not when it is used in the meaning ‘to see through’ (6.65 b).

(6.65) a. Ich habe den Faden durch das Nadelöhr durchgezogen.
b. ? Ich habe den Faden durchgezogen.
c. Ich habe die Reform durchgezogen.

Attested verbs

6.7.5 obj › ø : [ NAP | N–P ] Accusative drop+preposition

[6.69] Different from the previous alternation, these verbs allow for both the preposition and the accusative to be dropped (6.66 a-c).

(6.66) a. Ich warne dich vor den Gefahren.
b. Ich warne dich.
c. Ich warne vor den Gefahren.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.6 obj › ø : [ NDP | N–P ] Dative drop+preposition

[6.70] With a dative argument, some verbs allow for the dative to be dropped, but the preposition to be retained (6.67 a–c). This is the opposite structure as attested with accusative drop, as discussed above.

(6.67) a. Ich rate dir zum Verkauf.
b. * Ich rate dir.
c. Ich rate zum Verkauf.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.7 obj › ø : [ NDP | N– – ] Dative drop+preposition drop

[6.71] Some verbs allow for both the dative and the preposition to be dropped, though mostly not both at the same time (6.68). Also note that the dative appears to be always the possessor of the referent in the prepositional phrase, so these drops might alternatively be analysed as a stack of two different diatheses, viz. a possessor raising [np– | npg | npd ] and a preposition drop [ npd | n–d ].

(6.68) a. Ich gratuliere dir zu deinem Geburtstag.
b. Ich gratuliere dir.
c. Ich gratuliere zu deinem Geburtstag.
d. ? Ich gratuliere.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.8 obj › adj : [ NA | Np ] Accusative antipassive

[6.72] A commonly occurring diathesis in German is an antipassive, in which an accusative object can be reformulated as a prepositional phrase. In such alternations, the construction with the prepositional phrase typically indicates a less transitive situation, e.g. one in which the object is less affected (6.69 a) or the action only partially completed (6.69 b). Note that this alternation does not work in the other direction, i.e. when a verb occurs with a prepositional phrase, then it is mostly not the case that it can be used with the same referent as an accusative (6.69 c).

(6.69) a. Ich schieße den Bären.
Ich schieße auf den Bären.
b. Ich baue ein Haus.
Ich baue an einem Haus.
c. Ich sitze auf dem Stuhl.
* Ich sitze den Stuhl.

[6.73] There appear to be only a small selection of prepositions that can be used in such alternations, which will be discussed in turn in subsequent subsections.

[6.74] It is important to realise that many verbs allow for more than one of these alternations, depending on the reading of the verb/object combination, illustrated here with the verb spielen, ‘to play’ (8.63 a,b). With the same verb, there might even be readings that do not allow for any prepositional alternation (6.70 c-e).

(6.70) a. Er spielt die Geige.
Er spielt auf der Geige.
b. Er spielt den letzen Akt.
Er spielt in dem letzen Akt.
c. Er spielt Billard.
d. Er spielt einen Walzer.
e. Er spielt den Narren.

[6.75] Some verbs, like beklagen ‘to complain’ (6.71), additionally take a reflexive pronoun with an antipassive alternation (see Sec­tion 7.7.4). It is an open question why some verbs need such an additional reflexive pronoun in an antipassive diathesis.

(6.71) a. Ich beklage den Lärm.
b. Ich beklage mich über den Lärm.

[6.76] An antipassive diathesis has to be distinguished from differential object marking. With differential object marking (dom) the marking of the object is determined by the object itself, typically by animacy. For example, the German verb beißen ‘to bite’ takes an accusative object with animate objects (6.72 a), while inanimate object need a prepositional phrase (6.72 b). Similar effect are attested with zwicken ‘to pinch’, schlagen ‘to hit’, treten ‘to kick’ and possibly kratzen ‘to scratch’ (Fleischhauer 2018). It seems to be a promising avenue of research to explain differential object marking as the result of a grammaticalised antipassive diathesis.

(6.72) a. Der Hund biss den Jungen.
? Der Hund biss in den Jungen.
b. Der Hund biss in den Knochen.
* Der Hund biss den Knochen.

6.7.8.1 an Antipassive

[6.77] Accusative objects that alternate with an an prepositional phrase indicate partially completed actions, like with bauen an ‘to be busy building’ (6.73 a) and is also typically used when there is bodily contact to the object, like with schlecken an ‘to lick’ (6.73 b).

(6.73) a. Ich baue ein Haus.
Ich baue an einem Haus.
b. Ich schlecke mein Eis.
Ich schlecke an meinem Eis.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.78] The verb kratzen ‘to scratch’ appears to loose the possibility to be used with an accusative inanimate object. Examples with an accusative like (6.74 a) are only attested in older German texts and sound strange in current German. It sounds much better with a dative possessor (6.74 b), see Sec­tion 5.8.4. With animate objects an accusative seems to be still possible (6.74 c), so this verb appears to be developing in the direction of showing differential object marking. With inanimate objects a prepositional phrase with an is preferred (6.74 d).

(6.74) a. Er kratzte den Kopf. dwds: Hauptmann, Gerhart: Der Narr in Christo Emanuel Quint, Berlin: Aufbau-Verl. 1962(1910), S. 318.
b. Ich kratze mir den Kopf.
c. Die Katze kratzt mich.
d. Die Katze kratzt an der Tür.

[6.79] For the verb verdienen ‘to earn’ it is unclear whether these two uses should maybe better be categorised as different meanings (6.75 a,b).

(6.75) a. Er verdient den Nobelpreis.
b. Er verdient an dem Geschäft

[6.80] Note the absence of a determiner in the following examples (6.76).

(6.76) a. Ich gewinne Sicherheit.
Ich gewinne an Sicherheit.
b. Wir verlieren Höhe.
Wir verlieren an Höhe.

6.7.8.2 auf Antipassive

[6.81] Accusative objects that alternate with an auf prepositional phrase indicate partially affected objects, either with actions on top of an object, like with reiten ‘to ride’ (6.77 a), or with a finished action in the direction of an object, like with schießen ‘to shoot’ (6.77 b). Also verbs denoting the playing of musical instruments, like blasen ‘to blow’ (6.77 c), show this alternation.

(6.77) a. Er reitet das Pferd.
Er reitet auf dem Pferd.
b. Ich schieße den Bären.
Ich schieße auf den Bären.
c. Ich blase die Trompete.
Ich blase auf der Trompete.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.82] The following verbs show considerable semantic shift in this alternation: hören ‘to hear’ vs. ‘to obey’ (6.78 a), achten ‘to respect’ vs. ‘to look after’ (6.78 b) and sprechen ‘be able to speak a foreign language’ vs. ‘to speak in a foreign language’ (6.78 c).

(6.78) a. Ich habe sie gehört.
Ich habe auf sie gehört.
b. Ich achte dich.
Ich achte auf dich. c Ich spreche Englisch.
Ich spreche auf Englisch.

6.7.8.3 aus Antipassive

[6.83] This alternation seems to be typical for objects of reading, like vorlesen ‘to read aloud’ (6.79).

(6.79) a. Ich lese das Buch vor.
b. Ich lese aus dem Buch vor.

Attested verbs

6.7.8.4 in Antipassive

[6.84] Accusative objects that alternate with an in prepositional phrase seem to be rather uncommon. It only occurs when the action includes an aspect of occurring inside of an object. The prepositional alternate indicates partial completion of the action, like with lesen ‘to read’ (6.80).

(6.80) a. Ich lese das Buch.
b. Ich lese in dem Buch.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.85] With the verb stürmen in the meaning ‘to attack’ there is a good argument to be made for an applicative diathesis instead of an antipassive. First, the verb stürmen arguably is a weather verb ‘to storm’ (6.81 a) which can be used in a manner-of-movement diathesis (6.81 b), see Sec­tion 6.8.2. From this usage it is only a small step to the meaning ‘to attack’ with an accusative (6.81 c). Second, this is probably the only verb among all the antipassives listed here that changed the light verb in the perfect between haben and sein (6.81 b,c). This verb is still listed here among the antipassives because I do not have any other verbs that show the same applicative-like diathesis to put it into a completely new subsection.

(6.81) a. Es stürmt draußen.
b. Die Soldaten sind in den Saal gestürmt.
c. Die Soldaten haben das Kastell gestürmt.

6.7.8.5 mit Instrumental antipassive

[6.86] Accusative objects that alternate with a mit prepositional phrase indicate partially affected objects, typically those that can be construed as an instrument, like with schießen ‘to shoot’ (6.82 a), or an instrument of transport, like with fliegen ‘to fly’ (6.82 b).

(6.82) a. Ich schieße eine Kugel.
Ich schieße mit einer Kugel.
b. Ich fliege das Flugzeug.
Ich fliege mit dem Flugzeug.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.8.6 mit Reciprocal antipassive

[6.87] A very small group of verbs show an antipassive in which the mit prepositional phrase is a reciprocal role, like with sprechen ‘to speak’ (6.83). This role can be identified by the possibility to add miteinander (cf. Sec­tion 6.3.6 for verbs with a similar role, but without the antipassive alternation).

(6.83) a. Ich spreche den Abteilungsleiter.
b. Ich spreche mit dem Abteilungsleiter.
c. Der Abteilungsleiter und ich sprechen miteinander.

Attested verbs

6.7.8.7 nach Antipassive

[6.88] Accusative objects that alternate with a nach prepositional phrase indicate an uncompleted purposeful action in the direction of an object (cf. Proost 2009), like with suchen ‘to search’ (6.84).

(6.84) a. Ich suche den Ring.
b. Ich suche nach dem Ring.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.8.8 von Antipassive

[6.89] Accusative objects that alternate with a von prepositional phrase occur typically with consumption verbs, indicating that the consumption is only partially completed, like with essen ‘to eat’ (6.85 a). Also actions that designate a transaction of an (part of an) object, like with stehlen ‘to steal’ (6.85 b). In some contexts the verbs wissen ‘to know’ (6.85 c) and hören ‘to hear’ (6.85 d) also show this alternation.

(6.85) a. Ich esse einen Apfel.
Ich esse von dem Apfel.
b. Ich stehle die Blumen.
Ich stehle von den Blumen.
c. Ich weiß deine Telefonnummer.
Ich weiß von dem Schmuck, der gestohlen wurde.
d. Ich höre den Kampf in der Ferne.
Ich höre von dem Kampf in den Nachrichten.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.8.9 über Antipassive

[6.90] The über antipassive is used with some verbs of control, like bestimmen ‘to decide’ (6.86).

(6.86) a. Ich bestimme die Reihenfolge.
b. Ich bestimme über die Reihenfolge.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.91] The verb verfügen has two rather different meanings in the antipassive diathesis, viz. ‘to mandate’ with an accusative (6.87 a) and ‘to have control over’ with a prepositional phrase (6.87 b)

(6.87) a. Ich verfüge einen Einreisestopp.
b. Ich verfüge über viel Geld.

6.7.8.10 zu Antipassive

[6.92] The antipassive variant with zu is somewhat troublesome as all examples known to me are quite idiosyncratic, like finden ‘to find’ (6.88). Maybe it is better to consider these diatheses as separate lexicalised constructions. However, I think the examples listed here are interesting enough to consider this as a possible diathesis.

(6.88) a. Sie findet ihn.
b. Sie konnte blind und taub sein, aber sie fand zu ihm. dwds: Kopetzky, Steffen: Grand Tour, Frankfurt am Main: Eichborn 2002, S. 239.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.9 obj › adj : [ NLA | NLp ] Accusative antipassive+location

[6.93] With some verbs, like drücken ‘to press’ (6.89 a), a locative prepositional phrase is obligatorily present. The accusative instrument Finger ‘finger’ can be changed to an optional mit prepositional phrase (6.89 b), but the location cannot be removed (6.89 c). A similar situation occurs with stoßen ‘to jab’ (6.90), though the mit instrument cannot (easily) be removed in this case either.

(6.89) a. Er drückt seinen Finger auf den Knopf.
b. Er drückt auf den Knopf (mit seinem Finger).
c. * Er drückt den Finger.
(6.90) a. Er stößt das Messer in die Wunde.
b. Er stößt in die Wunde mit dem Messer.
c. * Er stößt das Messer.

Attested verbs

6.7.10 obj › adj : [ ND | Np ] Dative antipassive

[6.94] It seems to be somewhat unusual for verbs with dative but without accusative to allow for a prepositional expression of the dative, like with entfliehen ‘to flee’ (6.91). There are just a handful of cases with the prepositions as listed below. The meaning of these prepositional phrases seem to be very close to the locational meaning (e.g. aus is used for arguments moving out of something, etc.). Note that such a dative antipassive is much more common with verbs that also have an accusative argument (see Sec­tion 6.7.11).

(6.91) a. Ich entfliehe dem Gefängnis.
b. Ich entfliehe aus dem Gefängnis.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.11 obj › adj : [ NAD | NAp ] Dative antipassive+accusative

[6.95] With an additional accusative argument it is widespread for dative arguments to have an alternative expression in the form of a prepositional phrase. However, it is rather difficult to characterise the semantic difference between two such alternating expressions (cf. De Vaere, De Cuypere & Willems 2018) for an investigation for the verb geben and the large literature on the English dative alternation). There are only a few monosyllabic prepositions that can be used for this alternation:

6.7.11.1 an Ditransitive dative alternation

[6.96] The replacement of a dative with an an prepositional phrase is a common alternation (cf. Adler 2011). For a detailed analysis of this alternation with the verb geben, see De Vaere et al. (2018). In all cases there is some kind of giving of the accusative object to the dative object implied. Various verbs in this class also allow for a zu dative alternation (Sec­tion 6.7.11.4).

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.11.2 von Ditransitive dative alternation

[6.97] The von dative antipassive is typically used with verbs that express a removal of an accusative object from the dative object, like with klauen ‘to steel’ (6.92).

(6.92) a. Ich klaue dir die Blumen.
b. Ich klaue die Blumen von dir.

Attested verbs

6.7.11.3 vor Ditransitive dative alternation

[6.98] The vor dative antipassive is typically used with verbs expressing an action that hides the accusative object from the dative object, like with verschweigen ‘to conceal’ (13.2). All examples known to me have the prefix ver-.

(6.93) a. Ich verschweige dir das Geheimnis.
b. Ich verschweige das Geheimnis vor dir.

Attested verbs

6.7.11.4 zu Ditransitive dative alternation

[6.99] The zu dative antipassive is typically used with verbs expressing the movement of the accusative object to the dative object, like with bringen ‘to bring’ (6.94).

(6.94) a. Ich bringe dir die Waren.
b. Ich bringe die Waren zu dir.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.7.12 obj › pbj : [ NA | NP ] Accusative governed antipassive

[6.100] The verb beginnen ‘to begin’ illustrates an accusative antipassive (6.95 a,b). Different from the previously discussed accusative antipassives (see Sec­tion 6.7.8), in this example the mit prepositional phrase is a governed preposition (6.95 c). All verbs in this section have antipassives with governed prepositions. Note that the verb beginnen also shows a different, completely independent, anticausative diathesis (see Sec­tion 5.5.5) in which the accusative is promoted to nominative (6.95 d).

(6.95) a. Ich beginne die Arbeit.
b. Ich beginne mit der Arbeit.
c. Ich beginne damit, dass ich die Stifte ordne.
d. Die Arbeit beginnt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.101] Note the absence of a determiner for the accusative with leiden ‘to suffer’ (6.96).

(6.96) a. Ich leide große Schmerzen.
b. Ich leide an einer Krankheit.

6.7.13 obj › pbj : [ ND | NP ] Dative governed antipassive

[6.102] The verb vertrauen ‘to trust’ (6.97) is currently the only known example of a verb showing a dative antipassive with a governed preposition.

(6.97) a. Ich vertraue dir.
b. Ich vertraue auf dich.
c. Ich vertraue darauf, dass du die Arbeit machst.

Attested verbs

6.7.14 obj › pbj : [ NG | NP ] Genitive governed antipassive

[6.103] Some old-fashioned genitive arguments can be replaced by a governed preposition. Yet, this seems to be highly unusual for genitives without accusatives. The only known case is denken ‘to remember’ (6.98 a,b). Note that the prepositional phrase is governed (6.98 c).

(6.98) a. Ich denke der vergangenen Jahre.
b. Ich denke an die vergangenen Jahre.
c. Ich denke daran, dass ich Milch kaufen muss.

Attested verbs

6.7.15 obj › pbj : [ NAG | NAP ] Genitive governed antipassive+accusative

[6.104] The genitive ditransitives in this group allow for an alternative formulation of the genitive argument as a prepositional phrase with von. Given a suitable context, such prepositional phrases can in most cases be left out.

[6.105] As genitive arguments are generally disappearing in German, many verbs in this section are also losing the possibility to occur with a genitive, leaving the antipassive alternant as the only option. For example, the verb erinnern ‘to remind’ could be used with a genitive until ±1850 (6.99 a). Today, the prepositional an antipassive seems to be only possibility (6.99 b). Note that the prepositions with the verbs in this section are governed prepositions (6.99 c).

(6.99) a. Ich erinnere dich des Versprechens.
b. Ich erinnere dich an das Versprechen.
c. Ich erinnere dich daran, dass du Milch kaufen sollst.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.106] The verb entbinden can be used as an intransitive verb with a meaning of ‘to give birth’. However, in the meaning ‘to absolve’ as discussed here it seems not to be possible to completely drop the genitive or von phrase. This also seems to hold for entheben ‘to depose’ and verweisen ‘to expel’. The usage of befreien ‘to free’ with a genitive seems to have been lost in the 19th Century (6.100).

(6.100) Das allgemeine Völkerrecht befreit die Person des feindlichen Regenten. dwds: Klüber, Johann Ludwig: Europäisches Völkerrecht. Bd. 2. Stuttgart, 1821.

6.8 Diatheses with promotion to object

6.8.1 ø › pbj : [ N– | NL ] Manner of movement

[6.107] Many movement verbs, like tanzen ‘to dance’ (6.101), allow for the following two kinds of constructions. First, a regular intransitive construction expressing the movement with an optional location (6.101 a) and, second, a construction with an obligatory local prepositional phrase in which the movement verb expresses the manner of movement (6.101 b). Syntactically, there is a crucial difference between these two constructions in that the perfect auxiliary changes between haben (6.101 a) and sein (6.101 b), see also Sec­tion 10.4.3. The local prepositional phrase cannot be left out in the construction with sein (6.101 c). In German I propose to use the term bewegungsart for this diathesis.

(6.101) a. Ich habe (in dem Garten) getanzt.
b. Ich bin durch den Garten getanzt.
(= Ich habe mich tanzend durch den Garten bewegt.)
c. * Ich bin getanzt.

[6.108] This alternation is typically used to explain the difference between using a dative or an accusative with the so-called Wechselpräpositionen like in or auf. For example, the verb klettern ‘to climb’ can be used with auf+dative (6.102 a) and with auf+accusative (6.102 b). With the dative the action takes place at the location (‘climbing while being on top of the mountain’). In contrast, with the accusative there is a movement that changes location (‘climbing with the goal to reach the mountain’).

(6.102) a. Ich klettere auf dem Berg.
Ich habe gestern (auf dem Berg) geklettert.
b. Ich klettere auf den Berg.
Ich bin gestern *(auf den Berg) geklettert.

[6.109] However, syntactically and semantically there is much more going on than simply a difference in case marking with some prepositions. As proposed here, there is a diathesis between using a movement verb like schwanken ‘to swing, to waver’ in two different ways:

  1. either it is used to describe:
  2. or it is used to describe:

[6.110] With regard to the (d) options: as expected for an opposition between haben+Partizip and sein+Partizip there is a correlation with the possibility to use the participle as an attributive adjective (see Sec­tion 10.2.4). However, concerning the (e) options, there is no correlation with the possibility to add gradual time specification. This suggests that this sein+Partizip construction is a real perfect and not some kind of Zustandspassiv (see Sec­tion 10.2.6).

(6.103) a. Das Boot schwankt im Wind.
b. Das Boot hat im Wind geschwankt.
c. Das Boot hat geschwankt.
d. * Das im Wind geschwankte Boot ist gesunken.
e. Das Boot hat allmählich im Wind geschwankt.
(6.104) a. Der Betrunkene schwankt in die Kneipe.
b. Der Betrunkene ist in die Kneipe geschwankt.
c. * Der Betrunkene ist geschwankt.
d. Der in die Kneipe geschwankte Betrunkene ist gestürzt.
e. Der Betrunkene ist allmählich in die Kneipe geschwankt.

[6.111] This diathesis is productively used with verbs that describe some kind of movement. However, it is also attested with a few non-movement verbs (or at least atypical movement verbs), like triefen ‘to drip’ (6.105 a). This verb can also be used to describe the manner of movement in the case of a liquid (6.105 b).

(6.105) a. Sein Mantel hat getrieft (vor Nässe).
b. Das Wasser ist vom Dach getrieft.

[6.112] A very similar, but crucially different diathesis exists with other non-movement verbs like schwitzen ‘to sweat’ (6.106). With such verbs an additional reflexive pronoun is necessary (see Sec­tion 7.8.1 for an extensive discussion).

(6.106) a. Die Köche schwitzen.
b. Die herumwieselnden Köche schwitzen sich durch verschiedene Runden. dwds: Die Zeit, 20.04.2016 (online).

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.8.2 ø › pbj : [ – – | NL ] Weather-like manner of movement

[6.113] Many weather verbs like wehen ‘to blow’ (6.107) allow for a nominative subject that is moving in a weather-like manner, often induced by a weather phenomenon. In such constructions the location phrase seems obligatory.

(6.107) a. Es weht.
b. Die Blätter wehen durch die Luft.

[6.114] There appears to be a slight semantic difference between examples in which the nominative subject is a patient-like argument of the weather phenomenon, like in (6.107), and examples in which an action is performed in a way reminiscent of the weather phenomenon, like in (6.108).

(6.108) a. Es stürmt.
b. Sie stürmten in den Saal.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.8.3 ø › pbj : [ N– – | NAL ] Intransitive caused motion

[6.115] In the analysis of resultative constructions, there is a recurrent suggestion in the literature to distinguish between “cause to go” and “cause to become” semantics (e.g. McIntyre 2003: 120). I will use the designation caused motion (German verursachte bewegung) for the former and performative result (German ergänzende wirkung) for the latter here. Caused motion diatheses are attested both with intransitive verbs (this section) and transitive verbs (see the next Sec­tion 6.8.4). Performative result diatheses are discussed in Sec­tion 6.8.5.

[6.116] With some apparently intransitive verbs there exist special constructions with an accusative argument and an obligatorily present prepositional phrase. For example, the verb klopfen ‘to knock’ is regularly used as an intransitive (6.109 a) possibly with an an prepositional phrase (6.109 b). Accusative arguments are normally not possible, except for a very few special nouns related to music (6.109 c).

[6.117] However, the verb klopfen is very regularly used in construction like (6.109 d) with an accusative and a prepositional phrase. Both have to occur together, as leaving out either the prepositional phrase (6.109 e) or the accusative (6.109 f) is not possible. This prepositional phrase is a locative and not a governed argument, because it cannot be replaced by a davon, dass phrase.

[6.118] The meaning of this special construction (6.109 d) is also special. The meaning is something like: by doing the action of the intransitive verb, nominative causes accusative to move in the direction described by the prepositional phrase (6.109 g), cf. Goldberg’s (2006: 73) famous caused-motion example She sneezed the foam off the cappuccino.

[6.119] Note that with possessor raising (see Sec­tion 6.8.13) it is even possible to add an additional dative argument, leading to an “intransitive” verb klopfen with an obligatory dative, accusative and prepositional argument (6.109 h). This dative can also be turned into a reflexive (6.109 i).

(6.109) a. Das Herz klopft ganz regelmäßig.
b. Er klopft an der Tür.
c. Er klopft den Takt.
d. Er klopft den Schnee von seinen Schuhen.
e. * Er klopft den Schnee.
f. * Er klopft von seinen Schuhen.
g. Durch klopfen sorgte er dafür, dass der Schnee von seinen Schuhen ging.
h. Er klopft mir den Schnee von den (meinen) Schuhen.
i. Er klopft sich den Schnee von den Schuhen.

[6.120] This construction is closely related constructions with resultative preverbial like leer‑ ‘empty’ in (6.110), see also Sec­tion 9.8.2.

(6.110) Er klopft den Aschenbecher leer.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.121] This construction is also found in fixed (metaphorical) expressions (6.111).

(6.111) a. Er trinkt seine Freunde unter den Tisch.
b. Er spielt den Gegner an die Wand.
c. Der Student im vierten Stock schläft mal wieder ein Loch in den Tag. Attested online at https://universal_lexikon.de-academic.com/232141/Ein_Loch_in_den_Tag_schlafen, accessed 25 Juli 2022.

6.8.4 ø › pbj : [ NA– | NAL ] Transitive caused motion

[6.122] Similar to intransitive caused movement (see Sec­tion 6.8.3), some transitive verbs like befehlen ‘to order’ (6.112 a) alternate with a caused motion construction (6.112 b). Note that there also exists a slightly different construction (without diathesis) with a dative after the preposition an (6.112 c). In this example the prepositional phrase simply expresses the location in which the action is taking place, or, alternatively it is an adnominal phrase. In both these interpretations there is no valency alternation.

(6.112) a. Ich befehle eine Armee.
b. Ich befehle die Armee an die Front.
(= Ich befehle, und das Resultat ist: die Armee ist an der Front.)
c. Ich befehle die Armee an der Front.
(= Ich befehle die Armee, während ich an der Front bin.)
(= Ich befehle die Armee, die an der Front ist.)

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.8.5 ø › pbj : [ NA– | NAP ] Performative result

[6.123] A slightly different variant of a diathesis describing a result is attested with various performative verbs that take a regular accusative, like machen ‘to make/create’ (6.113 a). As an alternative structure, these verbs also allow for a construction with an accusative and a prepositional phrase (6.113 b). Note that the prepositional phrase cannot be left out in these constructions. The meaning of such constructions is parallel to the previous diathesis in that the performative verb causes the result. Such constructions were named quite aptly “Ergänzende Wirkung” all the way back in the influential educational grammatical work of Karl Ferdinand Becker (1833: 81) almost 200 years ago.

(6.113) a. Er macht die Aufgaben.
b. Er macht die Wiese zu einem Garten.
(= Er macht etwas, und das Ergebnis ist: Die Wiese ist ein Garten.)

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.124] For some verbs there appears to be a rather clear lexicalisation of the meaning of the verb between the two alternants, i.e. it is questionable, whether the alternant should still be considered to be the same verb with halten, meaning either ‘to hold’ or ‘to consider’ (6.114 a) and erklären, meaning either ‘to explain’ or ‘to declare’ (6.114 b).

(6.114) a. Ich halte das Schwert.
Ich halte dich für einen Scharlatan.
b. Sie erklärte die Lösung.
Sie erklärte den Kandidaten zum Geschäftsführer.

[6.125] The verb wünschen ‘to wish’ can be used in a construction with als (6.115 a) and it was possible with zu (6.115 b). However, both options seem to be much more common with an additional reflexive pronoun (6.115 c,d).

(6.115) a. Kaum etwas wünscht die Fraktionsspitze mehr als Ruhe an der fraktionsinternen Gesundheitsfront. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 25.11.2004.
b. Ihre Majestät wünscht den Freiherrn von Stein zum Rathgeber des Königs? dwds: Alexis, Willibald: Ruhe ist die erste Bürgerpflicht oder Vor fünfzig Jahren. Bd. 5. Berlin, 1852.
c. Nur 36 Prozent wünschen sich den SPD-Parteichef als Kanzler. dwds: Die Zeit, 09.03.2016 (online).
d. Dr. Malan wünschte sich den vierundsiebzigjährigen Meneer Havenga zum Nachfolger. dwds: Die Zeit, 16.12.1954, Nr. 50.

6.8.6 ø › obj : [ Np– | NAA ] Naming result

[6.126] This alternation appears as a parallel to the double accusative of nennen ‘to name’ (see Sec­tion 5.3.10) for other naming verbs.

(6.116) a. Sie schimpft auf mich.
b. Sie schimpft mich einen Narren

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.8.7 ø › obj : [ –P | DP ] Dative addition+governed preposition

[6.127] This alternation allows for either a dative to be present or not with verbs that have no nominative argument, but with a governed preposition, like liegen an ‘to depend on’ (6.117). Consequently, a valency-simulating pronoun es is present in all alternants. The only example sentence I have been able to find without a valency-simulating es is (6.117 d).

(6.117) a. Es liegt am Geld.
b. Es liegt mir viel am Geld.
c. Es liegt mir viel daran, dass du es erfährst.
d. Mir liegt viel an deiner Anwesenheit.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.8.8 ø › obj › pbj : [ NA– | NLA ] Partitive separated object

[6.128] This alternation (German teil/weg objekttausch) occurs with some transitive verbs like waschen ‘to wash’ (6.118 a,b), cf. the “wipe” alternation in English from Levin (1993: 53). Crucially, the accusatives at both sides of the alternation do not refer to the same roles: there is a new object introduced with this diathesis. The original accusative Hose ‘trousers’ (6.118 a) is recast as a location (6.118 b), which is obligatory (6.118 c). A new accusative Fleck ‘stain’ is introduced as the result of the action. Typically the result is actually the removal of something, like Fleck ‘stain’ in (6.118), hence the term weg in the German name.

(6.118) a. Ich wasche meine Hose.
b. Ich wasche den Fleck aus meiner Hose.
(= Durch das Waschen meiner Hose sorge ich dafür, dass der Fleck heraus kommt.)
c. * Ich wasche den Fleck.

[6.129] The result of this diathesis (6.118 b) is a caused-motion construction, similar to the diatheses as described in Sec­tions 6.8.3-6.8.4. However, this is a completely different diathesis because the object is changed. The new accusative object always is a part of the original object (called a “partitive” interpretation in Levin 1993: 53), hence the term Teil in the German name. The exact reverse diathesis is attested with preverbs (see Sec­tion 8.7.12).

[6.130] These verbs, like kämmen ‘to comb’ (6.119 a,b) also allow for subsequent alternation, namely (6.119 c) to raise a possessor from the prepositional phrase to a dative (see Sec­tion 6.8.13), and then even make this dative self-inflicting reflexive (6.119 d)

(6.119) a. Er kämmt deine Haare.
b. Er kämmt die Läuse aus deinen Haaren.
c. Er kämmt dir die Läuse aus den Haaren.
d. Er kämmt sich die Läuse aus den Haaren.

[6.131] Some verbs of dissection, like schneiden ‘to cut’ (6.120 a) allow for an unmarked exchange of the object to be dissected, Blatt ‘sheet’, with the parts that are the result of the dissection, Streifen ‘bands’ (6.120 b). These verbs can occur both with and without the prefix zer-, see Sec­tion 8.7.11. Note that these verbs allow for another highly similar diathesis that introduces another kind of new object that is a part of the whole object, Loch ‘hole’ (6.120 c), see Sec­tion 6.8.8.

(6.120) a. Ich schneide das Blatt zu Streifen.
b. Ich schneide Streifen aus dem Blatt.
c. Ich schneide ein Loch in dem Blatt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.8.9 ø › obj › pbj : [ NA– | NLA ] Partitive joined object

[6.132] Similar to the previous diathesis, but somewhat less common, some verbs allow for an unmarked partitive construction with a reversed semantics (German teil/fest-objekttausch). Instead of removing a part, a new part is fixated to a whole, hence the terms Teil/fest in the German name. For example, with nähen ‘to sew’ the accusative object is either the thing being sewn, Hose ‘trousers’ (6.121 a), or a part being attached to something else, Knopf ‘button’ (6.121 b). The original object can be retained as a prepositional phrase with an.

(6.121) a. Er näht eine Hose.
b. Er näht einen Knopf an seine Hose.

[6.133] This diathesis is closely related to a similar diathesis with preverbs (see Sec­tion 8.9.1) and to the diathesis with the resultative preverbial fest‑ (see Sec­tion 9.8.3), exemplified here with the verb kitten ‘to cement’ (6.122).

(6.122) a. Ich kitte die zerbrochene Tasse.
b. Ich kitte den Henkel fest.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.8.10 adj › obj : [ NAp | NAD ] Beneficiary dative

[6.134] The alternation of a dative with a für prepositional phrase is very widespread (6.123 a,b). It can be used with verbs that can be performed on behalf of somebody else (i.e. a beneficiary, sometimes called dativus commodi). In German grammar it is sometimes referred to as a “free dative” because it can be easily dropped completely. However, a more precise term in German would be benefaktivdativ. As Eisenberg (2006a: 298) remarks, such datives are widespread, but cannot be used with all verbs and are thus a phenomenon that can be used for the sub-classification of verbs. Also note that this diathesis should be strongly differentiated from other “free datives”, specifically possessor datives (see especially Sec­tion 5.8.4, but also 6.8.12)

(6.123) a. Ich koche dir eine Suppe.
b. Ich koche eine Suppe für dich.

[6.135] Note that it almost always possible to add a für beneficiary phrase to a sentence (6.124 a), but these do not always have a dative alternant (6.124 b). With transitive verbs it turns out not so easy to find good examples where this alternation is impossible, because with most verbs datives seem to be possible though often only with some creative freedom, e.g. (6.124 c–e). Only those verbs that clearly allow for both alternatives are of interest here.

(6.124) a. Ich arbeite für den Chef.
b. * Ich arbeite dem Chef.
c. Ich gewinne das Geld für dich.
d. ? Ich gewinne dir das Geld.
e. Gib mir eine Waffe und ich gewinne dir jeden Krieg. Attested online at http://www.kriegssinfonie.ch/2018/08/paradox/, accessed 10 January 2019.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.8.11 adj › obj : [ Np | ND ] Judgement dative

[6.136] A dative can be introduced together with an obligatory zu/genug phrase in the interpretation of an evaluator für den Geschmack von (also known as dativus iudicantis, e.g. Hole 2014: 6–7, 172–176). I propose to use the term beurteilerdativ in German. This diathesis is typically used with intransitive verbs (6.125 a), though transitive construction seem possible (6.125 b). More research is needed to establish any restrictions for the kind of verbs with which this dative can be used.

(6.125) a. Paul fuhr zu schnell für den Geschmack von seiner Mutter.
Paul fuhr seiner Mutter zu schnell.
b. Der Student beantwortete die Frage nicht schnell genug für den Geschmack der Professorin.
Der Student beantwortete der Professorin die Frage nicht schnell genug.

Further examples

6.8.12 adj › obj : [ NLg | NLD ] Possessor-of-location dative

[6.137] Some datives can be expressed alternatively as a possessor inside a prepositional phrase. This happens with some verbs that can be used either intransitively (6.126 a) or with a dative (6.126 b). However, this dative cannot be used without an additional prepositional phrase (6.126 c). In these cases, the dative can be alternatively expressed as the possessor of the prepositional object (6.126 d). In German I propose to call this diathesis ortspertinenzdativ.

(6.126) a. Der Affe saß ruhig.
b. Der Affe saß ihm auf der Schulter.
c. * Der Affe saß ihm ruhig.
d. Der Affe saß auf seiner Schulter.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.138] The verb beißen ‘to bite’ can be used transitively with an animate accusative argument (6.127 a), or with the dative alternation (6.127 b), leading to two different options to encode the object of the biting, cf. accusative ihn (6.127 a) with dative ihm (6.127 b).

(6.127) a. Der Hund hat ihn gebissen.
Der Hund hat ihn ins Bein gebissen.
b. Der Hund hat in sein Bein gebissen.
Der Hund hat ihm ins Bein gebissen.

6.8.13 adj › obj : [ NALg | NALD ] Possessor-of-location dative‌+accusative

[6.139] Similar to the previous alternation, the verbs in this group also alternate the possessor of the prepositional phrase with a dative. However, differently from the previous group, these verbs also have an accusative argument. These verbs are either causative alternants of the verbs from the previous group or verbs that already have had a caused-motion diathesis (see Sec­tion 6.8.3).

(6.128) a. Ich lege den Brief auf deinen Schreibtisch.
b. Ich lege dir den Brief auf den Schreibtisch.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.140] This construction is frequently used metaphorically (6.129).

(6.129) a. Er fragt mir ein Loch in den Bauch.
b. Ich jage dir den Anwalt auf den Hals.

6.8.14 adj › obj › pbj : [ NAg | NPA ] Possessor-of-accusative applicative

[6.141] This alternation is the German equivalent of the “Possessor Object” alternation in English from Levin (1993: 73). The possessor of an accusative becomes an accusative and the erstwhile accusative is demoted to a prepositional phrase. The preposition (typically für) appears to be a governed preposition. In German I propose to call this diathesis pertinenzakkusativ.

(6.130) a. Ich bewundere seine Ehrlichkeit.
b. Ich bewundere ihn für/wegen seine/r Ehrlichkeit.
c. Ich bewundere ihn dafür, dass er ehrlich ist.

Attested verbs

Further examples

6.9 Symmetrical diatheses

6.9.1 adj › sbj › adj : [ Np | pN ] Commutative

[6.142] The verb wimmeln ‘to swarm/teem’ (6.131) has two different constructional possibilities that seem structurally completely reversed without any overt marking.

(6.131) a. Die Kinder wimmeln auf den Platz.
b. Der Platz wimmelt von Kindern.

Attested verbs

6.9.2 adj › obj › adj : [ NAp | NpA ] Applicative‌+mit antipassive

[6.143] Typically, this alternation is attested with a verbal prefix (see Sec­tion 8.7.13), but a few examples without any marking are also attested. With some verbs of filling, like with füllen ‘to fill’ (6.132 a) this unmarked diathesis is completely parallel to the befüllen, but without any overt marking. An accusative object, here Schnaps ‘liquor’ (6.132 a) is replaced with an optional mit prepositional phrase (6.132 c), cf. the English “spray/load” alternation from Levin (1993: 50–51). This alternation is closely related to the mit antipassive (see Sec­tion 6.7.8.5). In addition to this mit antipassive, there is an applicative diathesis that turns an obligatory location into an accusative, here Flasche ‘bottle’.

(6.132) a. Er füllt den Schnaps in die Flasche.
b. * Er füllt den Schnaps.
c. Er füllt die Flasche mit Schnaps.
d. Er füllt die Flasche.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[6.144] For the verb schießen ‘to shoot’ this alternation (6.133 a,b) is possible better analysed as a combination of two accusative antipassives. It is also possible to express both roles as prepositional phrases (6.133 c). This is not possible with the other verbs in this group.

(6.133) a. Ich schieße eine Kugel auf den Bären.
b. Ich schieße den Bären mit einer Kugel.
c. Ich schieße mit einer Kugel auf den Bären

[6.145] The verb vergleichen ‘to compare’ allows for the flipping of roles (6.134 a,b). This alternation is slightly different from the other verbs in this class as there is no location involved.

(6.134) a. Er vergleicht mich mit einem Affen.
b. Er vergleicht einen Affen mit mir.

6.9.3 adj › adj : [ NAg | NAp ] Possessor-of-accusative to preposition

[6.146] Another raised possessor is the alternation in which the possessor of an accusative can be expressed alternatively with a prepositional phrase (6.135 a,b). This is called an “Attribute Object Alternation” in Levin (1993: 74).

(6.135) a. Ich bewundere seine Ehrlichkeit.
b. Ich bewundere die Ehrlichkeit bei ihm.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7 Reflexive pronoun alternations

7.1 Introduction

[7.1] In German, reflexive pronouns are easily identified in the third person as sich. One of the functions of reflexive pronouns is to indicate reflexive reference, i.e. to mark the identity of two different roles of the verb. But reflexive pronouns have many other functions in German. When using the grammatical term “reflexive” a distinction has to be made between self-inflicting reflexive reference and other uses of reflexive pronouns.

[7.2] Reflexive reference is typically illustrated with a verb like waschen ‘to wash’ (7.1 a). This verb has two roles, the “washer” and the “washee”. Crucially, with self-inflicting reflexive reference using sich (7.1 b) these two different roles are still expressed in the sentence. The reflexive pronoun sich in (11.56 b) only indicates that the two roles are performed by the same participant, opposing it ihn to (7.1 a) in which the two roles are performed by different participants. With the reflexive pronoun in (7.1 b), both roles are still overtly present, so there is no reduction of the valency and there is no grammatical remapping of roles, and thus there is no diathesis in German.

(7.1) a. Er wäscht ihn.
b. Er wäscht sich.

[7.3] From a typological perspective, there is arguably a difference in this respect between languages with a reflexive pronoun strategy, like German, and languages that use a verbal derivation technique for marking self-inflicting reflexive reference (cf. Dixon 2014: 172ff.). For such languages with a derivational strategy, the verb is being marked as “self-inflicting” and one role is completely dropped. In such languages, it is probably better to analyse self-inflicting reflexive reference as a kind of diathesis.

[7.4] In German, the reflexive pronoun is also used in many other constructions, and most of those show some kind of diathesis, for example an anticausative sich in (7.2 a), see Sec­tion 7.5.2 or an antipassive sich in (7.2 b), see Sec­tion 7.7.4. In these examples, the reflexive pronoun sich is not filling any role, but it is marking the valency alternation itself. There is a long tradition to call such constructions middle/medium or Medialkonstruktion in German. However, there turns out to be very many different kinds of “middle” alternations, so I prefer to be more precise in separating and naming them here in this chapter (see also Kunze 1997). To prevent confusion, I will simply not use the term “middle” at all.

(7.2) a. Ich schließe den Schrank.
Der Schrank schließt sich.
b. Ich beklage den Lärm.
Ich beklage mich über den Lärm.

[7.5] There exist various verbs that do not have a reflexive alternation, but they always obligatorily need a reflexive pronoun, for example sich verspäten ‘to be late’ (7.3 a) and sich aneignen ‘to appropriate’ (7.3 b). Such obligatorily reflexive verbs are astonishingly common, as discussed in Sec­tion 7.3.

(7.3) a. Die S-Bahn hat sich wieder einmal verspätet.
b. Ich habe mir eine neue Sprache angeeignet.

[7.6] In this chapter, only diatheses are discussed that exclusively differ as to the addition of a reflexive pronoun. There are actually even more diatheses involving reflexive pronouns that will be discussed in subsequent chapters. In those diatheses there is more than one morphosyntactic change. For example, with some verbs the addition of a preverb also induces the addition of a reflexive pronouns (7.4 a), see Sec­tion 8.7.10. There is also the famous German anticausative diatheses that combines a reflexive pronoun with a manner adverbial (7.4 b), see Sec­tion 9.5.2. Also widely discussed in German grammar is the combination of a reflexive pronoun with the light verb lassen (7.4 c), see Sec­tion 11.2.5. Less widely discussed is a diathesis that combines a reflexive pronoun with the light verbs geben (7.4 d), see Sec­tion 10.5.12.

(7.4) a. Der Hund ist nach Hause gelaufen.
Der Hund hat sich im Wald verlaufen.
b. Ich verkaufe das Buch.
Das Buch verkauft sich gut.
c. Ich schließe den Schrank.
Der Schrank schließt sich leicht.
d. Er schlug seine Mitbewerber.
Seine Mitbewerber geben sich geschlagen.

[7.7] Amidst the large variety of diatheses with reflexive pronouns, there are a few generalisations that stand out:

[7.8] There are six diatheses in this chapter that seem prominent enough to be given a German name. I propose the following names for these:

[7.9] As noted above, there are many more prominent diatheses that involve a reflexive pronoun, but these are fixed stacks together with other marking (preverbs, adverbials or light verbs). They will be discussed in later chapters. For convenience, the main reflexive fixed stacks are listed here with reference to their full discussion:

7.2 Characteristics of reflexive pronouns

7.2.1 Identifying reflexive pronouns

[7.10] In most situations, the German reflexive pronouns are identical to the regular pronouns as shown in Table 7.1. Only in the 3rd person there exists a special reflexive pronoun sich, both for the singular and the plural. For this reason, I will illustrate reflexive constructions mostly using 3rd person masculine nouns or pronouns with the overtly reflexive pronoun sich. As a shorthand, I will often use the word sich as a technical term in the meaning “reflexive pronoun”.

Table 7.1: German reflexive pronouns
Case 1 Sing. 2 Sing. 3 Sing. 1 Plur. 2 Plur. 3 Plur.
Dative mir dir sich uns euch sich
Accusative mich dich sich uns euch sich

[7.11] In contrast, the difference between a dative and an accusative reflexive pronoun is only visible in the 1st and 2nd person singular, so to show the case marking I will use examples with such subjects. In general, the accusative sich is much more common than the dative sich. There seems to be a very strong tendency (though not without exceptions) for the dative reflexive pronoun only to be possible when there is a further accusative argument present in the sentence. Further, the dative reflexive pronoun does not occur in any of the diatheses discussed in this chapter. All non-self-inflicting uses of sich are in the accusative.

7.2.2 Coreference always with nominative

[7.12] The pronoun sich always refers to the nominative subject (7.5 a), except in some situations embedded inside another diathesis (7.5 b,c).

(7.5) a. Ich wasche mich.
b. Er lässt mich mich waschen.
c. Laß mich mich an dir ergetzen. dwds: Tucholsky, Kurt: Zwischen den Schlachten. In: Kurt Tucholsky, Werke - Briefe - Materialien, Berlin: Directmedia Publ. 2000 [1919].

[7.13] With light-verb constructions, intended coreference with the nominative subject cannot be marked with sich anymore. For example, (7.6 a) is ambiguous in that the pronoun ihn could both be coreferential with the nominative er or not. The intended meaning of the reflexive sich in (7.6 b) is an attempt to force a coreferential reading, which seems impossible to me.

(7.6) a. Er lässt mich ihn waschen.
b. * Er lässt mich sich waschen.

[7.14] There are a few verbs that seem to allow for coreference with a non-nominative argument (cf. Duden-Grammatik 2009: 273–274). These are very unusual, with (7.7 b) being strange, though not impossible. Example (7.8) clearly shows the problematic status of such reflexive pronouns. The word order in (7.8 a) only leaves the possibility of sich referring to the nominative subject. In contrast, the unusual word order in (7.8 b) makes it difficult to interpret the sentence, with both referential options of sich being possible: sich can refer here both to the nominative sie and to the dative ihrem Freund.

(7.7) a. Ich habe ihn über den Zustand aufgeklärt.
b. ? Ich habe ihn über sich (selbst) aufgeklärt.
(7.8) a. Sie zeigt sich ihrem Freund.
b. ? Sie zeigt ihrem Freund sich (selbst).

7.2.3 Coreference without reflexive pronoun

[7.15] The reflexive pronoun sich undoubtedly plays a role in disambiguating reference in the third person. However, ambiguity remains with genitives (7.9 a), which do not have a lexicalised reflexive pronoun in German. As a result, (7.9 a) can both be interpreted as disjoined reference (7.9 b) and as coreference (7.9 c).

(7.9) a. Er wäscht seine Haare.
b. Er wäscht ihm die Haare.
c. Er wäscht sich die Haare.

[7.16] Genitive arguments are vanishing from the German language, so it is difficult to find examples of a proper genitive argument coreferent with the nominative subject. An old-fashioned sounding example is given in (7.10).

(7.10) Ich erinnre mich meiner, wie ich, Dich liebend. dwds: Die Zeit, 09.06.1961, Nr. 24.

7.2.4 Double coreference

[7.17] As already seen in the previous example (7.10), three coreferents are also possible (7.11 a). With both an accusative and a dative coreferent (7.11 b) things get really interesting in the third person, as both will turn into sich, leading to a confusing sequence of two sich reflexive pronouns (7.11 c).

(7.11) a. Morgen putze ich mir meine Schuhe.
b. Ich schreibe Gedichte, weil ich mich mir (selbst) erklären will.
c. Sie will sich sich selbst erklären.

7.3 Deponent verbs

[7.18] A small group of verbs obligatorily needs a reflexive pronoun coreferencing the nominative subject. My best guess is that such verbs originally also allowed constructions without this obligatory coreferencing sich pronoun, but for some reason that usage without sich got out-of-use. In various cases this ongoing development can be observed in current German. For example, coreferent usage with bemühen ‘to bother’ (7.12 a) or beziehen ‘to relate to’ (7.13 a) appear to be more frequent compared to their non-coreferencing usage in (7.12 b,c) and (7.13 b), respectively.

(7.12) a. Ich bemühe mich.
b. ? Ich bemühe dich.
c. Leider kann ich es nicht ganz auswendig, sonst brauchte ich dich nicht zu bemühen. dwds: E. Strauß Spiegel 45.
(7.13) a. Ich beziehe mich auf das Gespräch.
b. Er bezieht die Verdächtigung auf sein ungewöhnliches Benehmen.

[7.19] Among the verbs with obligatory sich, the following valency patterns are commonly attested:

[7.20] In contrast, verbs with the following valency patterns are unattested, or only attested rarely in special collocations:

[7.21] Comparing these two groups, the generalisation can be formulated that obligatory dative sich is only possible when there is an accusative argument present and an obligatory accusative sich is not possible with a dative argument present.

7.3.1 [ N ] Accusative reflexive

[7.22] Various verbs describing behaviour, like verirren ‘to get lost’ (7.14 a), need an obligatory reflexive pronoun. Depending on the analysis, a large group of intransitive verbs with a resultative preverbial, like totlachen ‘to laugh extremely’ (7.14 b), can also be included here (cf. Sec­tion 9.4.3).

(7.14) a. Vier Wanderer haben sich im Gebirge verirrt.
b. Sie haben sich totgelacht.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.3.2 [ NP ] Accusative reflexive+governed preposition

[7.23] A widespread phenomenon are verbs with an obligatory accusative sich with a governed preposition (see Sec­tion 6.2 on defining governed prepositions), like entschließen zu ‘to decide’ (7.15 a,b). The verbs are listed below according to the preposition they govern.

(7.15) a. Ich entschließe mich zu einer Reise.
b. Ich entschließe mich dazu, eine Reise zu machen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.24] The verb sich verlassen ‘to rely on’ (7.16 a) has a completely different meaning from verlassen ohne sich, which means ‘to leave’ (7.16 b).

(7.16) a. Ich verlasse mich auf dich.
b. Ich verlasse dich.

[7.25] The verb aussprechen ‘to pronounce’ (7.17 a) has a rather different meaning from sich aussprechen, which can mean ‘to argue for’ with a preposition für (7.17 b) or ‘speak about disagreements’ with a comitative mit (7.17 c)

(7.17) a. Ich spreche die Worte aus.
b. Ich spreche mich für Erneuerungen aus.
c. Ich spreche mich mit dir aus.

[7.26] Although they are clearly cognates, the verb abgeben ‘to give away’ (7.18 a) has a rather different meaning from sich abgeben mit ‘to mess around’ (7.18 b). Likewise, drücken ‘to encumber’ (7.18 c) is semantically rather far away from the cognate sich drücken vor ‘to duck out of something’ (7.18 d).

(7.18) a. Ich habe den Brief abgegeben.
b. Ich habe mich mit ihm abgegeben.
c. Sorgen drücken mich.
d. Ich drücke mich vor der Gefahr.

[7.27] The verb sich schicken ‘to acquiesce’ is an old-fashioned meaning of schicken ‘to send’. Another usage of the same verb stem typically occurs with es and negative polarity, es schickt sich nicht meaning ’to be not suitable*.

7.3.3 [ Np ] Accusative reflexive+mit (reciproca tantum)

[7.28] A special group of verbs in this class are verbs with an reciprocal mit preposition, like with einigen ‘to reach an agreement’ in (7.19). On first notice, the mit phrase might look like a comitative argument as used with betrinken ‘to get drunk’ in (7.20). However, as shown by the grammaticality judgements in those two examples, the mit phrases with both verbs have different characteristics.

[7.29] Just like comitative phrases, reciprocal mit phrases are not governed prepositions, compare (7.19 b) and (7.20 b), see also Sec­tion 6.2.4. However, different from comitative phrases, reciprocal mit phrases do not allow for the addition of zusammen (7.19 c), nor can with be replaced by ohne (7.19 d). The addition of zusammen and the replacement with ohne is possible with comitative mit (7.20 c,d).

(7.19) a. Ich habe mich mit meinem Nachbarn geeinigt.
b. * Ich habe mich damit geeinigt, dass der Nachbar geht.
c. * Ich habe mich zusammen mit meinem Nachbarn geeinigt.
d. * Ich habe mich ohne meinen Nachbarn geeignet.
(7.20) a. Ich habe mich mit meinem Nachbarn betrunken.
b. * Ich habe mich damit betrunken, dass der Nachbarn geht.
c. Ich habe mich zusammen mit meinem Nachbarn betrunken.
d. Ich habe mich ohne meinen Nachbar betrunken.

[7.30] Verbs with reciprocal mit are sometimes called “real” reciprocals (or reciproca tantum, Wiemer & Nedjalkov 2007: 467–468) because they can be considered to be inherently reciprocal, although they still can have a singular subject (see Sec­tion 7.4.14 for the reciprocal constructions with plural subjects).

[7.31] There are many verbs with the prefix ver‑ in this class. Interestingly, many are derived from nominal stems, e.g. sich verbrüdern ‘to fraternise’ is derived from the noun Bruder ‘brother’, see Sec­tion 8.6.4.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.32] Various reciprocal mit verbs also exist without reflexive pronoun, but only in a different lexical meaning, e.g. vertragen means ‘to tolerate something inanimate’ without a reflexive pronoun, but ‘to get along with a human’ with a reflexive pronoun.

7.3.4 [NL] Accusative reflexive+local preposition

[7.33] A few verbs with obligatory sich additionally need an obligatory local prepositional phrase, like sich befinden ‘to be located’ (7.21).

(7.21) a. Das Rathaus befindet sich am Marktplatz.
b. * Das Rathaus befindet sich.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.34] The obligatory reflexive verb sich aufhalten ‘to be located’ is possibly distantly related in meaning to the non-reflexive verb aufhalten ‘to stop something’ discussed in Sec­tion 7.5.6.

7.3.5 [ ND ] Accusative reflexive+dative

[7.35] This pattern with an obligatory accusative reflexive with a dative is exceedingly rare. The attested example appear somewhat old-fashioned, like sich hingeben ‘to indulge oneself’ (7.22). There are a few more verbs in which the dative is optional (see Sec­tion 7.3.10). Semantically, these verbs are closely related to the verbs showing a dative passive diathesis (see Sec­tion 7.9.1).

(7.22) Ich hab mich der Aufgabe hingegeben.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.3.6 [ NG ] Accusative reflexive+genitive

[7.36] Accusative sich combined with an obligatory genitive argument is clearly attested, although all these uses are rather old-fashioned, like with sich entledigen ‘to ditch’ (7.23).

(7.23) Ich entledige mich meines Gegners.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.3.7 [ N ] Dative reflexive

[7.37] It is exceedingly rare to have a dative sich without other arguments. A possible example is the (arguably lexicalised) collocation sich Mühe geben ‘to make an effort’ (7.24 a). Also, the verb behelfen ‘to manage’ is apparently becoming acceptable with a dative reflexive pronoun in online communication (Strecker 2017).

(7.24) a. Ich gebe mir Mühe.
b. Ich behelfe mich (mir).

Attested verbs

7.3.8 [ NA ] Dative reflexive+accusative

[7.38] A dative sich with an obligatory accusative appear to be reasonably frequent. Note that the meaning of almost all these verbs include some kind of (cognitive) appropriation, like with vorstellen ‘to image’ (7.25 a). The prefix er‑ occurs recurrently with the meaning ‘to appropriate something successfully’, like with erspielen ‘to win by playing’ (7.25 b).

(7.25) a. Ich stelle mir das Ergebnis vor.
b. Ich erspiele mir einen Gewinn.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.39] The verb denken only occurs in this structure in the rather old-fashioned usage with the meaning ‘to imagine’ (7.26).

(7.26) Ich denke mir den Vorgang in folgender Weise. dwds: Weismann, August: Das Keimplasma. Eine Theorie der Vererbung. Jena, 1892.

[7.40] The verb merken only occurs in this structure in the meaning ‘to remember’ (7.27 a), and not in the usage of bemerken (7.27 b) or anmerken (7.27 c).

(7.27) a. Ich merke mir deine Telefonnummer.
b. Ich (be)merke seine Absicht.
c. Du darfst dir das nicht (an)merken lassen.

[7.41] The verb vorstellen also has two rather different meanings. In this construction with an obligatory dative sich it means ‘to imagine’ (7.28 a). The other meaning ‘to introduce’ (7.28 b,c) has a possible accusative reflexive (see Sec­tion 7.4.5).

(7.28) a. Ich stelle mir den Konsul vor.
b. Ich stelle mich dem Konsul vor.
c. Ich stelle dich dem Konsul vor.

[7.42] The verb abquälen has two rather different meanings. Only the meaning ‘to work hard for something’ (7.29 a) shows this construction with an obligatory dative sich.

(7.29) a. Ich muss mir jede Zeile abquälen. (‘erarbeiten’)
b. Ich habe mich mit der Arbeit abgequält. (‘plagen’)

7.3.9 [ NP | –P ] Accusative reflexive+nominative drop

[7.43] The collocation sich drehen um ‘to concern’ can be used both with a regular nominative subject (7.30 a) and without (7.30 b). This usage of this verb is clearly metaphorically derived from the local meaning ‘to revolve around’ (7.30 c), but in that usage the dropping of the nominative is not possible. This diathesis is the same as the drop described in Sec­tion 6.5.1.

(7.30) a. Der Streit dreht sich um das 1998 erworbene Firmengelände.
b. In diesem Streit dreht es sich um das 1998 erworbene Firmengelände.
c. Der Mond dreht sich um die Erde.
d. * Bei dem Mond dreht es sich um die Erde.

Attested verbs

7.3.10 [ ND | N– ] Accusative reflexive+dative drop

[7.44] Verbs with obligatory sich can be seen as just regular lexicalised verbs, which in turn are applicable to any of the alternations discussed in the previous two chapters. Curiously, such alternations seem to be rather rare. The attested cases will be discussed in this chapter. Arguably, these diatheses belong together with the parallel diatheses from the previous two chapters.

[7.45] A small group of obligatorily intransitive sich verbs allow for a dative to be dropped, like with ergeben ‘to capitulate’ (7.31). This diathesis is the same as the drop described in Sec­tion 5.7.4 but with an additional reflexive pronoun in both alternants. The verbs in this class establish some further examples of the unusual situation of an accusative sich with a dative argument (see also Sec­tion 7.3.5).

(7.31) a. Die Rebellen ergeben sich.
b. Die Rebellen ergeben sich der Polizei.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.46] The verb ergeben ‘to capitulate’ is different from the prepositional passive ergeben ‘to result in’. The meaning ergeben ‘to capitulate’ used to allow a regular (non-reflexive) accusative argument with a meaning similar to modern übergeben ‘turn over’ (7.32). In contemporary German this is not possible anymore.

(7.32) Ich ergebe ihn der süssen Gnade unsers Herrn Jesu Christi. dwds: Scriver, Christian: Das Verlohrne und wiedergefundene Schäfflein. Magdeburg, 1672.

7.3.11 [ ND | NP ] Accusative reflexive+dative antipassive

[7.47] In some of the verbs with an accusative sich and dative argument (7.33 a), the dative can be replaced by a (governed) prepositional phrase (7.33 b,c). This diathesis is the same as described in Sec­tion 6.7.10 for verbs without reflexive marking.

(7.33) a. Ich füge mich dem Gesetz.
b. Ich füge mich in mein Schicksal.
c. Die machistische Gesellschaft hat sich nicht geändert und die meisten Frauen fügen sich darin. dwds: Die Zeit, 07.11.2013, Nr. 44.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.3.12 [ NG | NP ] Accusative reflexive+genitive antipassive

[7.48] Some obligatorily sich verbs with a genitive argument allow for the genitive argument to be replaced by a (governed) prepositional phrase, like with erinnern ‘to remember’ (7.34 a,b), just like the antipassives in Sec­tion 6.7.15. Most of these constructions with a genitive are old-fashioned or even completely out of use.

(7.34) a. Ich erinnere dich des Versprechens. (until ±1850 with genitive)
b. Ich erinnere dich an das Versprechen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.4 Alternations without diathesis

[7.49] There are three different kinds of alternations involving reflexive pronouns that do not involve any changing of roles (i.e. there is no diathesis). The well-known reflexive constructions (Sec­tion 7.4.5ff.) and reciprocal constructions (Sec­tion 7.4.14ff.) are among them. Less widely acknowledged, there are also some verbs that allow for a “free” reflexive pronoun, to which I will turn first.

[7.50] Some verbs allow for both a construction with and without sich, but there is no difference in the valency between these two constructions. The difference in meaning between the two alternants is small and is in need for more in-depth study in all cases presented below. The name “free” as used here is probably a misnomer, as the choice is not a completely free choice. However, the difference is small enough to be extremely difficult to determine. Note also that for these verbs a “free” dative reflexive pronoun only occurs when a full accusative argument is present.

[7.51] This alternation is almost completely ignored in the German grammatical literature. An early discussion of the phenomenon is found in Stötzel (1970: 174–177) and a short note is presented in Wiemer & Nedjalkov (2007: 498). It is also possible that the occurrence of a “free” reflexive is a dialectal phenomenon, see e.g. the apparent extension of reflexive usage in Austrian German as observed in Ziegler (2010).

7.4.1 free: [ N | N ] Accusative free reflexive

[7.52] The semantic difference between these two alternants of the verbs in this group deserves further investigation. The verb knien ‘to knee’ in (7.35) suggests that there might be a difference in dynamics: the construction without reflexive pronoun is more typical for a state, while the construction with reflexive pronoun is used typically to describe a change of state. However, this difference does not seem to hold for all examples. The reflexive pronoun clearly is not part of a reflexive construction as the verb is intransitive (7.35 c).

(7.35) a. Er kniet auf dem Kissen.
b. Er kniet sich auf das Kissen.
c. * Er kniet ihn auf das Kissen.

[7.53] Covert anticausatives, like with duschen ‘to shower’ (see Sec­tion 5.5.5), might seem to have a “free” reflexive (7.36 a,b). However, the construction with sich in (7.36 b) is just a self-inflicting reflexive of the transitive (7.36 c).

(7.36) a. Ich habe geduscht.
b. Ich habe mich geduscht.
c. Ich habe den Elefanten geduscht.

[7.54] Similarly, reflexive anticausatives, like abkühlen ‘to cool’ (see Sec­tion 7.5.2), might seem to have a “free” reflexive (7.37 a). However, the two possibilities are clearly distinguished by a different perfect auxiliary (7.37 b). Also a transitive variant is possible (7.37 c). This all indicates that a verb like abkühlen is a reflexive anticausative, and the intransitive construction without sich is an anticausative of the transitive (see Sec­tion 10.5.16).

(7.37) a. Die Luft kühlt (sich) ab.
b. Die Luft ist abgekühlt.
Die Luft hat sich abgekühlt.
c. Der Regen hat die Luft abgekühlt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.55] The verb ausruhen ‘to rest’ until very recently was commonly used without sich, but this is slightly awkward in contemporary German (7.38 a). Constructions without sich are still widespread in non-finite and subordinate uses (7.38 b-d).

(7.38) a. ? Sie ruht aus.
b. Sie blieb stehen um auszuruhen.
c. Sie musste ausruhen.
d. Ich sehe, dass sie ausruht.

[7.56] The verb irren ‘to be wrong’ without reflexive pronoun also seems to be old-fashioned (7.39).

(7.39) Es irrt der Mensch so lang er strebt. dwds: Goethe, Faust: Prolog 317.

[7.57] The verb drehen ‘to turn’ is an interesting case that needs more research. It can be used transitively (7.40 a) and with a reflexive anticausative diathesis (7.40 b), see Sec­tion 7.5.2. However, there are also various contexts in which the anticausative can be used without a reflexive (7.40 c). In my experience, many German speakers consider such examples without reflexive to be wrong, but they are clearly attested. Something similar happens with hinknien ‘to kneel down’ (7.40 d)

(7.40) a. Ich drehe die Kurbel.
b. Die Räder drehen sich wieder. dwds: Die Zeit, 09.02.2011 (online).
c. Die beiden Räder drehen dann gleichmäßig. dwds: Die Zeit, 07.01.2016, Nr. 02.
d. Jedes Mal, wenn man etwas Böses gemacht hatte, musste man für eine gewisse Zeit auf eine Bank hinknien. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 01.06.2001.

7.4.2 free: [ NP | NP ] Accusative free reflexive+preposition

[7.58] Although there is definitively a different “feel” between streiten ‘to quarrel’ with and without sich (7.41), the difference is difficult to pin down. The sentence without sich seems to be more static, describing a fixed situation (7.41 a), while the variant with sich is more dynamic (7.41 b). However, whether this is not an accurate description of the (fine) difference between these alternants for all verbs listed below.

(7.41) a. Ich streite mit dir um die Wurst.
b. Ich streite mich mit dir um die Wurst.

[7.59] Covert causatives (see Sec­tion 6.5.10 and 6.6.1) might seem to have a “free” sich, like with stürzen ‘to tumble’ (7.42 a,b). However, this is not the case, because the construction with sich (7.42 b) is just the self-inflicting reflexive construction of the transitive (7.42 c).

(7.42) a. Ich stürze ins Wasser.
b. Ich stürze mich ins Wasser.
c. Ich stürze den Elefanten ins Wasser.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.60] The verb sorgen has a different meaning in the two alternants: without reflexive it means ‘to take care of’ (7.43 a) and with reflexive ‘to worry’ (7.43 b). The verb also changes preposition with the addition of sich (7.43 a,b), Both prepositions are governed prepositions (7.43 c,d). Such an alternation between different governed prepositions might be considered a whole new class of diatheses not yet consequently acknowledged in this study.

(7.43) a. Er sorgt für seine Mutter.
b. Er sorgt sich um seine Mutter.
c. Er sorgt dafür, dass es seiner Mutter gut geht.
d. Er sorgt sich darum, dass es seiner Mutter gut geht.

7.4.3 free: [ ND | ND ] Accusative free reflexive+dative

[7.61] The verb zuneigen ‘to tend towards’ (7.44) is the only known example of a free reflexive with an additional dative argument.

(7.44) a. Ich neige dieser Ansicht seit langem zu.
b. Später hat er sich dem Sozialismus zugeneigt. Attested online at https://www.dwds.de/wb/zuneigen, accessed 2 August 2022.

Attested verbs

7.4.4 free: [ NA | NA ] Dative free reflexive+accusative

[7.62] So-called beneficiary datives (7.45 a,b) are widespread in German (see Sec­tion 6.8.10). Such a dative can in most cases also be used reflexively (7.45 c). Comparing (7.45 a) with (7.45 c) seems to suggest a free reflexive sich in the dative. However, this example is just a combination of a beneficiary dative and the regular self-inflicting reflexive usage.

(7.45) a. Ich habe ein Haus gebaut.
b. Ich habe ihm (= für ihn) ein Haus gebaut.
c. Ich habe mir ein Haus gebaut.

[7.63] In contrast, the verb ansehen ‘observe’ also allows for a construction with and without reflexive pronoun (7.46 a,c), but it is not possible to use a non-coreferential dative (7.46 b). Such verbs are much less common and will be listed here. All these verbs currently known to me have preverbs, with er‑ being particularly frequent (see Chapter 8).

(7.46) a. Ich habe das Haus angesehen.
b. * Ich habe ihm das Haus angesehen.
c. Ich habe mir das Haus angesehen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.64] The verb ausdenken ‘to contrive’ without reflexive pronoun appears to be old-fashioned (7.47).

(7.47) Da dachte er eine List aus. dwds: Grimm Simeliberg.

[7.65] The verb ersparen ‘to save money’ has a free reflexive (7.48 a,b). The same verb can also mean ‘to spare somebody something’. In that meaning it takes dative and accusative arguments (7.48 c).

(7.48) a. Er hat viel von seinem Verdienst erspart. Attested online at https://www.dwds.de/wb/ersparen, accessed 29 July 2022.
b. Ich habe mir etwas erspart. Attested online at https://www.dwds.de/wb/ersparen, accessed 29 July 2022.
c. Er hat mir jede Menge Arbeit erspart.

7.4.5 self: [ NA | Na ] Accusative self reflexive

[7.66] To test for the presence of the self-inflicting reflexive construction, there are various syntactic characteristics to look out for. First, it is always possible to add the intensifier selbst to the reflexive pronoun (7.49 a). Further, the pronoun sich can be negated (7.49 b) and stressed (7.49 c). These characteristics do not hold for any of the diatheses marked by sich as discussed later in this chapter.

(7.49) a. Er sieht sich (selbst).
b. Er sieht nicht sich selbst.
c. Er sieht nur sich selbst.

[7.67] The nominative-accusative construction is often seen as the prototypical self-inflicting reflexive: a transitive verb with a nominative and an accusative argument allows for the accusative to be replaced by a reflexive pronoun, indicating that the action is performed on the nominative subject itself (7.50 a,b). This alternation is possible for very many verbs that can have both an animate nominative and accusative argument.

(7.50) a. Ich wasche das Auto.
b. Ich wasche mich (selbst).

[7.68] The list of verbs presented here can easily be extended with more examples. However, care has to be taken not to include verbs with highly similar antipassive alternations (see Sec­tion 7.7.4) like with fürchten ‘to fear’ (7.51 a,b) or anticausative alternations (see Sec­tion 7.5.2) like with freuen ‘to be happy’ (7.51 c,d).

(7.51) a. Er fürchtet den Ausgang des Verfahrens.
b. Er fürchtet sich vor dem Ausgang des Verfahrens.
c. Dein Erfolg freut ihn.
d. Er freut sich über deinen Erfolg

[7.69] The crucial difference between a self-inflicting reflexive construction and these other alternations is that with self-inflicting reflexives the argument is simply replaced by the reflexive pronoun, or, in other words, the reflexive pronoun sich itself is the argument. So, with verbs like waschen ‘to wash’ in (7.50 a,b) above, there is both an agent (the “washer”) and a patient (the “washee”) of the verb. These two roles can be filled by one and the same participant, as marked by the reflexive pronoun. This is not the case with antipassive and anticausative in (7.51 b,d). This can be seen by the possibility to retain the original argument as a prepositional phrase in these cases. The pronoun sich does not replace any argument here (for more discussion about these alternations, see the respective sections below).

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.70] The verb stoßen ‘to push’ has an interesting change in preferred prepositional adjunct between non-reflexive (7.52 a) and reflexive usage (7.52 b), in accordance to the change in verb semantics. Pushing something else will normally result in a movement, e.g. into or out of somewhere. Conversely, pushing oneself will typically be against something. The Zustandspassiv (see Sec­tion 10.5.16) again changes the direction of movement and accordingly the preposition (7.52 c). However, these conventional implicatures can be overridden by a suitable context (7.52 d,e).

(7.52) a. Er stößt mich in den Teich.
b. Ich stoße mich am Tisch.
c. Ich bin auf ihn gestoßen.
d. Er stößt mich an die Wand.
e. Ich stosse mich in die Tiefe meiner Finsternis, um meine Finsternis zu erkennen Attested online at http://bluemountain.princeton.edu/bluemtn/?a=d&d=bmtnabg19231201-01.2.2&, accessed 10 January 2019.

7.4.6 self: [ ND | Nd ] Dative self reflexive

[7.71] Verbs with a dative argument can be used reflexively, although such usage often has a rather poetic or humorous touch to it (7.53 a-c). The verbs listed here can surely be extended when (even) more poetic freedom is allowed. However, this construction does not appear to be very frequent.

(7.53) a. Ich begegne mir selbst mit größter Achtung.
b. Ich antworte mir dann mal selber.
c. Ich gleiche mir nicht einen Augenblick. dwds: Goethe: Schertz, List und Rache. Note that the accusative einen Augenblick is not a governed argument, but a temporal quantified object, see Sec­tion 5.3.4.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.4.7 self: [ NP | Np ] Prepositional self reflexive

[7.72] Self-inflicting sich is widespread in governed prepositional phrases (7.54 a,b). Probably, all governed prepositional phrases that can have a human participant allow for such a reflexive pronouns. Note that the accusative vs. dative case of the reflexive pronoun is governed by the preposition.

(7.54) a. Karl kämpft mit dem Hund.
b. Karl kämpft mit sich.
(7.55) a. Ich spreche von dir.
b. Ich spreche von mir.
c. Er spricht von sich.

Attested verbs

7.4.8 self: [ NAD | NAd ] Dative self reflexive+accusative

[7.73] For ditransitive verbs that allow for a nominative, accusative and dative argument it is extremely common to allow for a self-inflicting reflexive pronoun in the dative, like with schenken ‘to gift’ (7.56 a,b). Only an illustrative selection of such verbs are listed in this section.

(7.56) a. Ich schenke ihm eine Tafel Schokolade.
b. Ich schenke mir (selbst) eine Tafel Schokolade.

[7.74] With verbs that allow for the possessor-of-accusative dative alternation (‘possessor datives’, see Sec­tion 5.8.4) this dative reflexive can lead to sentences with three coreferent words, like with putzen ‘to clean’ (7.57 a) or zerbrechen ‘to break’ (7.57 b).

(7.57) a. Ich putze mir meine Schuhe.
b. Er versalzt sich seine Suppe.

[7.75] There is also a crucial opposition between an accusative (7.58 c) and dative reflexive (7.58 d) in such examples. This opposition is attested with verbs like waschen that allow both for an animate accusative (7.58 a) and for the possessor-of-accusative dative alternation (7.58 b). Both the accusative and the dative argument can be replaced by a reflexive pronoun. Care has to be taken not to confuse these two alternations in the third person, because the same pronoun sich is used for both accusative (7.58 e) and dative (7.58 f).

(7.58) a. Ich wasche dich.
b. Ich wasche dir den Rücken.
c. Ich wasche mich.
d. Ich wasche mir den Rücken.
e. Er wäscht sich. (= accusative sich)
f. Er wäscht sich den Rücken. (= dative sich)

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.4.9 self: [ NAD | NaD ] Accusative self reflexive+dative

[7.76] In contrast to the previous dative reflexive construction, it is possible, but uncommon for ditransitive verbs to allow for an accusative reflexive, like with unterordnen ‘to subordinate’ (7.59 a,b). The verbs listed below are surely not all that allow for this construction, but it is a rather restricted phenomenon and there do not seem to be very many more verbs of this kind. Note the close similarity of these verbs to verbs with a ditransitive anticausative reflexives in Sec­tion 7.5.3, which are easily confused.

(7.59) a. Ich ordne meine Pläne deinen Wünschen unter.
b. Ich ordne mich dem Kollektiv unter.

[7.77] In specific contexts, some ditransitive verbs allow for either a dative reflexive (7.60 a) or an accusative reflexive (7.60 b), or even both (7.60 c). Theoretically, this should lead to a quite astonishing constructions with two times sich in the third person (7.60 d), which seem to be mostly incomprehensible. However, note the attested example in (7.60 e).

(7.60) a. Ich erkläre es mir so.
b. Ich erkläre mich dir.
c. Ich schreibe Gedichte, denn ich will mich mir selbst erklären.
d. (Es ist bekannt, dass) sie sich sich selbst erklären will.
e. Objektivität und eigenständiges Weltbewußtsein erlangt der Mensch nicht dadurch, daß er seinen Willen zum Handeln aufgibt und seine Wertungen suspendiert, sondern dadurch, daß er sich sich selbst gegenüberstellt und prüft. dwds: Mannheim, Karl: Ideologie und Utopie, Frankfurt a.M.: Klostermann 1929, S. 43.

[7.78] Many of these verbs seem to have a rather special meaning with a reflexive pronoun. They also seem to be close to the verbs with an endoreflexive diathesis (see Sec­tion 7.7.1).

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.79] The verb vorstellen has two different meanings. In this alternation it means ‘to introduce’ (7.61 a,b). The other meaning ‘to imagine’ (7.61 c) has an obligatory dative reflexive (see Sec­tion 7.3.8).

(7.61) a. Ich stelle ihn dem Konsul vor.
b. Ich stelle mich dem Konsul vor.
c. Ich stelle mir den Konsul vor.

7.4.10 self: [ NAG | NaG ] Accusative self reflexive+genitive

[7.80] Genitive arguments are rare overall, so consequently there are also only very few examples of reflexive alternations, like with bezichtigen ‘to accuse’ (7.62). Note that it does not seem to be possible for the genitive argument to be reflexive.

(7.62) a. Er bezichtigt mich des Mordes.
b. Ich bezichtigte mich erfundener phantastischer Staatsverbrechen.

Attested verbs

7.4.11 self: [ NAP | NAp ] Prepositional self reflexive+accusative

[7.81] Just for completeness sake, reflexive pronouns are possible inside prepositional arguments with verbs that also take an accusative argument, like hinstellen ‘to put down’ (7.63).

(7.63) a. Er hat einen Topf neben ihm hingestellt.
b. Er hat einen Topf neben sich hingestellt.

Attested verbs

7.4.12 self: [ NLD | NLd ] Dative self reflexive+location

[7.82] Dative experiencers stemming from possessor raising (see Sec­tion 6.8.12) can also be self-inflicting (7.64 a,b), leading to possible dative reflexive pronouns with an obligatory location phrase, like with klopfen ‘to pound’ (7.64 c,d).

(7.64) a. Ich klopfe dir auf die Schulter.
b. Ich klopfe mir auf die Schulter.
c. Er klopft sich auf die Schulter.
d. * Er klopft sich.

Attested verbs

7.4.13 self: [ NALD | NALd ] Dative self reflexive+accusative+location

[7.83] The verbs in this section are intransitive verbs (7.65 a) that allow for both a caused-motion diathesis (7.65 b), see Sec­tion 6.8.3 and a possessor-to-dative alternation (7.65 c), see Sec­tion 6.8.13, leading possibly to a dative reflexive sich pronoun (7.65 d).

[7.84] Although this diathesis does appear to be a regular stack of different diatheses, the intermediate caused-motion construction (7.65 b) seems odd. Also, the resulting construction appears to be frequently taking an aus prepositional phrase (7.65 d), though there does not seem to be any syntactic reason for this preference. In summary, there appears to be something idiomatic going on in this construction warranting more research.

(7.65) a. Ich heule.
b. ? Ich heule die Augen aus meinem Kopf.
c. Ich heule mir die Augen aus dem Kopf.
d. Das Kind heult sich die Augen aus dem Kopf.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.4.14 mutual: [ NA | Na ] Accusative reciprocal

[7.85] The pronoun sich also has a potential reciprocal reading in which two participants perform an action mutually, like with anfeuern ‘to encourage’ (7.66). An extensive discussion of this phenomenon in German can be found in Wiemer & Nedjalkov (2007).

(7.66) a. Karl feuert Anna an.
b. Karl und Anna feuern sich (gegenseitig) an.
c. Karl und Anna feuern einander an.

[7.86] Such a reciprocal construction necessarily needs a plural subject and can be identified by the possibility to add gegenseitig (7.66 b). There is an older construction to express reciprocity in German by using einander (7.66 c) instead of sich gegenseitig (see Wiemer & Nedjalkov 2007: 478ff. for an in depth discussion). This construction with einander typically does not use sich, though the combination sich […] miteinander is possible, but very rare (Wiemer & Nedjalkov 2007: 476–477). Note that reciprocity inside a prepositional phrase can only be expressed by using einander (Wiemer & Nedjalkov 2007: 482–485).

[7.87] The most typical reciprocal construction arises from a regular transitive verb with a human object, like achten ‘to respect’ (7.67 a). Such a reciprocal construction is called “canonical” by Wiemer & Nedjalkov (2007: 468–470). Almost all such verbs are in principle ambiguous between a reciprocal and a reflexive reading. The intended reciprocal reading can be forced by adding gegenseitig (7.67 c). Some verbs, like achten, seem to prefer a reciprocal reading. Such verbs typically do not allow for a singular subject (7.67 b) and gegenseitig seems superfluous here (7.67 c).

(7.67) a. Karl achtet Anna.
b. ? Karl achtet sich.
c. Karl und Anna achten sich (gegenseitig).

[7.88] Other verbs, like pflegen ‘to care for’ (7.68 a), prefer a reflexive reading, so a singular subject is fine (7.68 b) and gegenseitig is necessary to get a reciprocal reading (7.68 c).

(7.68) a. Karl pflegt Anna.
b. Karl pflegt sich.
c. Karl und Anna pflegen sich gegenseitig.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.89] The verb beschäftigen is used here in the meaning of ‘to employ’ (7.69 a) not ‘to engage’ (7.69 b).

(7.69) a. Karl und Anna beschäftigen sich gegenseitig in ihren jeweiligen Firmen.
b. Karl und Anna beschäftigen sich miteinander.

7.4.15 mutual: [ NAG | NaG ] Accusative reciprocal+genitive

[7.90] Just for completeness sake, let it be noted that there are also accusative reciprocal constructions with a further genitive argument, like with anklagen ‘to accuse’ (7.70). In contrast, accusative reciprocals with an additional dative argument are not attested; only the reverse, see Sec­tion 7.4.18.

(7.70) a. Karl klagt Anna des Diebstahls an.
b. Karl und Anna klagen sich (gegenseitig) des Diebstahls an.

Attested verbs

7.4.16 mutual: [ NAP | NaP ] Accusative reciprocal+preposition

[7.91] Likewise, accusative reciprocals with a governed preposition are also possible, like with vorbereiten auf ‘to prepare for’ (7.71).

(7.71) a. Karl bereitet Anna auf den Auftritt vor.
b. Karl und Anna bereiten sich (gegenseitig) auf den Auftritt vor.

Attested verbs

7.4.17 mutual: [ ND | Nd ] Dative reciprocal

[7.92] Because a reciprocal is necessary plural subject, the difference between an accusative or dative reciprocal sich is never visible. Although there are verbs with dative arguments that can be used reciprocally, this cannot occur in the 1st or 2nd person singular, which are the only circumstances in which a difference between dative and accusative is overtly marked. There seems to be only a limited set of dative verbs that allow for a reciprocal construction, though the preverb zu‑ rather productively results in new examples (Wiemer & Nedjalkov 2007: 470).

(7.72) a. Karl vertraut dem Jungen.
b. Karl und der Junge vertrauen sich (gegenseitig).
c. Wir vertrauen uns (gegenseitig).

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.4.18 mutual: [ NAD | NAd ] Dative reciprocal+accusative

[7.93] Verbs with a dative and an accusative argument typically have a human dative argument, like with schenken ‘to gift’ (7.73). With such verbs a dative reflexive sich can both have a reciprocal reading (7.73 b) and a reflexive reading (7.73 c).

(7.73) a. Karl schenkt seinem Freund einen Kuchen.
b. Karl und sein Freund schenken sich gegenseitig einen Kuchen.
c. Karl und sein Freund schenken sich selbst einen Kuchen.

[7.94] There also are ditransitive verbs with an accusative reflexive, like entziehen ‘to withdraw’ (7.74), see Sec­tion 7.4.9. However, with such verbs a reciprocal reading seems to be impossible. So, there do not seem to be ditransitive verbs with an accusative reciprocal.

(7.74) a. Karl entzieht Anna das Wort.
b. Karl und Anna entziehen sich (selbst) der Verfolgung.
c. * Karl und Anna entziehen sich gegenseitig der Verfolgung.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.4.19 mutual: [ Np | Np ] einander prepositional reciprocal

[7.95] Reciprocal construction can be marked both by sich (gegenseitig) or einander. However, when the reciprocal argument is inside a prepositional phrase then only einander is possible. For example, the verb warten auf ‘to wait for’ (7.75 a) can be used reciprocally by combining auf with einander, which is written as one word aufeinander in German orthography (7.75 b).

(7.75) a. Karl wartet auf Anna.
b. Karl und Anna warten aufeinander.

[7.96] It is possible to combine sich with a preposition and einander, but only with verbs that already require sich like sich einigen mit ‘to reach an agreement’ (7.76).

(7.76) a. Karl einigt sich mit Anna.
b. Karl und Anna einigen sich miteinander.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.5 Diatheses with subject demotion

7.5.1 sbj › ø : [ NP | –P ] Reflexive nominative drop

[7.97] This idiosyncratic diathesis with the verb handeln ‘to treat of’ (7.77 a,b) drops the nominative and consequently a non-phoric es is inserted. Note that the preposition changes from von to um, but they are both governed prepositions (7.77 c,d).

(7.77) a. Das Buch handelt von Linguistik.
b. Bei diesem Buch handelt es sich um ein Linguistikbuch.
c. Das Buch handelt davon, dass er eine Weltreise macht.
d. In diesem Buch handelt es sich darum, dass er eine Weltreise macht.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.5.2 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] Reflexive anticausative

[7.98] A widespread phenomenon is the use of reflexive pronouns to mark an anticausative diathesis. For example, when a reflexive pronoun is used with a verb like schließen ‘to close’ (7.78 a) then it does not have a self-inflicting meaning. This can be shown by the impossibility to add selbst (7.78 b). This reflexive pronoun induces an “invisible hand” reading, expressing that the event happened by itself. This can be shown by the sensibility of adding a phrase like von alleine ‘by itself’ (7.78 c). The pronoun sich is always in the accusative in this diathesis. This alternation appears to be more frequent in the perfect (7.78 d), because then there is no focus on the action, but on the resulting state.

(7.78) a. Ich schließe die Tür.
Die Tür schließt sich.
b. * Die Tür schließt sich selbst.
c. Die Tür schließt sich von alleine.
d. Die Tür hat sich von alleine geschlossen.

[7.99] A durch phrase seems sometimes possible to retain the agent, showing a similarity to a passive diathesis (Zifonun 2003: 72). However, this only seems to be possible in special contexts (7.79 a,b). Most verbs with a reflexive anticausative do not allow for a retention of the subject (7.79 c,d).

(7.79) a. Der Preisverfall erhöhte den Warenabsatz.
b. Der Warenabsatz erhöhte sich durch den Preisverfall.
c. Der Mann zeigte seine Wut.
d. * Seine Wut zeigte sich durch den Mann.

[7.100] There is some discussion in the literature (Schäfer 2007: 35ff.; Kurogo 2016) about the difference between verbs that use an unmarked anticausative, like landen ‘to land’ (7.80), see Sec­tion 5.5.5, and those that take a reflexive anticausative, like schließen ‘to close’ as discussed in this section (7.78). The answer to this question remains open, in my opinion. By providing long lists of verbs for each category, I hope to invigorate more research into this direction that goes beyond just incidental examples.

(7.80) a. Der Pilot landet das Flugzeug.
b. Das Flugzeug landet (*sich).

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.101] The verb beziehen has various rather different meanings. For the anticausative alternation it means ‘to cover’ (7.81 a), with the anticausative having a specific meaning concerning the weather (7.81 b).

(7.81) a. Ich beziehe das Bett mit einem Laken.
b. Der Himmel hat sich mit Wolken bezogen.

[7.102] The verb wärmen ‘to heat’ shows two different diatheses. First an anticausative diathesis, leading to an accusative reflexive pronoun (7.82 a). Second, a possessor raising diathesis that, which is additionally used self-inflicting, leading to a dative reflexive pronoun (7.82 b).

(7.82) a. Der Pullover wärmt mich.
Ich wärme mich (mit dem Pullover).
b. Ich wärme deine Finger.
Ich wärme dir die Finger.
Ich wärme mir die Finger.

7.5.3 obj › sbj › ø : [ NAD | –ND ] Reflexive anticausative+dative

[7.103] Some ditransitives allow for an anticausative marked with an accusative reflexive pronoun (7.83).

(7.83) a. Er bietet mir neue Perspektiven.
b. Neue Perspektiven bieten sich mir.

[7.104] This diathesis is not possible for reflexive anticausative verbs (see Sec­tion 7.5.2) that have an additional beneficiary dative (see Sec­tion 6.8.10), like with schließen ‘to close’ (7.84 a,b) or erfüllen ‘to satisfy’ (7.84 c,d).

(7.84) a. Ich schließe dir (= für dich) den Schrank.
b. * Der Schrank schließt sich dir.
c. Er erfüllt mir (= für mich) meine Wünsche.
d. * Meine Wünsche erfüllen sich mir.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.5.4 obj › sbj › ø : [ NAL | –NL ] Reflexive anticausative+location

[7.105] Some (but not all) verbs with a caused-motion alternation (Sec­tion 6.8.4), like ziehen ‘to pull’ (7.85 a,b) allow for a reflexive anticausative (7.85 c). This results in an accusative reflexive pronoun with an obligatory location phrase. Leaving out the location is ungrammatical (7.85 d).

(7.85) a. Der Bauer hat den Pflug gezogen.
b. Ich habe den Faden durch das Nadelöhr gezogen.
c. Die Straße hat sich früher durch das Dorf gezogen.
d. * Die Straße hat sich gezogen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.5.5 obj › sbj › ø : [ NAp | –Np ] Reflexive anticausative+preposition

[7.106] Verbs in this section, like verbinden ‘to connect’, allow for an anticausative diathesis (7.86 a,b). However, they additionally need a prepositional phrase, either with mit or von. Some of these prepositional phrases are not governed, but can not (easily) be left out (7.86 c,d). There is a close affinity with miteinander reciprocals (7.86 e), see Sec­tion 7.4.19.

(7.86) a. Ich verbinde die Lampe mit dem Stromnetz.
b. Die Lampe verbindet sich nicht mit dem Stromnetz.
c. * Ich verbinde die Lampe.
d. * Die Lampe verbindet sich.
e. Die Lampe und das Stromnetz verbinden sich nicht miteinander.

[7.107] Less widespread, some verbs with an accusative and a governed preposition, like erinnern ‘to remind’ (7.87 a) allow for an anticausative marked with a reflexive pronoun (7.87 b). With these verbs the prepositions are governed prepositions (7.87 c).

[7.108] ::: ex a. Das Lied erinnert den Mann an den Krieg. b. Der Mann erinnert sich an den Krieg. c. Der Mann erinnert sich daran, dass er einen Termin beim Arzt hat.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.5.6 obj › sbj › pbj : [ NA | PN ] Reflexive conversive

[7.109] These verbs are similar to previous reflexive anticausatives, but the von alleine reading is not possible. Additionally, the original nominative can be retained as a prepositional phrase (7.87 a,b). All these prepositional phrases are governed prepositions (7.87 c). Interestingly, there appears to be a wide variety of prepositions that are governed by the various verbs that allow for this diathesis.

(7.87) a. Der Preis empört den Kunden.
b. Der Kunde empört sich über den Preis.
c. Der Kunde empört sich darüber, dass der Preis schon wieder gestiegen ist.

[7.110] With many of these verbs the role of the reflexive argument appears to be more of an experiencer than a real agent, typically with the prepositions an, bei, für, um and über. A German name like reflexiv erlebniskonversiv might thus be suitable for this diathesis (cf. Sec­tion 10.5.23 for the erlebniskonversiv without reflexive pronouns). Although there are many experiencer verbs in this category, this pattern cannot be reversed: far from all verbs that semantically have an experiencer exhibit this diathesis, e.g. frustrieren ‘to frustrate’ or nerven ‘to annoy’ do not allow this diathesis (7.88). Wiskandt (2022: 253–255) proposes that the experiencer verbs with this diathesis imply some kind of consciousness and have less affected experiencers. However, such semantic explanations are probably always post-hoc and never causal (cf. Sec­tion 1.3.4).

(7.88) a. Die Verspätung frustriert/nervt ihn.
b. * Er frustriert/nervt sich über die Verspätung.

[7.111] Note that the werden passive is not possible for some of these verbs (7.89 a), though an impersonal passive of the reflexive conversive is mostly possible (7.89 b).

(7.89) a. * Der Kunde wird empört durch den Preis.
b. Über die Zerstörung der Schöpfung […] wird sich empört. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 24.11.2003.

[7.112] For the verbs with a durch alternation, like lösen ‘to release’ (7.90), there exist an interesting opposition between the reflexive conversive (7.90 b) and the werden passive (7.90 c).

(7.90) a. Dieser Saft hat den Schleim gelöst.
b. Der Schleim hat sich durch diesen Saft gelöst.
c. Der Schleim wird durch diesen Saft gelöst.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.113] The verb sich verabschieden (7.91 a) might also be thought of as an antipassive (7.91 b). However, it possibly better seen as an anticausative, related to (7.91 c). The reason is that the agent of (7.91 a) and the patient of (7.91 c) are both typically the participant who is leaving.

(7.91) a. Ich verabschiede mich von ihm.
b. Ich verabschiede ihn.
c. Er verabschiedet mich.

[7.114] The verb beschweren has slight different meanings: in the transitive it means ‘to burden’ (7.92 a), while the reflexive conversive means ‘to complain’ (7.92 b).

(7.92) a. Heimweh beschwert mein Gemüt.
b. Ich beschwere mich über das Alter.

7.5.7 pbj › sbj › adj : [ NP | pN ] Reflexive prepositional passive

[7.115] This diathesis with rechnen ‘to calculate’ (7.93) appears to be an idiosyncratic pattern. The governed preposition mit (7.93 a,b) is turned into a reflexive nominative subject, while the erstwhile subject is turned into an optional für phrase (7.93 c).

(7.93) a. Ich rechne mit einem guten Ergebnis.
b. Ich rechne damit, dass alles gut wird.
c. Das Ergebnis rechnet sich (für mich).

Attested verbs

7.6 Diatheses with promotion to subject

7.6.1 obj › sbj : [ AP | NP ] Reflexive accusative-to-nominative

[7.116] Reflexive diatheses are generally not used for promotion of arguments. The diathesis presented here is probably best be seen as a diachronic quirk, showing that every linguistic generalisation can be overruled by incidental developments of language change.

[7.117] These accusative-to-nominative alternations are ongoing replacements of old-fashioned constructions, like with ekeln ‘to disgust’ (7.94). The presence of a reflexive pronoun can probably best be interpreted as a side-effect of the old accusative being supplemented by a new nominative. Note that a dative is also attested instead of an accusative (see Sec­tion 5.9.3).

(7.94) a. Mich ekelt (es) vor dem Spinat.
b. Ich ekele mich vor dem Spinat.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.7 Diatheses with object demotion

7.7.1 obj › ø : [ NA | N– ] Reflexive accusative drop

[7.118] On first notice, examples like sich äußern ‘to speak out’ (7.95 a,b) look very much like a self-inflicted (“reflexive”) alternation (see Sec­tion 7.4.5). However, in this case the reflexive sich pronoun in (7.95 b) does not have the same role as the accusative argument in (7.95 a). This can be shown syntactically by the impossibility of the coordination in (7.95 c).

(7.95) a. Er äußert sein Bedauern über den Fall.
b. Er äußert sich über den Fall.
c. * Er äußert sich und sein Bedauern über den Fall.

[7.119] The term autocausative is used by Geniušiené (1987: 183–184, 198–200; see also Wiemer & Nedjalkov 2007: 464) to describe this particular usage of a reflexive pronoun. Haspelmath (1987: 27–28) calls it endoreflexive. I prefer the term endoreflexive as it mnemonically includes the term “reflexive”. Cross-linguistically, endoreflexives are typically found with verbs that describe an action that is performed with the body, like verstecken ‘to hide’ (7.96). However, for the German verb verstecken it remains an open question whether these constructions are really different from self-inflicted reflexive constructions. Specifically, the coordination seems to be perfectly possible (7.96 c-e).

(7.96) a. Er versteckt das Geschenk.
b. Er versteckt sich.
c. Er versteckt sich und das Geschenk.
d. Politiker verstecken sich und ihre Botschaften hinter verschwurbelten Sätzen. dwds: Die Zeit, 30.11.2009, Nr. 49.
e. Sie verstecken sich und ihre Waffen. dwds: Die Zeit, 31.10.2001, Nr. 45.

[7.120] The endoreflexive diathesis most clearly emerges with verbs that describe hurting the body, like verbrennen ‘to burn’ (7.97) or schneiden ‘to cut’. The usage of these verbs with a reflexive pronoun normally implies that the body is partially inflicted, i.e. only a part of the body is burned or cut. For this reason, the conjunction in (7.97 c) is strange and would only make sense in a context in which somebody would burn himself completely (cf. Elias Canetti’s novel Die Blendung).

(7.97) a. Er verbrennt das Buch.
b. Er verbrennt sich.
c. * Er verbrennt sich und das Buch.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.121] The verb äußern ‘to express’ has a slightly different meaning depending on the animacy of the subject. With a human subject it normally signifies a verbal utterance (7.98 a,b), while with non-human subjects (who cannot speak) it more generally means ‘to show’ (7.98 c). Crucially, with non-human subjects the reflexive diathesis is obligatory (10.89 d).

(7.98) a. Er äußert sein Bedauern über den Unfall.
b. Er äußert sich über den Unfall.
c. Die Krankheit äußert sich durch das Fieber.
d. * Die Krankheit äußert den Fieber.

[7.122] It appears that the reflexive sich verschlafen (7.99) is getting old-fashioned. Many German speakers reject such a construction.

(7.99) Ach, Johanna, ich glaube, ich habe mich verschlafen. dwds: Fontane, Theodor: Effi Briest. Berlin, 1896.

7.7.2 obj › ø : [ NAL | N–L ] Reflexive accusative drop+locative

[7.123] Similar to the previous endoreflexive alternation, the alternation with werfen ‘to throw’ (7.100 a,b) acts on the body. However, additionally a location phrase needs to be present (7.100 c). However, the reflexive construction (7.100 b) looks very much like self-inflicted reflexive reference in this example. Indeed, the conjunction test proposed in the previous section seems to be perfectly possible here (7.100 d). It needs more research to decide whether this alternation is to be considered as a separate diathesis, or whether this is just regular self-inflicting reflexive reference.

(7.100) a. Er wirft die Kleider aufs Bett.
b. Er wirft sich aufs Bett.
c. * Er wirft sich.
d. Die Frauen warfen sich und ihre Kinder vor mein Pferd und baten um Hilfe. dwds: Die Zeit, 23.03.2005, Nr. 13.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.124] The verbs fokussieren and konzentrieren ‘to concentrate, to focus’ are slightly out-of-place among the other verbs in this group. They also have an auf prepositional phrase, but they do not have a locative meaning. It still is a governed preposition though (7.101).

(7.101) a. Ich konzentriere meine Energie auf das Spiel.
b. Ich konzentriere mich auf das Spiel.
c. Ich konzentriere mich darauf, das Spiel zu gewinnen.

7.7.3 obj › adj : [ NA | Np ] Reciprocal antipassive

[7.125] Reflexive antipassive verbs like treffen ‘to meet’ (7.102 a,b) change an accusative argument to a non-governed prepositional phrase with mit (7.102 c). Semantically, this diathesis changes the action from a one-sided perspective towards a more reciprocal perspective. The resulting construction of this diathesis is reminiscent of the “real reciprocal” construction (see Sec­tion 7.3.3). In German I propose to use the term reziprokativ for this diathesis.

(7.102) a. Ich treffe dich.
b. Ich treffe mich mit dir.
c. * Ich treffe mich damit, dass du krank bist.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.126] The verb befreunden ‘to become friends’ (7.103 a) seems to habe become acceptable with a bare accusative only recently in the context of social media, probably as a direct calque from English ‘to befriend’ (7.103 b). Semantically, the difference between a one-sided and two-sided perspective found with the other verbs in this class is not relevant here.

(7.103) a. Ich befreunde mich mit ihm.
b. Du befreundest ihn. Attested online at http://hundewelt.info/affenpinscher/, accessed 2 August 2022.

7.7.4 obj › pbj : [ NA | NP ] Reflexive governed antipassive

[7.127] The sich counterpart of the transitive beklagen ‘to lament’ (7.104 a,b) is somewhat alike to an intransitive action that has a reflexive pronoun attached. There is no semantic “self-inflicting” reflexivity whatsoever in the expression, i.e. the complaining in (7.104 b) does not mean ‘I complain about myself’ (i.e. adding selbst is not possible). The complaint is still about Lärm ‘noise’.

[7.128] Formally, the object of the complaint is demoted from an accusative (7.104 a), which is obligatory (7.104 c), to a prepositional phrase (7.104 b) that can be dropped (7.104 d). Note that without the prepositional phrase (7.104 d) the expression is indeed ambiguous between a real reflexive meaning (‘I complain about myself’) and a non-reflexive reading (‘I am complaining’). All prepositional phrases of the verbs in this section are governed prepositions (7.104 e).

[7.129] Wiemer and Nedjalkov (2007: 464–465) call such verbs “deaccusatives” and consider them to be “extremely rare” in German (which they are not). It is an open question why some verbs take such a reflexive antipassive, while other take a simple antipassive without reflexive pronoun (as discussed in Sec­tion 6.7.8). For a typological survey of such antipassive uses of reflexive markers, see Janic (2010).

(7.104) a. Ich beklage den Lärm.
b. Ich beklage mich (*selbst) über den Lärm.
c. * Ich beklage.
d. Ich beklage mich.
e. Ich beklage mich darüber, dass es so laut ist.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.130] There are two different roles with entscheiden that both allow for an antipassive alternation with a reflexive pronoun, both for the roles of the “problem”, alternating with bei (7.105 a) and for the role of the “solution”, alternating with für (7.105 b).

(7.105) a. Der Richter entschied den Streit.
Der Richter entschied sich bei dem Streit (für eine Strafe).
b. Ich entscheide die Reihenfolge.
Ich entscheide mich für diese Reihenfolge.

[7.131] The verb beklagen seems to have two different meanings: without sich it means ‘to lament’ while with sich it means ‘to complain’ (7.106 a). Likewise, the verb verschlucken shows a major semantic shift with this antipassive diathesis from ‘to swallow’ to ‘to choke’ (7.106 b). The verb vertiefen shows a minor semantic restriction, changing from ‘to engross’ to ‘to delve into’ (7.106 c).

(7.106) a. Ich beklage den Tod.
Ich beklage mich über den Lärm.
b. Ich verschlucke die Pille.
Ich verschlucke mich an der Pille.
c. Ich vertiefe meine Kenntnisse.
Ich vertiefe mich in mein Buch.

7.8 Diatheses with promotion to object

7.8.1 ø › pbj : [ N– | NL ] Reflexive manner-of-movement

[7.132] Intransitive verbs that describe a movement, like tanzen ‘to dance’ (7.107 a) can be used in manner-of-movement construction that includes an obligatory path describing the movement (7.107 b,c). This diathesis is discussed in detail in Sec­tion 6.8.1.

(7.107) a. Ich habe getanzt.
b. Ich bin durch den Garten getanzt.
c. * Ich bin getanzt.

[7.133] The same diathesis is also attested with non-movement verbs, like träumen ‘to dream’ (7.108 a,b), but then an additional reflexive pronoun is obligatory (7.108 c), next to the obligatory location phrase (7.108 d). This construction expresses that by performing the verb (i.e. by dreaming) a movement is performed as described in the location phrase (i.e. moving to New York). In German I propose to call this diathesis reflexiv bewegungsart

(7.108) a. Ich träume.
b. Ich träume mich nach New York.
(= Ich träume, und im Traum gehe ich nach New York.)
c. * Ich träume nach New York.
d. * Ich träume mich.

[7.134] The location always describes a movement, with durch (7.109 a) ‘through’ and in ‘into’ (7.109 b) being the most productive. Incidental examples with aus and nach are also attested (see the further examples below).

(7.109) a. Ich esse und trinke.
Ich aß und trank mich durch Deutschland. dwds: Die Zeit, 16.04.1998, Nr. 17.
b. Das Kind zittert.
Würzburg zitterte sich am Ende in die Playoffs. dwds: Die Zeit, 07.05.2016 (online).

[7.135] This diathesis is exceptional, because an extra obligatory argument is introduced together with the reflexive pronoun. This is a clear counterexample to the generalisation that reflexive diatheses are demoting. A possible solution to this apparent markedness reversal is that the added obligatory location is maybe better interpreted as a marker of the diathesis. In other words, the obligatory location is not a part of the diathetical operation, but a part of the voice of the diathesis. This analysis is similar to the addition of directionals (see Sec­tion 9.2.5). Adding directionals regularly leads to transitive constructions, and then an intransitive verb needs an extra reflexive pronoun. This effect is also observed in the reflexive usage of intransitive verbs with an obligatory resultative preverbial, like with gesundschlafen ‘to get healthy by sleeping’ (7.110). That diathesis is discussed in more detail in Sec­tion 9.4.3.

(7.110) a. Ich schlafe.
b. Ich schlafe mich gesund.

[7.136] Although not all verbs listed below are strictly intransitive (e.g. essen, trinken can take an accusative and arbeiten an, träumen von take a governed preposition) I consider this to be an alternation of the intransitive usage describing the basic action without object argument.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.137] The movement verb schleichen ‘to sneak’ (7.111 a) allows for a regular non-reflexive manner-of-movement diathesis (7.111 b), see Sec­tion 6.8.1. However, curiously, it also allows for a reflexive manner-of-movement diathesis as discussed in this section (7.111 c). There is a subtle difference in meaning between these two uses that is not trivial to pin down. The example with the movement verb schwimmen ‘to swim’ (7.112) suggests that with a reflexive pronoun the “movement” can be more metaphorical.

(7.111) a. Ich habe geschlichen.
b. Ich bin nach Hause geschlichen.
c. Ich habe mich nach Hause geschlichen.
(7.112) a. Er ist zum anderen Ufer geschwommen.
b. Am Dienstag schwamm sich Phelps dann schon wieder selbst in die Schlagzeilen. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 19.08.2004.

7.8.2 ø › pbj : [ NA– | NAL ] Reflexive forced movement

[7.138] The forced movement diathesis (see Sec­tion 6.8.4) is typically found without a reflexive pronoun, like with jagen ‘to hunt’ (7.113).

(7.113) a. Ich jage den Hund.
b. Ich jage den Hund aus dem Zimmer.
(= Ich jage den Hund und dadurch geht der aus dem Zimmer.)

[7.139] However, there are a few example in which additionally a dative reflexive pronoun is added, like with graben ‘to dig’ (7.114 a) and wünschen ‘to wish’ (7.114 b). Note that the dative reflexive pronoun is not a raised possessor with a self-inflicting reflexive. Such examples are discussed in Sec­tion 7.4.13. These dative reflexive pronouns are probably best analyses as beneficiary datives (Sec­tion 6.8.10) with a stacked self-inflicting reflexive. When that analysis holds for all examples, then this diathesis is just a transparent combination of other alternations and this section can be removed.

(7.114) a. Ich grabe mir einen Weg durch den Schnee.
b. Ich wünsche mir den Stuhl in die Sonne.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[7.140] The verb bahnen ‘to make a path’ (7.115) idiosyncratically is always used with a reflexive pronoun and the accusative den Weg ‘the path’. The resulting construction is like the other verbs in this section, but there is no diathesis.

(7.115) Er bahnt sich einen Weg durch die Menschenmenge.

7.9 Symmetrical diatheses

7.9.1 obj › sbj › obj : [ NA | DN ] Reflexive accusative/dative inversive

[7.141] Some verbs, like erobern ‘to conquer’, allow for both a regular transitive construction (7.116 a) and a reflexive inversive in which the former nominative turns into a dative (7.116 b). This diathesis appears to be rare.

(7.116) a. Der Eroberer unterwarf den Volksstamm.
b. Der Volksstamm unterwarf sich dem Eroberer.

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.9.2 obj › sbj › obj : [ NA | GN ] Reflexive accusative/genitive inversive

[7.142] Both the alternants of erbarmen ‘to have pity’ (7.117) are very old-fashioned. This inversive diathesis appears to be very rare.

(7.117) a. Der Kranke erbarmt mich.
(= Der Kranke erregte mein Mitleid.)
b. Ich erbarmte mich des Kranken.
(= Aus Mitleid kümmerte ich mich um den Kranken.)

Attested verbs

Further examples

7.9.3 obj › sbj › obj : [ ND | GN ] Reflexive dative/genitive inversive

[7.143] There used to be a reflexive verb bewissen ‘to know about’ in Early New High German (Pfeiffer 1993) Entry wissen at https://www.dwds.de/wb/etymwb/wissen accessed 2 August 2022.. but only the construction with the participle bewusst is still in contemporary use. The non-reflexive construction (7.118 a) is probably a later addition. As a synchronic diathesis this alternation is a rare example of a dative reflexive without accusative.

(7.118) a. Das Problem ist mir bewusst.
b. Ich bin mir keiner Schuld bewusst.

Attested verbs

7.9.4 obj › obj : [ NA | NG ] Reflexive accusative-to-genitive

[7.144] Only a few examples of an accusative-to-genitive diathesis with additional reflexive pronoun are attested. All examples show substantial semantic drift. However, I consider the semantics of both counterparts to be close enough to be included here as a special kind of diathesis. For example, the verb annehmen means ‘to accept’ with an accusative (7.119 a), but ‘to take care of’ with a genitive and a reflexive pronoun (7.119 b).

(7.119) a. Er nimmt das Problem an. (= ‘akzeptieren’)
b. Er nimmt sich des Problems an. (= ‘kümmern’)

[7.145] The verb bedenken ‘to consider’ takes an accusative (7.120 a). There is an archaic usage meaning ‘to bethink’ with a reflexive pronoun and a genitive, still attested in the 19th Century (7.120 b).

(7.120) a. Man bedenke den Aufwand. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 18.04.2001. (= ‘beachten’)
b. Ich bedenke mich eines Besseren. Attested examples on Google books from 1800 (https://books.google.de/books?id=WZNKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA393) and 1848 (https://books.google.de/books?id=RD8gAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA665), accessed 3 August 2022. (= ‘besinnen’)

Attested verbs

8 Preverb alternations

8.1 Introduction

[8.1] Under the heading preverb I will subsume two different constructions, known in the German linguistic tradition as Verbpräfixe ‘verb prefixes’ (8.1 a) and Verbpartikel ‘verb particles’ (8.1 b). These constructions have clearly different syntactic characteristics (see Sec­tion 8.2.1), but from the perspective of valency alternations they appear to function highly similar. For a discussion of the term “preverb” as a cover term for both constructions, see Booij & van Kemenade (2003).

(8.1) a. Ich umfahre den Polizisten.
b. Ich fahre den Polizisten um.

[8.2] There is a massive literature on the German alternations induced by verb prefixes and verb particles, including complete monographs on individual preverbs, for example Felfe (2012) on the many different alternations with the particle an-. However, most of this literature focusses on the semantic difference between a bare verb and a verb with a preverb. Changes in valency are mostly discussed only as an aside. In contrast, in this chapter the meaning of the preverbs will only play a secondary role. The focus will be on the valency change induced by the preverbs (for similar approaches see Eroms 1980; Kim 1983; Günther 1987; Wunderlich 1987; Stiebels 1996; Wunderlich 1997; Geist & Hole 2016).

[8.3] The central generalisation that can be extracted from the numerous examples in this chapter is that the structural effect of a preverb diathesis is to produce a verb with an accusative argument. This generalisation does not hold without special definitional stipulations (e.g. accusative reflexive pronouns have to be included) and there are various counterexamples (e.g. diatheses resulting in dative arguments), but overall the generalisation seems to be exceptionally strong (see Sec­tion 8.2.2). In a very broad sense, preverb diatheses can be seen as a kind of counterpart to reflexive diatheses as discussed in the previous chapter. Reflexive diatheses generally reduce the valency, while preverb diatheses tend to increase the valency.

[8.4] As is customary in German grammar, I will restrict the class of verb particles to morphemes that are related to prepositions. There are very many other morphemes that behave syntactically rather similar to preverbs, but which are related to adverbials/adjectives. These adverbial/adjectival preverbs are much more limited in the kind of diatheses that they induce, so I have decided to discuss them separately in the next chapter under the heading of adverbial alternations.

[8.5] There are thirteen diatheses that are sufficiently prominent to be given a German name. I propose the following names for these:

8.2 Characterising preverbs

8.2.1 Prefixes and particles

[8.6] The central morphosyntactic difference between verb prefixes and verb particles is their morphological bond to the lexical root. As implied by the name, verb prefixes like be‑ are prefixed to the root and are never separated from it (8.2 a). In contrast, verb particles like ein‑ are in many constructions separated from the root (8.2 b), namely (i) in finite uses, (ii) by participle prefix ge‑ (see Sec­tion 10.2.1), and (iii) by infinitive “prefix” zu (see Sec­tion 12.2.1). Additionally, verb prefixes are unstressed, while verb particles are stressed. To indicate whether a preverb is a prefix or particle, I will add a stress mark after (prefix) or before (particle).

(8.2) a. Ich beˈtrete den Saal.
Ich habe den Saal beˈtreten.
Ich hoffe den Saal zu beˈtreten.
b. Ich trete die Tür ˈein.
Ich habe die Tür ˈeingetreten.
Ich hoffe die Tür ˈeinzutreten.

[8.7] The following elements can only be used as verb prefixes in German (see Los et al. 2016: 177; Pfeiffer 1993 for the diachronic origin):

[8.8] The prefix geˈ‑ only occurs in completely grammaticalised combinations, i.e. there are no verbs (anymore) in which the root is still transparently related to the geˈ‑ prefixed wordform (cf. Sec­tion 1.3.2). Pairs like bieten ‘to offer’ and gebieten ‘to order’ are thus simply treated here as two completely separate lexemes, and will consequently not occur among any of the diatheses discussed below (examples in Sec­tion 8.3). In contrast, the addition of the prefix missˈ‑ is always completely transparent and never results in a diathesis, e.g. achten ‘to respect’ and missachten ‘to disrespect’ (examples in Sec­tions 8.4.1-8.4.3). The prefix widerˈ‑ only occurs in a few fixed combinations (see Sec­tion 8.8.13). That leaves the prefixes beˈ-, erˈ-, verˈ-, zerˈ‑ and entˈ-, and these all occur frequently. They induce various diathesis as discussed throughout this chapter and they do not appear to have any preference for a special kind of diathesis.

[8.9] Turning now to the verb particles, the following prepositions can be used as preverbs:

[8.10] The two main groups of prepositional preverbs that are involved in diathesis show an intriguing semantic structure. Note that this semantic structure involves their prepositional meaning, not their function as preverbs:

[8.11] When used as a preverb, the meaning of these elements is highly variable. For example, the verb antanzen (cf. Felfe 2012: 1) has at least the following possible interpretations (8.3). In this chapter, I will only sporadically comment on such semantic details.

(8.3) a. Der Rüpel hat mich angetanzt.
(= anstoßen beim tanzen)
b. Angetanzt wurde recht spät, gegen zehn. Attested online at https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/vbki-ball-so-tanzte-berlins-wirtschaft-durch-die-nacht/21000986.html, accessed 4 August 2022.
(= durch tanzen den Ball anfangen)
c. Der Junge kam angetanzt.
(= tanzend irgendwo hinbewegen)
d. Ich habe mir ein kaputtes Knie angetanzt.
(= durch tanzen etwas erreichen)
e. Ich haben gegen die Resignation angetanzt.
(= sich gegen etwas stemmen)
f. Er ist beim Chef angetanzt.
(= herbei zitiert werden)
g. Bewegungsfolgen werden nur angetanzt und immer wieder abgebrochen. dwds: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 30.09.2000.
(= nicht vollständig ausführen)

8.2.2 Preverb-verbs prefer an accusative argument

[8.12] The central generalisation that can be extracted from the numerous examples in this chapter is that the structural effect of a preverb diathesis (by verb prefixes or verb particles) is to produce a verb with an accusative argument. This idea is for example foreshadowed by Kim (1983) “Die be-Verben fordern immer eine E_akk außer bei der Funktionsgruppe der ‘Intensivierung’, deren Basisverben durch Präfigierung sich reflexivieren” (1983: 54).

[8.13] Various different diatheses have to be distinguished though. First, many verbs without an accusative argument before the diathesis are turned into a verb with an accusative argument by the preverb diathesis:

(8.4) a. Der Student schläft.
Der Student verschläft den Vortrag.
b. Ich steige auf den Berg.
Ich besteige den Berg.
c. Der Stuhl brennt.
Ich verbrenne den Stuhl.

[8.14] Second, verbs that already have an accusative argument show various different kinds of preverb diathesis. Yet, whatever happens, in almost all examples there is still an accusative argument present after the diathesis:

(8.5) a. Ich kaufe das Haus von ihm.
Er verkauft mir das Haus.
b. Ich hänge die Bilder an die Wand.
Ich behänge die Wand mit Bildern.
c. Ich schütte das Wasser aus dem Eimer.
Ich schütte den Eimer aus.

[8.15] Third, some verbs appear to be counterexamples to the generalisation of accusative arguments with preverb diathesis because they do not have a full accusative argument after the application of the diathesis. However, they still have an accusative reflexive pronoun as a kind of formal substitute for the accusative. Note that functionally this reflexive pronoun is never coding a “self-inflicting” reflexive construction, but only substituting for the “missing” accusative argument.

(8.6) a. Er schreibt einen Brief.
Er verschreibt sich.
b. Der Mitarbeiter arbeitet zu viel.
Der Mitarbeiter überarbeitet sich.
c. Der Hund ist nach Hause gelaufen.
Der Hund hat sich im Wald verlaufen.

[8.16] Finally, there are a few exceptions to the generalisation that preverb alternations always have an accusative argument:

(8.7) a. Ich habe gestern ein Buch gekauft.
Ich habe gestern eingekauft.
b. Die Blume blüht. *Die geblühte Blume stinkt.
Die Blume verblüht. Die verblühte Blume stinkt.
c. Die Polizei jagte einen Verbrecher.
Die Polizei jagte dem Verbrecher nach.

8.2.3 Preverbs with non-verbal stems

[8.17] Preverbs typically are added to verbal roots. However, there are a few examples in which preverbs are added to non-verbal roots, constructing a verb in the process. For examples, from adjectival roots like frei ‘free’ it is possible to derive a verb befreien ‘to free’ (8.8). This derivation typically has a causative function with the subject causing the object to become the adjectival predicate, see Sec­tion 8.6.3. However, in a few incidental cases, the semantics are slightly different, like with lustig ‘funny’ and belustigen ‘to amuse’ (8.9), see Sec­tion 8.8.2.

(8.8) a. Du bist frei.
b. Ich befreie dich.
(= Ich verursache, dass du frei bist.)
(8.9) a. Der Clown ist lustig.
b. Der Clown belustigt mich.

[8.18] Preverbs are also sometimes used with a nominal root to derive a verb (see Sec­tion 8.6.4). This derivation likewise has a causative semantics in that the subject causes the object to have something, e.g. Gift ‘poison’ leads to vergiften, which means ‘to cause something to have poison’ (8.10). With the prefix ent‑ a negation is added, e.g. Waffe ‘weapon’ leads to entwaffnen, which means ‘to cause somebody to not have a weapon’ (8.11).

(8.10) a. Zucker ist Gift für die Zähne
b. Ich vergifte die Suppe.
(= Ich verursache, dass die Suppe Gift enthält.)
(8.11) a. Der Dieb hat eine Waffe.
b. Ich entwaffne den Dieb.
(= Ich verursache, dass der Dieb keine Waffe hat.)

[8.19] There are some examples for which an intermediate verb exists. For example, the verbs freien ‘to court’ (8.12 a) or giften ‘to rile’ (8.12 b) are also based on the adjective frei and the noun Gift, respectively. However, these verbs are clearly independent developments from befreien (8.8) and vergiften (8.10).

(8.12) a. Der junge Herr freite um seine jetzige Frau.
b. Er giftet lauthals gegen die feindliche Übernahme.

[8.20] Finally, there are a few incidental examples of preverbs added to a prepositional root, but they will not further be discussed here (e.g. begegnen ‘to meet’ from gegen ‘against’, erobern ‘to conquer’ from ober‑ ‘higher up’, or erwidern ‘to reply’ from wider ‘against’).

8.3 Deponent verbs

[8.21] Verbs with preverbs frequently grammaticalise into a more specific meaning. For example, the verb graben ‘to dig’ and begraben ‘to bury’ are still semantically related and show a symmetrical applicative diathesis (see Sec­tion 8.9.1). However, the meaning of the prefixed verb begraben has become semantically restricted to the digging of a grave (8.13). As a general rule, it seems to be the preverbal variant that shows more semantic drift.

(8.13) a. Ich grabe ein Loch (für meinen Hund).
b. Ich begrabe meinen Hund (in einem Loch).

[8.22] It is common that such diachronic developments lead to pairs of verbs that semantically are not related anymore (8.14). In the extreme case, the original root of the preverbal verb does not exist (anymore) in contemporary German (8.15).

(8.14) Preverbal verbs with existing roots, but without semantic relationship to this root
a. gefallen, gehören, geraten
b. bekommen, benehmen, berichten, beschaffen, bestehen, bestimmen, bevorstehen, beweisen
c. entsprechen, entwischen
d. ereignen, ereilen, erfahren, erhalten, erpressen, errichten, ersparen, erstehen, ertragen, ertrinken, erwischen, erzählen, erziehen
e. zergehen, zerlassen, zersetzen
(8.15) Preverbal verbs with non-existing verbal roots in contemporary German
a. gebären, gebieten, gebühren, gedeihen, gelingen, genesen, geschehen, gestehen, gewähren, gewinnen, gewöhnen
b. beginnen. bescheren. beschäftigen. beteiligen. bezichtigen
c. erbarmen, ergattern, erinnern, erklimmen, erkunden, erlauben, erläutern, erledigen, erstatten, ersticken

8.4 Alternations without diathesis

[8.23] There are many preverb alternations without diathesis. I distinguish three different kinds, to be discussed in detail in subsequent sections.

  1. Verbs (with adjectival predicates as a subclass) that do not show any diathesis when a preverb is added.
  2. Verbs that show no difference in argument marking, but that show differences in the attributive usage of participles.
  3. Verbs that show no difference in argument marking, but the prefixed verb has an obligatory reflexive pronoun.

[8.24] Regarding the first kind, it is very common for a verb not to show any change in valency when a preverb is added. The most widespread kind is for nominative-accusative verb to not show a change in valency, like essen ‘to eat’ and aufessen ‘to eat completely’ (8.16), see Sec­tion 8.4.3.

(8.16) a. Ich esse den Apfel.
b. Ich esse den Apfel auf.

[8.25] In contrast, it is rather uncommon for intransitive verbs to remain intransitive when a preverb is added. However, it is attested, like with sinken ‘to sink’ and versinken ‘to sink’ (8.17), see Sec­tion 8.4.1.

(8.17) a. Das Schifft sinkt auf hoher See.
b. Das Schiff versinkt im Meer.

[8.26] Some intransitives show a peculiar phenomenon when prefixed: they are still intransitive but the subject becomes more patient-like in that the participle can be used attributively (one of the characteristics often discussed under the heading of the “unaccusative hypothesis”, see Sec­tion 10.2.5). For example, the verbs schlafen ‘to sleep’ (8.18 a) and einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ (11.43 b) are both intransitive. However, only eingeschlafen can be used attributively (8.18 c,d). These examples are discussed in Sec­tion 8.4.4.

(8.18) a. Der Junge schläft.
b. Der Junge schläft ein.
c. * Der geschlafene Junge schnarcht.
d. Der eingeschlafene Junge schnarcht.

[8.27] Similarly, there is a small group of transitive nominative-accusative verbs that show the same effect with attributive participles. These verbs, like merken vs. bemerken ‘to become aware of’ (8.19 a,b), do not show a valency difference. Yet, there is a difference in that the participle of the prefixed bemerken can be used as attributive adjective, while the participle of the non-prefixed merken cannot (8.19 c,d). These examples are discussed in Sec­tion 8.4.5.

(8.19) a. Ich merke den Wind.
b. Ich bemerke den Fehler.
c. * Der gemerkte Wind war schlimm.
d. Der bemerkte Fehler war schlimm.

[8.28] Finally, some verbs need an extra reflexive pronoun when they get a preverb, though the valency of the construction does not change. The reflexive pronoun is thus neither a self-inflicting reflexive construction, nor a marker of the diathesis itself. The reflexive pronouns in these cases seem to be mostly “empty”, except for putting a slight emphasis on the agency of the nominative subject (cf. “free” reflexives in Sec­tion 7.4). Such “empty” reflexives occurring with preverbs are attested both with intransitive verbs (see Sec­tion 8.4.6) and transitive verbs (see Sec­tion 8.4.8).

8.4.1 [ N | N ] Preverb intransitives without diathesis

[8.29] It is rather unusual for the preverbal version of intransitive verbs to not show any valency change (8.20 a,b), not even a difference between the usage of the attributive participles (8.20 c,d). It seems to be slightly more common for only the preverb-marked participle to be open for attributive usage (see Sec­tion 8.4.4).

(8.20) a. Die Milch kocht.
b. Die Milch kocht über.
c. Die gekochte Milch schmeckt nicht.
d. Die übergekochte Milch ist eine Sauerei.

[8.30] The verb kochen also exhibits a bare anticausative diathesis (8.21 a,b), see Sec­tion 5.5.5. The preverb über‑ could thus also be interpreted as inducing an anticausative diathesis, when (8.21 c) is opposed to (8.21 a). However, because (8.21 b) is both structurally and semantically closer to (8.21 c), I have decided to take this pair as the preverb diathesis. Note that there also exist verbs that are unequivocal examples of a preverb anticausative alternation, as discussed in Sec­tion 8.5.

(8.21) a. Ich koche die Milch.
b. Die Milch kocht.
c. Die Milch kocht über.

[8.31] The preverb ˈmit‑ is typically used with verbs that do not allow for an attributive participle, neither without preverb, nor with preverb (but see Sec­tion 8.4.4 for a few exceptions with movement verbs).

(8.22) a. Der Student hat an dem Projekt gearbeitet.
b. Der Student hat an dem Projekt mitgearbeitet.
c. * Der gearbeitete Student ist fertig.
d. * Der mitgearbeitete Student ist fertig.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.4.2 [ N | N ] Preverb adjectives without diathesis

[8.32] Adjectives are in many ways similar to intransitive verbs, being basically one-place predicates. There are various adjectives that remain intransitive when combined with a preverb, like kühl ‘cool’ and abkühlen ‘to cool down’ (8.23 a). Similar to the intransitive verbs from the previous section, both adjectival predicates can be used as attributive adjective (8.23 b). Note, however, that it is more common for preverbal adjectives to have a causative diathesis (see Sec­tion 8.6.3).

(8.23) a. Das Wasser ist kühl.
Das Wasser ist abgekühlt.
b. Das kühle Wasser schmeckt.
Das abgekühlte Wasser schmeckt.

[8.33] There is a recurring question whether these verbs are directly derived from an adjective, or via an intermediate “plain” verb, e.g. kühlen (cf. Sec­tion 8.6.3). Such intermediate verbs might also be independent developments, i.e. the plain verb kühlen and the preverbal variant abkühlen are both derived from the adjective kühl. One argument in favour of independent developments is that the “plain” verbs have varying semantics: either stative, like kranken ‘to be sick’ or wachen ‘to be awake’; or causative, like kühlen ‘to make cold’ or röten ‘to become red’. Another argument is that not all such intermediate verbs exist, e.g. the verb magern does not exist. Likewise, späten and frühen do not exist.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.4.3 [ NA | NA ] Preverb transitives without diathesis

[8.34] In contrast to intransitive verbs, it is very common for transitive nominative-accusative verbs to remain transitive when prefixed (8.24 a). The participles of both verbs can be used attributively (8.24 b). The examples presented in this section are in no way intended to be a complete listing, but only serve as an illustration for this phenomenon. This group of preverb alternations without valency change appears to be very large.

(8.24) a. Ich lagere die Kartoffeln im Keller.
Ich verlagere die Kartoffeln in den Keller.
b. Die gelagerten Kartoffeln […].
Die verlagerten Kartoffeln […].

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.4.4 [ N | N ] Preverb intransitives with patient-like subject

[8.35] Many verbs describing natural processes remain intransitive when prefixed, like blühen ‘to blossom’ and verblühen ‘to wither’ (8.25 a,b). The participle of these verbs can be used attributively when prefixed (8.25 d), but not without prefix (8.25 c). Also note that the auxiliary in the perfekt changes between sein and haben for these verbs.

(8.25) a. Die Blume hat geblüht.
b. Die Blume ist verblüht.
c. * Die geblühte Blume ist immer noch schön.
d. Die verblühte Blume ist immer noch schön.

[8.36] Note that there is a fascinating phenomenon going on here that is in need of more investigation. Many of the “ungrammatical” attributively used participles are actually attested, but only when they are themselves modified (8.26). My intuition is that in such examples the participle is actually a non-finite embedded relative clause (e.g. Mauersteine, die grau schimmeln). However, whether there really is a difference between verbs that allow for a usage as “isolated” attributive participles, like verblüht (8.25 d), vs. “modified” attributive participles, like geblüht (8.26 a), is an open question in need of more research.

(8.26) a. grau geschimmelte Mauersteine dwds: Neutsch, Erik: Spur der Steine, Halle: Mitteldeutscher Verl. 1964 [1964], S. 387.
b. eine schlecht geschlafene Nacht dwds: Die Zeit, 16.06.1989, Nr. 25.
c. eine braun gerostete Fußgängerbrücke dwds: Die Zeit, 30.08.2007, Nr. 36.
d. die dabei verloren gegangene regionale Identität dwds: Die Zeit, 09.11.2017 (online).

Attested verbs

Notes

[8.37] Adjectival gewelkte (8.27 a) and gefaulte (8.27 b) seem to have been possible up to ±1850. Note that there is a dish called gefaulte Erdäpfel (8.27 c), which appears to be a back-translation from Bavarian dafeide Erdäpfel, which has a prefix.

(8.27) a. Er, der alles zerbricht, was ihm von Anfang her verschrieben war, der die zarte Blüthe wie die gewelkte Frucht mit gleicher Unerbittlichkeit abstreift. dwds: Fouqué, Caroline de La Motte-: Die Frauen in der großen Welt. Berlin, 1826.
b. […] oder andre vielfach verdorbne, gefaulte, verschimmelte Nahrungsmittel. dwds: Hahnemann, Samuel: Organon der rationellen Heilkunde. Dresden, 1810..
c. Auf eben diese Weise nimmt eine gefaulte Galle […] einen gefälligern Geruch an sich. dwds: Haller, Albrecht von: Anfangsgründe der Phisiologie des menschlichen Körpers. Bd. 2. Berlin, 1762.

8.4.5 [ NA | NA ] Preverb transitives with patient-like object

[8.38] Some transitive verbs like ärgern and the preverbal variant verärgern ‘to irritate’ are almost identical in meaning (8.28 a,b). However, they show the same differentiation in attributive participle usage as the patientive intransitives in the previous section (8.28 c,d), though without a difference in perfect auxiliary (both use haben). There is a connected difference in the possibility of the Zustandspassiv with sein, cf. Sec­tion 10.5.16. Note the somewhat older attested example of attributive geärgert in (8.28 e).

(8.28) a. Die Verzögerung hat den Reisenden geärgert.
b. Die Verzögerung hat den Reisenden verärgert.
c. * Der geärgerte Reisende. *Der Reisende ist geärgert.
d. Der verärgerte Reisende. Der Reisende ist verärgert.
e. Der geärgerte Schulkamerad schrieb: […] dwds: Büchner, Georg: Sämmtliche Werke und handschriftlicher Nachlaß. Frankfurt (Main.), 1879.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.4.6 [ N | N ] Preverb reflexive intransitive alternations

[8.39] The verb überarbeiten is transparently derived from the verb arbeiten ‘to work’, but in two semantically different directions. In one sense überarbeiten means ‘to revise’, i.e. ‘to work on something again’, which shows an applicative diathesis (8.29 a,b), see Sec­tion 8.8.8. In another sense überarbeiten means ‘to work too hard’ (8.29 c,d). In this sense an obligatory, but ‘empty’, accusative reflexive pronoun is present.

(8.29) a. Ich arbeite am Text.
b. Ich überarbeite den Text.
c. Ich arbeite zu viel.
d. Ich überarbeite mich.

[8.40] Movement verbs, like tanzen ‘to dance’ (8.30) quite productively can take the prefix ver‑ to describe a movement made erroneously, without any change in valency (cf. Stiebels 1996: 143–151). The same semantic effect is also attested with some transitive verbs, but then the accusative object is dropped (see Sec­tion 8.7.1).

(8.30) a. Ich laufe.
b. Ich verlaufe mich.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.4.7 [ N | N ] Preverb reflexive adjectives alternations

[8.41] Some adjectives that are turned into verbs through preverbs obligatorily need a reflexive pronoun, like with sich verspäten ‘to be late’ derived from spät ‘late’ (8.31).

(8.31) a. Die späte Vorstellung.
b. Die Vorstellung verspätet sich.

Attested verbs

8.4.8 [ NA | NA ] Preverb reflexive transitive alternations

[8.42] The difference between the verbs sehen (8.32 a) and ansehen (8.32 b) is very delicate, maybe best summarised by comparing it to the English verbs to see and to watch. The preverbal verb ansehen ‘to watch’ implies slightly more agency of the nominative subject. In German this difference is additionally marked by a dative reflexive pronouns. However, note that this reflexive might be optional (cf. Sec­tion 7.4.4).

(8.32) a. Ich sehe das Haus.
b. Ich sehe mir das Haus an.

[8.43] Note that there is a second, highly similar, construction with ansehen and a non-reflexive dative argument (8.33 a). This dative has a completely different semantics, meaning something like ‘to notice’. This diathesis is further discussed under the heading of possessor raising in Sec­tion 8.8.16. Finally, ansehen can also simply mean ‘to look at’ (8.33 b), in which sense there is no diathesis at all, as discussed in Sec­tion 8.4.3.

(8.33) a. Ich sehe ihm die Müdigkeit an.
b. Ich sehe dich an.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[8.44] The verb anüben appears to be old-fashioned (8.34 a), though more recent examples can be found (8.34 b). It has an entry in the DWB, explaining “seit Anfang des 19. Jhs. gebräuchlich i.s.v. ‘sich etwas durch ständiges üben (mit mühe) aneignen, antrainieren’.” Attested online at https://www.dwds.de/wb/dwb2/anüben, accessed 5 August 2022.

(8.34) a. Ein derartiges Schauen müssten wir uns nun anüben. dwds: Chamberlain, Houston Stewart: Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. Bd. 1. München 1899.
b. Wer ständig gegen die wachsende Konkurrenz anüben muss […]. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 11.08.1999.

8.5 Diatheses with subject demotion

[8.45] All examples in the following subsections show subject demotion which results in intransitive verbs. Keeping with the observation that preverb alternations tend to produce nominative/accusative constructions (see Sec­tion 8.2.2), preverb diatheses with subject demotion are exceedingly rare. Almost all the attested examples use verb prefixes. Examples with verb particles are almost non-existing for subject demotion.

8.5.1 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] Preverb anticausative

[8.46] Although there is a transparent relation between the transitive löschen ‘to extinguish’ (8.35 a) and the intransitive erlöschen ‘to go out’ (8.35 b), they show different inflectional patterns, illustrated below with different participles. Historically, the transitive (8.35 a) is a causative, but synchronically the prefixed erlöschen is probably better analysed as an anticausative.

(8.35) a. Sie hat das Feuer gelöscht.
b. Das Feuer ist erloschen.

Attested verbs

8.5.2 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] Preverb reflexive anticausative

[8.47] Some further anticausatives need an additional reflexive pronoun, like with fangen ‘to catch’ (8.36 a) and verfangen ‘to entangle oneself’ (8.36 b). Note that the intransitive verfangen seems to additionally require a location phrase (8.36 c).

(8.36) a. Ich fange den Vogel mit einem Netz.
b. Der Vogel verfängt sich im Netz.
c. ? Der Vogel verfängt sich.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.5.3 pbj › sbj › ø : [ NL | –N ] Preverb location anticausative

[8.48] Lipka (1972: 93–94) calls this phenomenon Subjektvertauschung, which he claims is “quite frequent in German”. However, I do not know of any other examples of this diathesis except for the example given by Lipka, namely the diathesis between laufen+aus and auslaufen, both meaning approximately ‘to empty’ (8.37 a,b). It might be that Lipka intended to use this term for anticausatives in general (which indeed are quite common in German), but then his example using a preverb was ill-chosen. Hundsnurscher (1968: 130ff.) discusses many examples that might be semantically similar, but do not show diathesis (e.g. tröpfeln/auströpfeln). For historical context, see Carlberg (1948) for more about the history of the terminology and the relation to metonymy. For Lipka’s counterpart Objektvertauschung, see Sec­tion 8.7.12

(8.37) a. Das Wasser ist aus der Flasche gelaufen.
b. Die Flasche ist ausgelaufen.

Attested verbs

8.5.4 pbj › sbj › ø : [ NP | –N ] Preverb preposition anticausative+reflexive loss

[8.49] When combined with the prefix ver-, the verb kümmern ‘to look after’ (8.38 a) shows a clear anticausative diathesis in that the agent of the care is removed, leading to verkümmern ‘to atrophy’ (8.38 c). However, there are two further idiosyncratic characteristics of this diathesis, namely that (i) an obligatory reflexive pronoun is removed and (ii) the cared-for object (Pflanze ‘plant’ in the example below) starts out being in a governed prepositional phrase with um (8.38 a,b).

(8.38) a. Ich kümmere mich nicht um die Pflanze.
b. Ich kümmere mich nicht darum, ob die Pflanze verkümmert.
c. Die Pflanze verkümmert.

Attested verbs

8.6 Diatheses with promotion to subject

[8.50] Promotion to subject is somewhat more widespread compared to subject demotion discussed previously. Like with demotion, promotion to subject occurs preferably with verb prefixes and almost never with verb particles.

8.6.1 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] Preverb causative

[8.51] By adding a preverb, some intransitive verbs like enden ‘to end’ obtain an extra causer argument (8.39).

(8.39) a. Der Wettkampf endet.
b. Ich beende den Wettkampf.

[8.52] With some of the verbs, the causer might occur as a prepositional phrase with durch in the intransitive (8.40), similar to inverted passives, see Sec­tion 8.6.11. However, this durch phrase could also be interpreted as a regular causal phrase, as discussed in Sec­tion 6.2.6.

(8.40) a. Ich lebe durch den Eingriff des Arztes.
b. Der Eingriff des Arztes belebt mich.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.6.2 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] Preverb causative+reflexive loss

[8.53] An apparently idiosyncratic example is the verb schämen ‘to be ashamed’ that takes an obligatory reflexive pronoun (8.41 a). With the preverb beˈ-, the verb beschämen ‘to shame’ is clearly a causative, but without a reflexive pronoun (8.41 b).

(8.41) a. Ich schäme mich.
b. Sie beschämt mich.

Attested verbs

8.6.3 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] Preverb adjectival causative

[8.54] Many adjectives can be turned into verbs by adding a prefix. The most widespread semantic effect is to turn a state, like frei sein ‘to be free’ (8.42 a) into a causative process befreien ‘to free somebody’ (8.42 b).

(8.42) a. Du bist frei.
b. Ich befreie dich.

[8.55] Note that in a few examples an intermediate verb exists. For example, the verb begrünen ‘to plant greenery’ (8.43 b) is transparently related to the adjective grün ‘green’ (8.43 a). Now, the intermediate verb grünen ‘to become green (of plants)’ also exists (8.43 c). However, the verbs in this section consist of examples in which such an intermediate non-preverbal verb is not, or only very rarely, attested. And even if the intermediate verb exists (e.g. breiten, dunkeln, härten, kürzen, mehren, wärmen), then the semantic relation between the adjective and the preverbal verb is still completely transparent, begging the question whether the intermediate verb is really an intermediate step in the derivation or a separate development.

(8.43) a. Der Balkon ist grün.
b. Ich begrüne den Balkon.
c. Die Rasenstücke […] waren angewachsen und grünten lustig. From Viebig, Clara: Das tägliche Brot. (Berlin 1952). Attested on https://www.dwds.de/wb/grünen, accessed 5 August 2022.

[8.56] With a few adjectives, the causer can be expressed with a regular agentive durch or von prepositional phrase in the intransitive alternant. This sounds most natural with inanimate causers (8.44). See also Sec­tion 8.6.11 on inverted passives.

(8.44) a. Er ist matt vom Sport.
b. Der Sport ermattet ihn.

[8.57] With some verbs the causative also needs an umlaut (cf. Plank & Lahiri 2015), e.g. with kurz ‘short’ and verkürzen ‘to shorten’ (8.45 a,b). This might be an argument that the preverbal verkürzen is derived via the intermediate verb kürzen. Conversely, sometimes an umlaut is lost in the causative, e.g. with böse ‘angry’ and erbosen ‘to make angry’ (8.45 c,d). For more examples of umlaut with verb-to-adjective derivation, see Sec­tion 5.6.4.

(8.45) a. Die Frist ist kurz.
b. Ich verkürze die Frist.
c. Er ist böse.
d. Die Bemerkung erbost ihn.

[8.58] Not all verbs derived from adjectives with a preverb have a different argument structure, e.g. erwachen ‘to wake up’ as derived from wach ‘be awake’ (8.46). There is a difference in meaning of the predicate without preverb (i.e. stative) ‘to be awake’ (8.46 a) and with preverb (i.e. be caused) ‘to become awake’ (8.46 b), but there is no added causer. These examples are further discussed in Sec­tion 8.4.2.

(8.46) a. Die Kinder sind wach.
b. Die Kinder erwachen.

[8.59] There are also a few examples of preverbal adjectives in which an accusative object is added, like with lustig ‘funny’ and belustigen ‘to amuse’ (8.47). These examples are further discussed in Sec­tion 8.8.2.

(8.47) a. Der Clown ist lustig.
b. Der Clown belustigt mich.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[8.60] Comparatives like besser ‘better’ (8.48) are considered as adjectives here and can likewise be the basis for a derived verb verbessern ‘to improve’ (8.48). Note that there is also a potentially intermediate verb bessern ‘to improve’ (8.48 c). Similar adjectival roots are breiter, größer, länger, kürzer and schöner.

(8.48) a. Die Lebensbedingungen sind heutzutage besser.
b. Ich verbessere die Lebensbedingungen.
c. Der Bericht bessert meine Lauen.

[8.61] The verb erbittern ‘to make bitter’ is probably derived from a verb bittern ‘to become bitter’, which does not exist anymore in contemporary German (Pfeiffer 1993). Entry bitter at https://www.dwds.de/wb/etymwb/bitter, accessed 6 August 2022. Both are of course related to the adjective bitter ‘bitter’.

8.6.4 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] Preverb nominal causative

[8.62] Preverbs can also be added to nominal roots, deriving a causative verb in the process. For example, the verb vergiften ‘to poison’ is derived from Gift ‘the poison’ (8.49 a). The meaning of such verbs is that the accusative object is caused to have the nominal property (i.e. ‘to cause to have poison’). In a few examples the derivation also includes an umlaut (like with ergründen ‘to ascertain’ from Grund ‘cause’). Nominal roots are most frequently attested with verb prefixes, though incidental verb particles are also attested, like ˈein‑ in einbürgern ‘to naturalise’ (8.49 b).

(8.49) a. Ich vergifte die Suppe.
(= Ich verursache, dass die Suppe giftig ist.)
b. Der Beamte bürgert den Flüchtling ein.
(= Der Beamte verursacht, dass der Flüchtling zum Bürger wird.)

[8.63] The prefix entˈ‑ includes an inherent negation, leading to verbs that express that the object does not have the nominal property, like entwalden ‘to deforest’, i.e. ‘to cause not to have a forest’ (8.50 b). The prefix erˈ‑ seems to have a slightly different semantic structure in that there is an experiencer involved, either as the nominative subject, like in erbeuten ‘to loot’ (8.50 b), or as the accusative object, like in erdolchen ‘to stab with a dagger’ (8.50 b).

(8.50) a. Die Arbeiter entwaldeten den Hügel.
(= Die Arbeiter verursachten, dass der Hügel keinen Wald mehr hat.)
b. Die Piraten erbeuteten den Schatz.
(= Die Piraten verursachten, dass sie den Schatz haben.)
c. Die Piraten erdolchen den Kapitän.
(= Die Piraten verursachen, dass der Kapitän einen Dolch in sich hat.)

[8.64] Some of these noun-based verbs listed below could also be interpreted as being derived from a verbal stem (which in turn is derived from a nominal stem). For example, verbs like salzen, wassern, pfeffern, gaunern, kalken and thronen are listed in the dwds dictionary. Available online at <https://www.dwds.de.> So, a verb like entsalzen is maybe not derived from the noun stem Salz directly (as claimed here), but through an intermediate verb salzen. Whatever diachronic pathway is correct, the semantic relation between the noun Salz and the verb entsalzen is extremely transparent. For that reason I have still listed these examples here.

[8.65] In contrast, some intermediate verb stems exist, but they clearly do not have a direct relation to the preverbal verbs listed here. For example, gründen ‘to establish’ is clearly derived from Grund ‘ground’. However, begründen ‘to justify’ does not seem to be derived from gründen, but is directly derived from Grund in a separate development. Similarly, giften can be used with the meaning ‘to be annoyed’ and is clearly derived from Gift ‘poison’. However, vergiften ‘to poison’ is not derived from this verb giften but directly from the noun Gift.

Attested verbs

Notes

[8.66] The relation between Haupt ‘head’ and behaupten ‘to claim’ is diachronically clear (viz. behaupten means ‘to establish oneself as the principal about something’), but synchronically this relation is not transparent anymore. Likewise, entziffern ‘to decipher’ is diachronically related to Ziffer ‘number’ but in a rather roundabout way. However, intuitively most German speakers do not seem to have a problem to make this semantic jump.

8.6.5 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] Preverb nominal reciprocal causative

[8.67] A special subclass of nouns produce an inherently reciprocal verb when combined with a preverb. It appears that all these verbs are derived from a plural noun. For example, the plural Brüder ‘brother’ is the basis of the verb verbrüdern ‘to fraternise’, i.e. ‘to become brothers’ (8.51). This verb is inherently reciprocal, cf. reciproca tantum as discussed in Sec­tion 7.3.3.

(8.51) Wir verbrüdern uns (miteinander).
(= Wir machen uns zu Brüdern.)

Attested verbs

8.6.6 ø › sbj › obj : [ –NP | NAP ] Preverb causative+preposition

[8.68] Some causative alternations have a governed preposition, like with haften ‘to be liable’ (8.52 a). The preposition becomes optional in the causative counterpart verhaften ‘to arrest’ (8.52 b). Note that there is quite some semantic leeway in this derivation.

(8.52) a. Eltern haften für ihre Kinder.
b. Die Polizisten verhaften die Eltern (für ihre Taten).

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.6.7 ø › sbj › obj : [ –ND | NAD ] Preverb causative+dative

[8.69] The verb gleichen ‘to be alike’ (8.53 a) takes a dative argument, which is retained in the causative diathesis angleichen ‘to adapt’ (12.2 b).

(8.53) a. Seine Aussprache gleicht meinem Dialekt.
b. Er gleicht seine Aussprache meinem Dialekt an.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.6.8 ø › sbj › obj : [ –ND | NAP ] Preverb causative+dative antipassive

[8.70] In the special case of the causative diathesis between gleichen ‘to resemble’ (8.54 a) and the prefixed form vergleichen ‘to compare’ (8.54 b), the original dative argument is turned into a governed preposition (8.54 c).

(8.54) a. Ich gleiche einem Affen.
b. Er vergleicht mich mit einem Affen.
c. Er vergleicht es damit, dass Affen Bananen essen.

Attested verbs

8.6.9 ø › sbj › obj : [ –NA | NDA ] Preverb dative causative+accusative

[8.71] Different from most causatives, the original nominative of mieten ‘to rent’ (8.55 a) turns into a dative in the prefixed form vermieten ‘to lend’ (8.55 b). The more typical diathesis (as illustrated previously) is a causative in which the original nominative turns into an accusative. However, with verbs like vermieten there is already an accusative present before the diathesis, which is retained. In general, there seems to be a strong generalisation (with only few exceptions) that verbs in German do not govern multiple accusatives (cf. Sec­tion 5.3.9).

(8.55) a. Ich miete die Wohnung (von ihm).
b. Er vermietet mir die Wohnung.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.6.10 ø › sbj › pbj : [ –NA | NPA ] Preverb reversed fabricative+accusative

[8.72] Different from the previously discussed causatives, the original nominative of freuen ‘to enjoy’ (8.56 a) turns into a governed preposition with the prefixed erfreuen ‘to delight somebody’ (8.56 b,c). The more typical diathesis is a causative in which the original nominative turns into an accusative.

(8.56) a. Das Geschenk freut mich.
b. Er erfreut mich mit einem Geschenk.
c. Er erfreut mich damit, dass er vorbei kommt.

Attested verbs

[8.73] The following diatheses can be seen as passives “in reverse”. On first notice everything just looks like a passive: (i) the accusative argument of the (prefixed) transitive verb turns into a nominative of the (non-prefixed) intransitive verb and (ii) the causer/agent of the (prefixed) transitive verb is expressed as a (governed) prepositional phrase with the (non-prefixed) intransitive verb. However, the direction of an alternation is by definition from the unmarked (non-prefixed) to the marked (prefixed) verb. So, these diatheses are “reversed” passives. Although it would make sense to call such diatheses “antipassives”, this term is already taken by another kind of diatheses. Because the prepositional phrases are governed prepositions, these diatheses are examples of a reversed conversive diathesis, as defined in Sec­tion 2.7.3.2.

8.6.11 pbj › sbj › obj : [ PN | NA ] Preverb reversed conversive

[8.74] The causer of erstaunen ‘to amaze’ is expressed as a governed preposition über with the non-prefixed verb staunen ‘to be amazed’.

(8.57) a. Ich staune über deine Arbeit.
b. Ich staune darüber, dass du schon fertig bist.
c. Deine Arbeit erstaunt mich.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.6.12 pbj › sbj › obj : [ PN | NA ] Preverb reversed conversive+reflexive loss

[8.75] With the addition of the prefix, the verbs in this section lose their reflexive pronoun, like with sich schämen ‘to be ashamed’ (8.58 a) to beschämen ‘to shame’ (8.58 c). Further note that the causer of the transitive is expressed as a governed preposition (8.58 b). So, there is both a “reversed” conversive and a “reversed” reflexive marking in these diatheses.

(8.58) a. Ich schäme mich für meine Taten.
b. Ich schäme mich dafür, dass ich das gemacht habe.
c. Meine Taten beschämen mich

[8.76] The second examples of this diathesis with wundern ‘to wonder’ (8.59) is less clear, because this verb has also a reflexive passive alternation, see Sec­tion 7.5.6. Comparing (8.59 a,c) shows an alternation of an inverted conversive with reflexive loss. But comparing (8.59 b,c) shows an alternation without diathesis.

(8.59) a. Ich wundere mich über dein Verhalten.
b. Dein Verhalten wundert mich.
c. Dein Verhalten verwundert mich.

Attested verbs

[8.77] #     — [ ADJ › SBJ › OBJ ] — {.unnumbered}

8.6.13 adj › sbj › obj : [ pNA | NA– ] Preverb reversed passive+accusative loss

[8.78] The relation between erben ‘inherit’ and enterben ‘disinherit’ is peculiar, because the accusative argument Schreibtisch of the verb erben in (8.60 a) cannot be expressed in any way with the prefixed verb enterben (8.60 b).

(8.60) a. Ich erbe den Schreibtisch von meinem Vater.
b. Mein Vater enterbt mich.

Attested verbs

8.7 Diatheses with object demotion

8.7.1 obj › ø : [ NA | N– ] Preverb reflexive accusative drop

[8.79] Some preverbs induce the loss of an accusative with a coincidental obligatory reflexive pronoun, like the diathesis between wählen ‘to choose’ and sich verwählen ‘to misdial’ (8.61). The examples of this diathesis mostly appear to relate to using your body in a certain way, which is reminiscent of the endoreflexive diathesis (see Sec­tion 7.7.1). Because of the similarities between the two, I propose to call this diathesis the Präverb Endoreflexiv.

(8.61) a. Er wählt die falsche Nummer.
b. Er verwählt sich.

[8.80] The examples with the prefix ver‑ quite productively result in verbs that describe an activity that is performed erroneously (cf. Stiebels 1996: 143–151). The same semantic effect with ver‑ (but with different diatheses) is also attested with intransitive movement verbs, see Sec­tion 8.4.6, and with measurement verbs, see Sec­tion 8.7.4.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.7.2 obj › ø : [ NA | N– ] Preverb accusative drop

[8.81] These verbs are counterexamples to the predominant pattern that preverbs induce an accusative argument (see Sec­tion 8.2.2). In contrast, in the diathesis from kaufen ‘to buy’ (8.62 a) to einkaufen ‘to shop’ (8.62 b) an accusative argument is completely dropped. Comparing this diathesis to the other diatheses in this section, it would be expected for a reflexive pronoun to be necessary here. However, that is not the case.

(8.62) a. Ich habe gestern ein Buch gekauft.
b. Ich habe gestern eingekauft.

Attested verbs

Notes

[8.82] Various examples of this diathesis show a strong semantic change, so it is debatable whether these should still be considered diatheses or simply different lexemes. The problematic examples are (i) greifen ‘to grasp (8.63 a) vs. eingreifen ’to intervene’ (8.63 b) and (ii) trinken ‘to drink’ (8.63 c) vs. ertrinken ‘to drown’ (8.63 d).

(8.63) a. Der Polizist hat den Stock gegriffen.
b. Der Polizist hat eingegriffen.
c. Ich trinke das Wasser.
d. Ich ertrinke.

8.7.3 obj › ø : [ ND | N– ] Preverb reflexive dative drop

[8.83] There is quite some uncertainty among German speakers as to the case of the reflexive pronoun of behelfen ‘to manage’ (8.64). Based on a preliminary corpus search, the Grammatisches Informationssystem (Strecker 2017) concludes that accusative mich is clearly favoured, though in Google search results the dative mir seems to be preferred. This might suggest that there is an ongoing language change from reflexive accusative to dative with behelfen. Note that it is highly unusual for a dative reflexive to occur without an accusative argument being present as well (see paragraph 7.7).

(8.64) a. Ich helfe dir.
b. Ich behelfe mich (mir).

Attested verbs

8.7.4 obj › adj : [ NA | Np ] Preverb reflexive antipassive

[8.84] The verb kalkulieren ‘to calculate’ (8.65 a) allows for an antipassive diathesis in which an accusative argument is turned into an (optional) prepositional phrase by adding a prefix verkalkulieren ‘to miscalculate’. Additionally, an obligatory accusative reflexive pronoun is part of this diathesis, probably because a preverb diathesis needs an accusative constituent.

(8.65) a. Ich kalkuliere die Miete.
b. Ich verkalkuliere mich bei der Miete.

[8.85] There are various further verbs of measurement in this class, like schätzen ‘to estimate’ and rechnen ‘to calculate’, but this semantic characteristic is not exhaustive. The prefix ver‑ indicates that the action is performed erroneously, which is also attested in various other diathesis (e.g. Sec­tion 8.7.1.)

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.7.5 obj › adj : [ NAA | NAp ] Preverb antipassive+accusative

[8.86] The verb lehren ‘to teach’ (8.66 a) shows a slight variant of the previous antipassive. By adding the preverb, belehren ‘to instruct’ turns the inanimate accusative (Regeln ‘rules’) into a prepositional phrase (8.66 b) while retaining the other animate accusative (dich ‘you’). Because there is an accusative constituent in the sentence, this preverb diathesis does not necessitate a reflexive pronoun.

(8.66) a. Ich lehre dich die Regeln.
b. Ich belehre dich über die Regeln.

Attested verbs

8.7.6 obj › adj : [ NAD | NAp ] Preverb dative antipassive+accusative

[8.87] Adding a preverb to various ditransitive verbs with dative and accusative arguments, like schenken ‘to gift’ (8.67 a), frequently results in the omission of the dative, like verschenken ‘to give away’ (8.67 b). The dative can be retained as a prepositional phrase, but is typically omitted. This diathesis appears to be widespread with ditransitive verbs. Because there is an accusative constituent in the sentence, this preverb diathesis does not necessitate a reflexive pronoun.

(8.67) a. Ich schenke dem Kindergarten meine Bücher.
b. Ich verschenke meine Bücher (an den Kindergarten).

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.7.7 obj › adj : [ ND | Np ] Preverb reflexive dative antipassive

[8.88] The diathesis between danken and bedanken, both meaning ‘to thank’ (8.68), is a dative antipassive. The dative is turned into a prepositional phrase. Additionally, an obligatory accusative reflexiv pronoun is introduced.

(8.68) a. Ich danke dir.
b. Ich bedanke mich bei dir.

Attested verbs

8.7.8 obj › obj › adj : [ NDA | NAp ] Preverb antipassive+dative-to-accusative

[8.89] Like the previously discussed diathesis (see Sec­tion 8.7.6), this diathesis takes a ditransitive verb with an accusative and a dative argument, like schenken ‘to gift’ (8.69 a). Then, by adding the preverb beˈ-, the accusative argument (Buch ‘book’) is turned into an optional prepositional phrase (i.e. accusative antipassive) with beschenken ‘to give a present’ (8.69 b). At the same time, the dative argument is turned into an accusative (dir becomes dich).

[8.90] Compare this to the diathesis with ver‑ as discussed in the previous section: verschenken ‘to give away’ takes the dative von schenken and turns it into a prepositional phrase (i.e. dative antipassive). The accusative is unaffected (8.69 c).

(8.69) a. Ich schenke dir ein Buch.
b. Ich beschenke dich mit einem Buch.
c. Ich verschenke das Buch an dich.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.7.9 pbj › adj : [ NL | Np ] Preverb intransitive delocative

[8.91] The non-preverbal steigen ‘to mount’ needs an obligatory location describing the endpoint of the action (8.70 a). This location cannot be left out (8.70 b) and, crucially for this diathesis, the participle cannot be used attributively without the location (8.70 c,d).

(8.70) a. Der Mann steigt aus dem Auto.
b. * Der Mann steigt.
c. Der aus dem Auto gestiegene Mann rutscht aus.
d. * Der gestiegene Mann rutscht aus.

[8.92] In contrast, with the preverbal aussteigen both previously ungrammatical options are possible (8.71). In effect that means that by adding the preverb, the verb loses the obligation to have a location phrase. Such a delocative diathesis is the reverse of a locative diathesis in which an obligatory location phrase is added, see e.g. Sec­tion 6.8.1.

(8.71) a. Der Mann steigt aus dem Auto aus.
b. Der Mann steigt aus.
c. Der aus dem Auto ausgestiegene Mann rutscht aus.
d. Der ausgestiegene Mann rutscht aus.

[8.93] Note that there is another usage of the verb steigen in the meaning ‘to rise’ that behaves differently (see Sec­tion 6.7.3).

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.7.10 pbj › adj : [ NL | Np ] Preverb reflexive intransitive delocative

[8.94] This diathesis is similar to the previous diathesis (see Sec­tion 8.7.9) with the additional characteristics that the prefixed verbs like beeilen ‘to hurry’ also need a reflexive pronoun (8.72). Note that, contrary to (8.72 b), the verb eilen ‘to hurry’ can be used without a location phrase, but only in the meaning ‘to be urgent’ (cf. Sec­tion 6.7.3).

(8.72) a. Ich eile nach Hause.
b. * Ich eile.
c. Ich beeile mich.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.7.11 pbj › adj : [ NAL | NAp ] Preverb transitive delocative

[8.95] Verbs of caused location (see Sec­tion 6.5.10) like stecken ‘to put into’ (8.73 a) cannot be used without a locative prepositional phrase (8.73 b). In contrast, with the prefix ver‑ the verb verstecken ‘to hide’ can be used both with and without the location (8.73 c,d).

(8.73) a. Ich stecke das Geschenk in den Schrank.
b. * Ich stecke das Geschenk.
c. Ich verstecke das Geschenk in dem Schrank.
d. Ich verstecke das Geschenk.

[8.96] The diathesis is quite widespread stacked on top of a forced movement diathesis as discussed in Sec­tion 6.8.3, for example with wehen ‘to blow’ (8.74).

(8.74) a. Der Wind weht hart.
b. Der Wind weht die Blätter von den Dächern.
c. * Der Wind weht die Blätter.
d. Der Wind verweht die Blätter.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[8.97] The verb schenken ‘to pour’ used to be common in a context of pouring a drink (8.75 a), but this is considered old-fashioned in German. The verb einschenken is taking over this usage (8.75 b).

(8.75) a. Frau Anna schenkte den Wein in die Becher. dwds: Weismantel, Leo: Die höllische Trinität, Berlin: Union-Verl.1966 (1943), S. 428.
b. Sie schenkten Wein ein.

8.7.12 pbj › obj › ø : [ NLA | NA– ] Preverb applicative+accusative drop

[8.98] The result of a verb like pressen ‘to squeeze’ is Saft ‘juice’ (8.76 a). This verb needs an obligatory local phrase for the original container of the juice, aus der Zitrone ‘from the citron’ (8.76 b). Verbs in this category either use the preposition aus or von. With a preverb, the verb auspressen ‘to squeeze’ drops this accusative result and promotes the container of the result Zitrone to accusative (8.76 c). In effect, the role marked as object is exchanged. The new object (here Zitrone) is always a holonymic “whole” containing the original meronymic content (here Saft). This diathesis applies to verbs in which the meronymic content is removed out of the holonymic container, hence I propose the German name präverb ganz/leer-objekttausch for this diathesis.

(8.76) a. Ich presse den Saft aus der Zitrone.
b. * Ich presse den Saft.
c. Ich presse die Zitrone aus.

[8.99] Most examples have an obligatory local phrase before the diathesis, but a few verbs allow for this local phrase to be dropped, like with rauben ‘to rob’ (8.77). Other examples of this slightly different diathesis with an optional location are erben, trinken and stehlen.

(8.77) a. Ich raube das Gemälde (aus der Wohnung).
b. Ich raube die Wohnung aus.

[8.100] There is a parallel diathesis with the resultative preverbials leer‑ and frei-, which is discussed in detail in Sec­tion 9.7.4. The reversal of this diathesis is the unmarked partitive separated object diathesis (see Sec­tion 6.8.8). Lipka (1972: 93, 173) calls this diathesis Objektvertauschung and McIntyre (2001: 275–277) “landmark flexibility”. For historical context on this diathesis, see Carlberg (1948) and Hundsnurscher (1968: 127). Lipka opposes this diathesis to Subjektvertauschung, which is discussed in Sec­tion 8.5.3. However, that opposition does not seems to be a fruitful approach.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.7.13 pbj › obj › adj : [ NLA | NAp ] Preverb applicative+mit antipassive

[8.101] This diathesis is a combination of an applicative promotion and an antipassive demotion. Such an object exchange is a very widespread diathesis, exemplified here with drücken ‘to press’ (8.78 a). This verb needs both an accusative object (here Finger ‘finger’) and an obligatory location (here auf die Wunde ‘on the wound’). This location cannot be left out (8.78 b). With the preverb zu‑ the verb zudrücken ‘to press shut’ (8.78 c) promotes the locational object to accusative (Wunde) and demotes the original object to an optional prepositional phrase (Finger). Semantically, the new accusative object (Wunde) is covered by the old accusative object (Finger). This is an example of the filled holonym object exchange (see Sec­tion 2.7.5.2), or in German a präverb ganz/voll-objekttausch. The reverse diathesis is the joined meronym object exchange, discussed below in Sec­tion 8.9.1.

(8.78) a. Ich habe meinen Finger auf die Wunde gedrückt.
b. * Ich habe meinen Finger gedrückt.
c. Ich habe die Wunde mit meinem Finger zugedrückt.
d. Ich habe die Wunde zugedrückt.

[8.102] The antipassive demotion in this section always takes the preposition mit. There is more variation in the prepositions that take part in the applicative promotion part of the diathesis, e.g. auf in (8.78). The prepositions an, auf, in or um are attested. All examples of this diathesis will be surveyed in the following subsections according to this applicative preposition.

8.7.13.1 an/mit Preverb object exchange

(8.79) a. Ich hänge die Bilder an die Wand.
b. * Ich hänge die Bilder.
c. Ich behänge die Wand mit Bildern.
d. Ich behänge die Wand.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.7.13.2 auf/mit Preverb object exchange

(8.80) a. Ich schmiere Salbe auf die Wunde.
b. * Ich schmiere Salbe.
c. Ich beschmiere die Wunde mit Salbe.
d. Ich beschmiere die Wunde.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.7.13.3 in/mit Preverb object exchange

(8.81) a. Ich reibe die Salbe in den Muskel.
b. * Ich reibe die Salbe.
c. Ich reibe den Muskel mit Salbe ein.
d. Ich reibe den Muskel ein.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.7.13.4 um/mit Preverb object exchange

[8.103] These verbs are illustrated with the diathesis between binden ‘to tie’ and zubinden ‘tie up’ (8.82). With these verbs, the new object after the diathesis (Paket ‘parcel’) is surrounded by the old object (Faden ‘thread’). Because of the parallels to the previously discussed examples of this diathesis, this implies that the surrounded object is treated alike to a holonym and the surrounding as a meronym, and “being surrounded” is treated alike to “being full”.

(8.82) a. Ich binde einen Faden um das Paket.
b. * Ich binde einen Faden.
c. Ich binde das Paket mit dem Faden zu.
d. Ich bind das Paket zu.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.7.14 pbj › obj › adj : [ NPA | NAp ] Preverb applicative+von antipassive

[8.104] This chained applicative+antipassive diathesis uses a von antipassive. All examples currently known to me use the preverb erˈ-. The applicative side of the diathesis uses different prepositions, but they are all governed prepositions. For example, the verb zwingen ‘to compel’ (8.83 a) takes a governed preposition zu (8.83 b). The prefixed erzwingen promotes the zu argument to accusative and demotes the erstwhile accusative to an optional von prepositional phrase (8.83 c). The few attested verbs all concern some kind of persuasion of another person.

(8.83) a. Er zwingt ihn zu einem Geständnis.
b. Er zwingt ihn dazu, ein Geständnis abzulegen.
c. Er erzwingt ein Geständnis (von ihm).

[8.105] Exceptionally, the object exchange from bitten ‘to ask’ (8.84 a) to verbitten ‘to not tolerate’ (8.84 b) additionally needs a dative reflexive pronoun.

(8.84) a. Ich bitte dich um einen Kommentar.
b. Ich verbitte mir einen Kommentar von dir.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8 Diatheses with promotion to object

8.8.1 ø › obj : [ N– | NA ] Preverb accusative addition

[8.106] A relatively widespread effect of the addition of a preverb is that an accusative object is added, like with the diathesis from zaubern ‘to perform magic’ to verzaubern ‘to enchant’ (8.85).

(8.85) a. Sie zaubert.
b. Sie verzaubert mich.

[8.107] There are two other highly similar diatheses that likewise add an accusative object when a preverb is added. First, some verbs additionally need a dative reflexive pronoun, like when arbeiten ‘to work’ is turned into erarbeiten ‘to work for something’ (8.86 a). These verbs are discussed in detail in Sec­tion 8.8.5. Second, many verbs can express the new object as a prepositional phrase before the diathesis. For example, klettern auf ‘to climb onto X’ is turned into erklettern ‘to climb X’ (8.86 b). This applicative diathesis is by far the most frequently attested variant of these three diatheses. It is discussed in detail in Sec­tion 8.8.8.

(8.86) a. Ich arbeite viel.
Ich erarbeite mir ein Vermögen.
b. Sie kletterten auf die Mauer.
Sie erkletterten die Mauer der Botschaft. dwds: Die Zeit, 12.09.2012, Nr. 37.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[8.108] The verbs with the prefix vor‑ typically also take a dative argument (cf. Sec­tion 8.8.7).

(8.87) a. Er lügt.
Er lügt (mir) etwas vor.
b. Er flunkert.
Er flunkert (mir) die Erfahrung nur vor.
c. Der Lehrer rechnet.
Der Lehrer rechnet (den Schülern) die Aufgabe vor.

8.8.2 ø › obj : [ N– | NA ] Preverb adjectival accusative addition

[8.109] Typically, preverbal adjectives lead to causative semantics by adding a new nominative subject (see Sec­tion 8.6.3). In contrast, the adjective lustig ‘funny’ is the root of the derived verb belustigen ‘to amuse’ and this verb adds a new accusative object (8.88).

(8.88) a. Der Clown ist lustig.
b. Der Clown belustigt mich.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.3 ø › obj : [ NP– | NPA ] Preverb accusative addition+preposition

[8.110] The verb büßen ‘to pay for something’ needs a governed preposition (8.89 a). This prepositional phrase is optionally retained when the verb is prefixed, leading to verbüßen ‘to serve a sentence’ (8.89 b). Additionally, it obtains an accusative argument in the process.

(8.89) a. Sie büßt für ihre Tat.
b. Sie verbüßt ihre Strafe für die Tat.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.4 ø › obj : [ ND– | NDA ] Preverb accusative addition+dative

[8.111] The verb vertrauen ‘to trust’ (8.90 a) takes a dative argument. The preverbal anvertrauen ‘to entrust’ (10.149 b) retains this dative and additionally includes a new accusative argument.

(8.90) a. Sie vertraut mir.
b. Sie vertraut mir ein Geheimnis an.

Attested verbs

8.8.5 ø › obj : [ N– | NA ] Preverb reflexive accusative

[8.112] Some intransitive verbs like tanzen ‘to dance’ (8.91 a) allow for a added-result diathesis antanzen ‘to achieve something through dancing’ (8.91 b). With this diathesis, the result of the dancing is expressed as a new accusative argument. A special characteristic of this diathesis is that a dative reflexive pronoun is obligatory (see also Wunderlich 1997: 105–106).

(8.91) a. Ich habe gestern viel getanzt.
b. Ich habe mir gestern einen Muskelkater angetanzt.

[8.113] This diathesis contrasts with a highly similar diathesis that also introduces an accusative, but without the additional reflexive pronoun, like with morden ‘to murder’ (8.92). This diathesis is discussed in detail in Sec­tion 8.8.1. A possible avenue to explain this difference is that verbs with reflexive, like antanzen, typically have an accusative object that is the result of the action. In contrast, verbs without reflexive, like ermorden, typically have an object that is the patient of the action. However, this semantic difference does not seem to hold for all examples.

(8.92) a. Sie mordet.
b. Sie ermordet ihn.
c. * Sie ermordet sich ihn.

[8.114] Some verbs, like erschwimmen ‘to achieve by swimming’ (8.93), even allow for both constructions, either with reflexive pronoun (8.93 a) or without reflexive pronoun (8.93 b). More examples of such “free” reflexive pronouns are discussed in Sec­tion 7.4.4. Note that the semantic difference between these examples does not easily fit the opposition result vs. patient as proposed above. It remains unclear to me how exactly to explain these two options.

(8.93) a. Zumindest Völker erschwimmt sich jährlich einen fünfstelligen Betrag. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 16.03.2000.
b. Das erste EM-Gold für die Gastgeber erschwamm Adam Peaty. dwds: Die Zeit, 17.05.2016 (online).

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[8.115] A few of these verbs are transitive, like lesen, schreiben (8.94 a,b), ambitransitive, like essen, trinken (8.94 c,d), and various others allow for an accusative addition, like laufen (8.94 e). In effect, this leads to some kind of reflexive object exchange.

(8.94) a. Ich habe ein Buch gelesen.
Ich habe mir das Wissen (aus einem Buch) angelesen.
b. Er schrieb Miniaturen.
Sein Alltag lieferte ihm Stoff zu kleinen Miniaturen, mit denen er sich eine Kolumne erschrieb. dwds: Zeit Magazin, 20.04.2011, Nr. 17.
c. Ich esse viel Fleisch.
Ich habe mir (mit dem vielen Fleisch) einen Bauch angegessen.
d. Sie trinken Glühwein.
[…] rotnasigen Menschen, die sich mit klebrigem Glühwein den nächsten Kaufrausch antrinken. dwds: Die Zeit, 20.12.2006, Nr. 52.
e. Ich habe gestern einen Marathon gelaufen.
Ich habe mir (im Marathon) eine Medaille erlaufen.

8.8.6 ø › obj : [ N– | ND ] Preverb dative addition

[8.116] The verbs in this section are intransitive verbs, like gehen ‘to walk’ (10.119 a), that when prefixed by entˈ‑ obtain a new dative argument, like with entgehen ‘to evade’ (8.95 b). This is not very common. More widespread, the prefixation of entˈ‑ induces a dative applicative diathesis, turning a prepositional phrase into a dative argument, as discussed extensively in Sec­tion 8.8.13.

(8.95) a. Ich gehe (nach Hause).
b. Ich entgehe dem Urteil.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.7 ø › obj : [ NA– | NAD ] Preverb dative addition+accusative

[8.117] The verbs in this section are transitive verbs, like lesen ‘to read’ (8.96 a). When used with a preverb they obtain an additional dative argument, like with vorlesen ‘to read to somebody’ (8.96 b). Most prominently, the prefix vor‑ quite productively produces ditransitive verbs with accusative and dative arguments.

(8.96) a. Ich lese ein Buch.
b. Ich lese dir ein Buch vor.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.8 adj › obj : [ Np | NA ] Preverb applicative

[8.118] A widespread diathesis induced by a preverb is the change of a prepositional phrase into an accusative, i.e. an applicative diathesis. An example is the alternation between grenzen ‘to border’ and begrenzen ‘to limit’ (8.97), see e.g. Eroms (Eroms 1980: §1b/III/IV; Kim 1983: §1.1). The different subsections below are organised by the prepositions that alternate with the accusatives.

(8.97) a. Die Mauer grenzt an den Garten.
b. Die Mauer begrenzt den Garten.

[8.119] Note that the prepositions über, unter, um and durch appear to have a special status. These prepositions always alternate with exactly the same preverbs, viz. über-, unter-, um‑ and durch-. These prepositions are exactly those that can function both as verbal prefix and as verbal particle (see Sec­tion 8.2.1). Both kinds of preverbs are attested in these alternations.

8.8.8.1 an Preverb applicative

(8.98) a. Der Efeu wuchert an der Mauer.
b. Der Efeu bewuchert die Mauer.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.8.2 auf Preverb applicative

(8.99) a. Ich steige auf den Berg.
b. Ich besteige den Berg.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.8.3 durch Preverb applicative

[8.120] The preposition durch only alternates with the preverb durch-, either as a verb prefix (8.100 b) or a verb particle (8.100 c).

(8.100) a. Der Fluß fließt durch das Tal.
b. Der Fluß durchfließt das Tal.
c. Der Fluß fließt das Tal durch.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[8.121] There are various still transparent derivations in which there is a rather strong semantic difference (8.101).

(8.101) a. Ich drücke auf den Knopf.
Ich drücke den Plan durch.
b. Ich stehe in dem Garten während des Rückschlages.
Ich stehe einen Rückschlag durch.

8.8.8.4 gegen Preverb applicative

(8.102) a. Ich fahre gegen den Stein.
b. Ich fahre den Stein um.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.8.5 in Preverb applicative

(8.103) a. Ich bohre in das Brett.
b. Ich zerbohre das Brett.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.8.6 mit Preverb applicative

(8.104) a. Ich rede mit dir.
b. Ich überrede dich.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.8.7 nach Preverb applicative

(8.105) a. Ich reiche nach der Flasche.
b. Ich erreiche die Flasche nicht.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.8.8 über Preverb applicative

(8.106) a. Ich schreite über die Schwelle.
b. Ich überschreite die Schwelle.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.8.9 um Preverb applicative

(8.107) a. Ich fahre um den Polizisten.
b. Ich umfahre den Polizisten.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.8.10 unter Preverb applicative

(8.108) a. Der Tunnel führt unter die Bahnstrecke hindurch.
b. Der Tunnel unterführt die Bahnstrecke.

Attested verbs

8.8.8.11 zu Preverb applicative

(8.109) a. Ich spreche zu dem Mann.
b. Ich spreche den Mann an.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.9 pbj › obj : [ NP | NA ] Preverb governed applicative

[8.122] A preverb applicative diathesis turns a prepositional phrase into an accusative argument. This is a widespread diathesis (see the previous Sec­tion 8.8.8). In this section a few special verbs are listed in which the prepositional phrase is a governed preposition (see Sec­tion 6.2 on the definition of governed prepositions). For example, the preposition an used with the verb arbeiten ‘to work’ is a governed preposition (8.110 a,b). This role is turned into an accusative with the verb überarbeiten ‘to revise’ (8.110 c). This kind of diathesis appears not to be very common, and it might not be very useful to separate these governed prepositions from the previously discussed non-governed prepositions. However, I have kept them separate here for future in-detail comparisons.

(8.110) a. Ich arbeite an dem Text.
b. Ich arbeite daran den Text rechtzeitig fertig zu schreiben.
c. Ich überarbeite den Text.

8.8.9.1 an Preverb governed applicative

(8.111) a. Ich leide an Kopfschmerzen.
b. Ich erleide Kopfschmerzen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.9.2 auf Preverb governed applicative

(8.112) a. Ich antworte auf deine Frage.
b. Ich beantworte deine Frage.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.9.3 gegen Preverb governed applicative

(8.113) a. Ich kämpfe gegen das Unrecht.
b. Ich bekämpfe das Unrecht.

Attested verbs

8.8.9.4 mit Preverb governed applicative

(8.114) a. Ich rechne mit einem Verlust.
b. Ich rechne den Verlust ein.

Attested verbs

8.8.9.5 nach Preverb governed applicative

(8.115) a. Ich strebe nach einem hohen Amt.
b. Ich strebe ein hohes Amt an.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.9.6 über Preverb governed applicative

(8.116) a. Ich klage über den Lärm.
b. Ich beklage den Lärm

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.9.7 um Preverb governed applicative

(8.117) a. Ich verspiele mein Haus.
b. Ich spiele um mein Haus.

Attested verbs

8.8.10 pbj › obj : [ NP | NA ] Preverb reflexive governed applicative

[8.123] The diathesis from betteln (8.118 a) to erbetteln (8.118 b), both meaning ‘to beg’, shows an additional reflexive marking on top of the accusative applicative.

(8.118) a. Ich bettele um ein Stück Brot.
b. Ich erbettele mir ein Stück Brot.

[8.124] When using the prefix ver‑ the meaning of this diathesis includes some kind of implicit negation, like with bitten ‘to ask’ vs. verbitten ‘to not tolerate’ (8.119).

(8.119) a. Ich bitte um ein besseres Verhalten.
b. Ich verbitte mir dein Verhalten.

[8.125] However, the datives in many of these examples can be interpreted as a beneficiary, so it might be better to interpret them as a kind of für beneficiary dative, see Sec­tion 6.8.10. The reflexive marking might also not be necessary, i.e. the action could also be performed in favour of somebody else. When both these possibilities come together, then this diathesis would be a transparent stack of applicative +> beneficiary dative +> self-inflicting reflexive (8.120) and would not warrant a separate subsection (for the notion “stack” see Sec­tion 2.5).

(8.120) Ich bettele um ein Stück Brot für dich.
(+> applicative) Ich erbettele ein Stück Brot für dich.
(+> beneficiary dative) Ich erbettele dir ein Stück Brot.
(+> self-inflicting reflexive) Ich erbettele mir ein Stück Brot.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.11 pbj › obj : [ NDP | NDA ] Preverb governed applicative+dative

[8.126] An unusual variant of a governed applicative is illustrated with the diathesis between drohen (8.121 a) and androhen (8.121 b), both meaning ‘to threaten’. Additional to the change from a prepositional phrase to an accusative there is a dative that does not change in this diathesis. Such unchanged datives are highly unusual together with an applicative. Note that the reversal, i.e. a dative applicative with an unchanged accusative, is much more widespread (see Sec­tion 8.8.14). This asymmetry is yet another example of the dative-accusative asymmetry as also observed with reflexive pronouns (paragraph 7.7), the drop hierarchy (Sec­tion 5.7) and the antipassive hierarchy (Sec­tion 6.7).

(8.121) a. Er droht mir mit Entlassung.
b. Er droht mir die Entlassung an.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.12 pbj › obj : [ NAP | NDA ] Preverb governed applicative+case change

[8.127] A peculiar diathesis is attested with drängen zu ‘to urge’ (8.122 a) and aufdrängen ‘to force’ (8.122 b). The zu governed prepositional phrase is turned into an accusative, which is a regular applicative. However, additionally the accusative dich is turned into a dative dir.

(8.122) a. Ich dränge dich zu einem Abo.
Ich dränge dich dazu ein Abo zu nehmen.
b. Ich dränge dir ein Abo auf.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.13 adj › obj : [ Np | ND ] Preverb dative applicative

[8.128] The following applicatives turn a prepositional phrase into a dative. For example, stammen ‘to descent from’ is used with a preposition aus (8.123 a). This role is turned into a dative with the preverb entstammen ‘to be descended from’. Note that these prepositions are never governed prepositions (for ent-, see also Eisenberg 2006b: 263–264).

(8.123) a. Ich stamme aus einem Adelsgeschlecht.
b. Ich entstamme einem Adelsgeschlecht.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.14 adj › obj : [ NAp | NAD ] Preverb dative applicative+accusative

[8.129] Some verbs allow for an additional accusative argument alongside a dative applicative diathesis. For example, the verb flüstern ‘to whisper’ (8.124 a) has an additional accusative argument in the form of reported speech. This argument is retained in the diathesis zuflüstern ‘to whisper to somebody’ (8.124 b). The zu‑ diathesis appears to be rather productive with verbs of communication (cf. Wiemer & Nedjalkov 2007: 472).

(8.124) a. “Jesses Maria […]”, flüsterte ich zu dem Russen […]. dwds: Die Zeit, 29.05.2012, Nr. 19.
b. “Jesses Maria”, flüsterte ich dem Russen zu.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.15 adj › obj : [ NPp | NAD ] Preverb dative+preposition applicative

[8.130] An example of a “double” applicative is found with the diathesis from schweigen ‘to be silent’ (8.125 a) and verschweigen ‘to conceal’ (8.125 b). With the addition of the preverb ver‑ both a dative and an accusative applicative are induced.

(8.125) a. Ich schweige zu dir über meinen Besuch.
b. Ich verschweige dir meinen Besuch.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.8.16 adj › obj : [ NAg | NAD ] Preverb possessor-of-accusative to dative

[8.131] The verb ansehen has various different meanings, as summarised in Sec­tion 8.4.8. One of these can approximately be translated into English as ‘to notice’ (8.127). In this sense of ansehen, the possessor of the accusative argument from sehen is obligatorily expressed as a dative with ansehen.

(8.126) a. Ich sehe seine Müdigkeit.
b. Ich sehe ihm die Müdigkeit an.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.9 Symmetrical diatheses

8.9.1 adj › obj › adj : [ NpA | NAp ] Preverb applicative+in antipassive

[8.132] The diathesis from füllen ‘to fill’ (8.127 a) to einfüllen ‘to fill into’ (8.127 b) is an example of a joined meronym object exchange (cf. Sec­tion 2.7.5.3). The original accusative object (Flasche ‘bottle’) is changed into an optional in prepositional phrase, while an optional mit prepositional phrase (Schnaps ‘liquor’) is changed to accusative object. Semantically, the role of new accusative object (i.e. the liquid, Schnaps) is always a part (“meronym”) of the old object role (i.e. the container, Flasche). Additionally, the verb describes a process in which the meronym is connected to the holonym. So the new object in this diathesis is always a “joined” meronym’. In German I propose to call this diathesis präverb teil/fest-objekttausch because it is an object exchange in which the new object is a part (Teil ‘part’) of original object that is connected to it (fest ‘fixed’).

(8.127) a. Er hat die Flasche (mit Schnaps) gefüllt.
b. Er hat den Schnaps (in die Flasche) eingefüllt.

[8.133] All examples of this diathesis have an in demotion. There is a bit more variation in the promotion, but not much. Most examples have a mit/in exchange, while just very few examples of a für/in exchange are attested. Both these patterns are discussed separately below.

8.9.1.1 mit/in Preverb object exchange

[8.134] The current mit/in object exchange is the reversal of the in/mit object exchange, discussed previously in detail in Sec­tion 8.7.13. There are even nice close examples. For example, the diathesis massieren/einmassieren is an example of the current mit/in exchange (8.128 a). In contrast, the diathesis reiben/einreiben is a reversed example of an in/mit object exchange (8.128 b).

(8.128) a. Ich habe den Muskel mit einer Salbe massiert.
Ich habe die Salbe in den Muskel einmassiert.
b. Ich habe die Salbe in den Muskel gerieben.
Ich habe den Muskel mit einer Salbe eingerieben.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[8.135] The diathesis from schließen ‘to close’ (8.129 a) to einschließen ‘to close away’ (8.129 b) introduces a new accusative object (Schmuck ‘jewellery’) and turns the original accusative (Safe ‘safe’) into an optional prepositional phrase. However, the special characteristic of this diathesis is that the new accusative object (Schmuck) is impossible to express with the non-prefixed verb schließen.

(8.129) a. Ich schließe den Safe.
b. Ich schließe den Schmuck (in den Safe) ein.

8.9.1.2 für/in Preverb object exchange

(8.130) a. Ich grabe ein Loch (für meinen Hund).
b. Ich begrabe meinen Hund (in dem Loch).

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.9.2 obj › obj : [ ND | NA ] Preverb dative-to-accusative

[8.136] A few examples exist of a preverb diathesis in which a dative argument is changed into an accusative argument. For example, folgen ‘to follow’ (8.131 a) takes a dative, while verfolgen ‘to pursue’ (8.131 b) takes an accusative.

(8.131) a. Ich folge dem Auto.
b. Ich verfolge das Auto.

Attested verbs

Further examples

8.9.3 obj › obj : [ NA | ND ] Preverb accusative-to-dative

[8.137] Conversely, the diathesis from jagen ‘to hunt’ (8.132 a) to nachjagen ‘to chase’ (8.132 b) changes an accusative argument into a dative argument. This seems to be less frequent than the reverse, as discussed in the previous section.

(8.132) a. Die Polizei jagt den Verbrecher.
b. Die Polizei jagt dem Verbrecher nach.

Attested verbs

8.9.4 obj › obj › obj : [ NDA | NAG ] Preverb dative-to-accusative-to-genitive

[8.138] Even more intricate, the diathesis from rauben (8.133 a) to berauben (8.133 b), both meaning ‘to rob’, includes both a case change from dative to accusative and one from accusative to genitive. The usage of the genitive sounds rather old-fashioned.

(8.133) a. Ich raube dir das Buch.
b. Ich beraube dich des Buches.

Attested verbs

8.9.5 obj › sbj › obj : [ NA | AN ] Preverb accusative inversive

[8.139] The alternation between wundern ‘to amaze’ (8.134 a) and bewundern ‘to be in awe’ (8.134 b) reverses the nominative and accusative arguments. Note that the verb wundern also allows for a reflexive conversive diathesis (8.134 c), see Sec­tion 7.5.6, but that construction cannot function as an intermediate step in this diathesis.

(8.134) a. Dein Verhalten wundert mich.
b. Ich bewundere dein Verhalten.
c. Ich wundere mich über dein Verhalten.

Attested verbs

8.9.6 pbj › sbj › pbj : [ NL | LN ] Preverb location inversive

[8.140] The alternation between strahlen ‘to shine’ (8.135 a) and erstrahlen ‘to gleam’ (8.135 b) involves a reversal of nominative and locational arguments.

(8.135) a. Die Sonne strahlt auf das Haus.
b. Das Haus erstrahlt in der Sonne.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9 Adverbial alternations

9.1 Introduction

[9.1] It might come as a surprise that adverbials play a role in valency and diathesis. However, on closer inspection it is evident that there are various verbs that obligatorily need a manner adverbial, like sich verhalten ‘to behave’ (9.1). Such verbs show that adverbials have to be considered when determining the valency of verbs.

(9.1) a. Ich verhalte mich tapfer.
b. * Ich verhalte mich.

[9.2] Yet, adverbials cast an even wider net. There are various diatheses in which an obligatory adverbial is introduced, like anticausatives (9.2 b), see Sec­tion 9.5.2, applicatives (9.2 c), see Sec­tion 9.8.1, and even a few incidental antipassives (9.2 d), see Sec­tion 9.7.9.

(9.2) a. Ich fahre den Lastwagen.
Der Lastwagen fährt sich gut.
b. Ich fische in dem Teich.
Ich fische den Teich leer.
c. Ich sehe das Gemälde.
Ich sehe mich satt an dem Gemälde.

[9.3] The diatheses discussed in this chapter involve two superficially highly similar, but syntactically and semantically clearly different kinds of constructions, namely evaluative constructions, like with gut ‘good’ in (9.3 a), or resultative constructions, like with leer ‘empty’ in (9.3 b). The syntactic structures and the valency alternations in which they appear turn out to be rather different, ideally warranting two separate chapters. However, the current combination of these superficially very similar German constructions into a single chapter allows me to sharpen their distinction and investigate similarities and differences between the two.

(9.3) a. Das Buch verkauft sich gut.
b. Die Leser kaufen den Buchladen leer.

[9.4] Quickly summarised, evaluatives (see Sec­tion 9.2.3) are basically manner adverbials using an adjectival stem, like gut ‘good’ in (9.3 a). They appear in valency-reducing diatheses, often with reflexive pronouns, typically resulting in intransitive constructions after the diathesis. In contrast, resultatives (see Sec­tion 9.2.6) are adjectives that arguably make up a new verb together with the main predicate. For example, leer and kaufen form a new verb leerkaufen in which the first part leer‑ is separable (9.3 b). This is reminiscent of verbs with preverbs like an‑ in ankaufen (cf. Sec­tion 8.2.1). Similar to preverbs, diatheses with resultatives almost always lead to a transitive construction with a nominative and an accusative argument (cf. Sec­tion 8.2.2). This parallelism reinforces the widespread impression that resultatives should be considered together with preverbs (cf. Wunderlich 1997; Chang 2007). The Duden grammar (2009: 790) presents Er hält/macht den Tisch sauber as examples of resultative constructions. However, these examples are probably better analysed as adjectival predicates with light verbs halten and machen, see the full discussion in Sec­tion 10.2.9.

[9.5] There are nine diatheses in this chapter that seem prominent enough to be given a German name. I propose the following names for these:

9.2 Disentangling adverbial expressions

9.2.1 Terminology

[9.6] The term adverbial is commonly used in grammatical descriptions of German (or any other language, for that matter). However, it normally describes a wide range of rather disparate linguistic phenomena that will be distinguished here for a better insight into German sentence structure. When needed for clarification, I will use the term adverbials-at-large for the whole domain commonly called “adverbial” and the term adverbials (proper) for the more restricted definition used here. However, in the main body of this chapter, whenever I use the unmodified term “adverbials” this is supposed to simply mean “adverbials (proper)”.

[9.7] Within the German adverbials-at-large domain there are three different syntactic functions that have to be separated. I will call these three syntactic functions adverbial, preverbial and secondary predication. Basically, adverbials are syntactically free elements that modify verbs, preverbials are syntactically bound to the verbs they modify, and secondary predicates modify noun phrases, not verbs.

[9.8] Cross-secting these syntactic functions are classes of morphemes that are potentially used in more than one of these syntactic functions. First, there are morphemes that only have adverbial function, and they are called adverbs. Second, there are morphemes that only have preverbial function, and they are called preverbs (discussed in the previous chapter). Third, adjectives can be used in all three of the functions mentioned above, leading to (i) adjectival adverbials, called evaluatives here, (ii) adjectival preverbials, called resultatives here, and (iii) adjectival secondary predicates, called depictives here. Finally, there is also a closed set of preverbial morphemes with a wide variety of origins that I will call directionals.

9.2.2 Adverbials

[9.9] adverbials (proper) in German are defined here strictly syntactically as a word or phrase that modifies the main predicate of a sentence (and as such often modifies the whole sentence). When such an adverbial consists of a single word that cannot be used in any other syntactic function, then such a word is called a (pure) adverb. There exists an arguably rather small class of such purely adverbial words in German with restricted semantic possibilities, typically local, e.g. hier, oben, dort (9.4 a), temporal, e.g. gestern, später, immer (9.4 b), causal, e.g. deshalb, dennoch, folglich (9.4 c) and modal, e.g. ebenfalls, fast, ganz (9.4 d).

(9.4) a. Das Flugzeug ist dort gelandet.
b. Das Flugzeug ist gestern gelandet.
c. Deshalb ist das Flugzeug gelandet.
d. Das Flugzeug ist ebenfalls gelandet.

[9.10] As an aside, note that there are special contexts in which some of these adverbs can be used to modify noun phrases, but apparently only post-nominal (9.5 a,b). This position cannot be taken by adjectives (9.5 c), but seems to be related to the position of modifying prepositional phrases (9.5 d).

(9.5) a. Das Flugzeug dort finde ich schöner.
b. Das Flugzeug gestern fand ich schöner.
c. * Das Flugzeug große fand ich schöner.
d. Das Flugzeug mit dem großen Fenster finde ich schöner.

[9.11] Except for (pure) adverbs, there are many other kinds of expressions that can fill the syntactic role of an adverbial, like prepositional phrases (9.6 a), quantified objects (9.6 b), see Sec­tion 5.3.4, or adverbial clauses (9.6 c). Also negation (9.6 d) and equative phrases (9.6 e) are syntactically highly similar to adverbials. For example, various verbs that obligatorily need an adverbial allow for a negation or equative phrase to fill the necessary adverbial slot (see Sec­tion 9.3.1 ff.).

(9.6) a. Das Flugzeug ist auf der Wiese gelandet.
b. Das Flugzeug ist jeden Tag gelandet.
c. Das Flugzeug ist gelandet, weil der Tank leer war.
d. Das Flugzeug ist nicht gelandet.
e. Das Flugzeug ist wie eine Feder gelandet.

9.2.3 Evaluatives vs. depictives

[9.12] Moreover, German adjectives are also frequently used in adverbial syntactic function. German adjectives are here strictly defined as stems that can be used as a noun modifier and that are placed in front of that noun, like sicher ‘safe’ in (9.7 a). As an adjective, such stems show agreement with the noun, as indicated by the suffix ‑e in sichere (9.7 a). Given a suitable context, all German adjectives can be used syntactically as adverbials. When they fulfil this function, they are unmarked in German (in contrast to English, in which the suffix ‑ly is necessary) and they never show any agreement (9.7 b).

(9.7) a. Das sichere Flugzeug ist teuer.
b. Das Flugzeug ist sicher gelandet.

[9.13] Depending on the context and their placement inside the sentence, German adjectival adverbials can ascribe a characteristic to different constituents in the sentence. Typically, they modify the main predicate (and often implicitly the whole sentence), like with sicher ‘safe’ in (9.7 b). In this sentence, the adjective evaluates the manner in which the action landen ‘to land’ is executed. Such an event-oriented adjectival adverbial is called an evaluative here.

[9.14] Evaluatives (i.e. event-oriented adjectival adverbials, typically describing manner), appear in valency-reducing diatheses, commonly combined with reflexive pronouns. The two most widespread diatheses are (i) a nominative drop with intransitives, like with leben ‘to live’ (9.8 a), see Sec­tion 9.5.1, and (ii) a closely related anticausative diathesis with transitive verbs, like with verkaufen ‘to sell’ (9.8 b), see Sec­tion 9.5.2.

(9.8) a. Ich lebe hier.
Hier lebt es sich gut.
b. Ich verkaufe mein Buch.
Mein Buch verkauft sich gut.

[9.15] Besides modifying the verb (9.9 a), adjectival adverbials can also modify an argument, like an accusative object (9.9 b) or a nominative subject (9.9 c). Modification of other arguments does not seem to be possible. Strictly speaking, such modification of an argument is not properly “adverbial” anymore but really adnominal. It is commonly called “depictive secondary predication”, but I will simply use the term depictive here (see Himmelmann & Schulze-Berndt 2005 for a survey). Depictives do not seem to play any role in diathesis and are only introduced here to distinguish them from evaluatives (this section) and resultatives (Sec­tion 9.2.6).

(9.9) a. Ich habe meine Hose schnell gekauft.
b. Ich habe meine Hose eng gekauft.
c. Ich habe meine Hose müde gekauft.

[9.16] Pure adverbs only allow for the modification of the predicate (or the complete event, for that matter). A pure adverb like gestern ‘yesterday’ cannot be a depictive, i.e. it cannot ascribe any characteristic to an argument (but see (9.5) for some possibilities). For example, the adverb gestern in (9.10 a) can only modify to the verb kaufen, not the subject Ich nor the object Hose. In contrast, adverbially used participles like gebügelt ‘ironed’ (9.10 b) can only be a depictive, i.e. they never modify the main verb, but only specify the subject or the object (see Sec­tion 10.2.3).

(9.10) a. Ich habe meine Hose gestern gekauft.
b. Ich habe meine Hose gebügelt gekauft.

9.2.4 Preverbials

[9.17] Syntactically, adverbials (proper) have to be distinguished from a superficially highly similar phenomenon, which I will call preverbials (see Broschart 2000 for a similar use of this term in Tongan, a completely unrelated language). A preverbial is an adverbial-like element that syntactically behaves just like a preverb (cf. the previous Chapter 8). Preverbials combine with a verb to form a new verb, either as a non-separable prefix (Verb­präfix), like voll in vollenden ‘to finalise’ (9.11 a), or as a separable particle (Verbpartikel), like voll in vollschenken ‘to fill up’ (9.11 b). The syntactic differences between such separable verb prefixes and non-separable verb particles are described in detail in Sec­tion 8.2.1. Non-separable preverbials (other than preverbs) are extremely rare. The only examples known to me are vollbringen, vollenden, vollführen and wiederholen.

(9.11) a. Ich vollende das Buch.
Ich will das Buch vollenden.
Ich versuche das Buch zu vollenden.
b. Ich schenke das Glas voll.
Ich werde das Glas vollschenken.
Ich versuche das Glas vollzuschenken.

[9.18] The preverbs as discussed in the previous chapter are just one of the three different kinds of preverbials. Other than preverbs, a preverbial is either a directional or a resultative. directionals are a closed class of preverbials that express a direction, like hin‑ or her-. They are concisely discussed in Sec­tion 9.2.5, but they deserve more in-depth investigation. resultatives are adjectival stems that are combined with verbs, like voll in (9.11) above. For conceptual clarity, they are opposed to depictives in Sec­tion 9.2.6. The different diatheses that are induced by resultatives are discussed in more detail throughout this chapter. Sec­tion 9.2.7 gives a basic summary of those constructions.

9.2.5 Directionals

[9.19] The thirteen directionals in (9.12) have a special status in German grammar. They have wide variety of different origins, for example wieder‑ from preposition wider ‘against’, heim‑ from noun Heim ‘home’ or hoch‑ from adjective hoch ‘high, tall’. Semantically they occur in pairs, with empor‑ being an additional old-fashioned variant of contemporary hoch-.

(9.12) Directionals
a. hin/her-
b. weg/zurück
c. fort/heim-
d. hoch/empor/nieder-
e. da(r)/wieder-
f. zusammen/auseinander-

[9.20] These directionals are frequently used as preverbials with a wide range of semantic interpretations and diathetical remappings. The detailed survey of their syntax is left for future research. As preverbials they are typically used in a delocative diathesis, replacing a locative phrase (9.13).

(9.13) a. Er schickte die Kinder in die Schule.
Er schickte die Kinder her/hin/weg/zurück/fort/heim.
b. Ich klettere auf den Berg.
Ich klettere hoch/empor/hinunter.
c. Er prügelt ihn von der Treppe.
Er prügelt ihn nieder.
d. Der schwarze Koffer bleibt im Keller.
Der schwarze Koffer bliebt da.
e. Ich höre das Lied im Radio.
Ich höre das Lied wieder.
f. Ich fege die Scherben in die Ecke.
Ich fege die Scherben zusammen/auseinander.

[9.21] The directionals hin‑ and her‑ are frequently combined with local prepositions, mostly as prefixes (except for nebenher-, hinterher‑ and vorher-). In colloquial usage the first syllables are often dropped and with her‑ this drop is also sometimes acceptable in written German. There are some interesting differences as to which prepositions are combined with hin‑ and which with her‑ (9.14), but I will not further delve into these differences here.

(9.14) Attested combinations of her/hin with prepositions:
a. both with hin‑ and her-:
herab/(he)rauf-, (he)raus/(he)rein-, (he)rüber/(he)runter‑
hinab/hinauf-, hinaus/hinein-, hinüber/hinunter‑
b. only with her:
(he)ran-, herbei-, (he)rum-, hervor-, nebenher-, hinterher-
c. only with hin-:
hindurch-, hinzu-

[9.22] Combinations of da(r)‑ with prepositions mostly concern so-called correlative da(r)-, i.e. the element da(r)‑ refers to some concrete entity mentioned earlier in the discourse (9.15 a). There are also some fixed combinations of da(r)‑ with prepositions, like davon in (9.15 b) and dazwischen in (9.15 c). The precise possibilities and functions of da(r)‑ will not be further investigated here.

(9.15) a. Ich schreibe meinen Namen unter den Brief.
Ich schreibe meinen Namen darunter.
b. Ich laufe davon.
(= Ich laufe “von Zuhause”.)
c. Ich rede dazwischen.
(= Ich rede “zwischen den Anderen”.)

[9.23] There are also various preverbials that are combinations of vor‑ with prepositions (e.g. voran-, voraus-, vorbei-) that need a more details investigation.

9.2.6 Resultatives vs. depictives

[9.24] There is a wide variety of adjectives that can be used as resultative preverbials. Highly productive resultatives in German are leer-, voll-, tot‑ and fest‑ (according to Fuhrhop 2012: 79–80), e.g. vollniesen ‘to sneeze full’ (9.16 a). However, many others are also attested, e.g. still‑ ‘silent’ in stillschweigen ‘to silence something’, platt‑ ‘flat’ in plattwalzen ‘to flatten’ or schön‑ ‘beautiful’ in schönreden ‘to whitewash’ (9.16 b). Additionally, datives from raised possessors are often possible (9.16 b), see Sec­tion 5.8.4, including subsequent reflexive constructions (9.16 c).

(9.16) a. Er niest das Taschentuch voll.
b. Er redet mir das Leben schön.
c. Ich rede mir mein Benehmen gut.

[9.25] Such adjectival preverbials have a resultative object-oriented meaning. For example, in vollschenken ‘to fill up’ (9.17), the adjective (voll ‘full’) indicates that the object of the verb (Glas ‘glass’) is full as a result of the action (schenken ‘to pour’). Note that there are exactly two adjectival preverbials that are not resultative and not object-oriented, namely inchoative los‑ (Sec­tion 9.4.1) and continuative weiter‑ (Sec­tion 9.4.2).

(9.17) a. Ich schenke Wein in das Glas.
b. Ich schenke das Glas voll.

[9.26] Superficially, resultatives look highly similar to constructions with depictive secondary predicates (see Sec­tion 9.2.3) as both influence the interpretation of an argument. However, the resultative turns out to be a radically different construction from the depictive. There exist even sentences that can be interpreted in both ways. For example, the adjective leer ‘empty’ in (9.18) can be interpreted as a depictive, stating that the store is empty. In this interpretation the sentence has the meaning ‘I have bought the store, which was empty when I bought it’ (9.18 a). Alternatively, it can be interpreted as a resultative with the meaning ‘I have bought everything that was in the store, with the result that the store was empty afterwards’ (9.18 b).

(9.18) a. Ich habe den Laden leer gekauft.
(= Ich habe den Laden, der ganz leer war, gekauft.)
b. Ich habe den Laden leergekauft.
(= Ich habe alle Produkte im Laden gekauft mit dem Resultat, dass der Laden leer ist.)

[9.27] This semantic difference is typically, though not consistently, reflected in German orthography by separating the depictive from the verb with a space. However, German authors are far from consistent in this respect. For example, a quick search for resultative trockenschleudern ‘to spin until dry’ in the dwds corpus resulted in five examples with a space (trocken schleudern) and eight examples without a space (trockenschleudern) without any obvious difference in meaning between the two groups.

[9.28] There are various diagnostic differences between the depictive (9.18 a) and the resultative (9.18 b) interpretation. First, the widespread orthographic separation for depictives (and the orthographic univerbation of resultatives) is actually a consequence of differences in the prosodic structure, as depictive ˈleer ˈkaufen (9.18 a) has two separate stress domains, while resultative ˈleerˌkaufen (9.18 b) has only a single stress domain. For linguistically naive speakers of German this feels like there is a litte pause after depictives, but not after resultatives.

[9.29] Second, with some verbs the accusative object in the resultative interpretation is a completely new role for the main lexical verb, like with leerkaufen ‘to buy’ (9.18). To be precise, in the depictive interpretation (9.18 a), the Laden ‘shop’ is the buyee (i.e. the object of the buying). In this interpretation it is the shop itself that is being bought. In contrast, in the resultative interpretation (9.18 b) it is not the Laden ‘shop’ that is being bought, but the items inside the shop. The accusative object den Laden ‘shop’ is the encompassing location where the buying is taking place (see Sec­tion 9.7.4). The addition of such a new role can lead to the introduction of accusative constituents for otherwise intransitive verbs, like fischen ‘to fish’ (9.19 a) or niesen ‘to sneeze’ (9.19 b), see Sec­tion 9.8.1. A diagnostic corollary to this semantic interpretation for intransitive verbs is the fact that those resultatives cannot be left out (9.19 c,d).

(9.19) a. Ich habe den Teich leergefischt.
b. Ich habe das Taschentuch vollgeniest.
c. * Ich habe den Teich gefischt.
d. * Ich habe das Taschentuch geniest.

[9.30] Third, resultative adverbials cannot occur together with verb particles. This is not just a semantic incompatibility, but also a syntactic one. The resultative adverbials take the same place in the syntax as the verb particles. For example, dictionaries of German typically include resultative constructions as complex predicates, i.e. totschießen ‘to kill by shooting’ (9.20 a) Attested at https://www.dwds.de/wb/totschießen, accessed 8 September 2022., parallel to verbs with particles like abschießen ‘to shoot down’ (9.20 b) Attested at https://www.dwds.de/wb/abschießen, accessed 8 September 2022.. Trying to combine both resultative adverbials and verb particles is not possible (9.20 c). In contrast, with evaluatives (9.20 d) and depictives (9.20 e) there is no problem combining them with verb particles.

(9.20) a. Der Jäger hat den Wolf totgeschossen.
b. Der Jäger hat den Wolf abgeschossen.
c. * Der Jäger hat den Wolf tot abgeschossen.
d. Der Jäger hat den Wolf schnell abgeschossen. (= Das Abschießen war schnell.)
e. Der Jäger hat den Wolf verletzt abgeschossen. (= Der Jäger war verletzt.)

[9.31] Fourth, depictives can both refer to nominative subjects (9.21 a) and to accusative objects (9.21 b), but apparently not to any other kind of objects. In contrast, resultatives always refer to accusative objects (9.21 c). Resultatives can only refer to (intransitive) nominative subjects with an additional accusative reflexive pronoun (9.21 d), see Sec­tion 9.4.3.

(9.21) a. Ich habe die Hose gesund gekauft.
(= Ich war gesund.)
b. Der Zoo hat den Pinguin gesund gekauft.
(= Der Pinguin war gesund.)
c. Der Zoowärter hat den Pinguin gesundgepflegt.
(= Der Pinguin ist wieder gesund.)
d. Ich habe mich gesundgeschlafen.
(= Ich bin wieder gesund.)

[9.32] Finally, participles like gereinigt ‘cleaned’ are an adjectival from of a verb. As such they can be used as depictives (9.22 a,b), see Sec­tion 10.2.3. In contrast, participles never function as resultatives (9.22 c).

(9.22) a. Ich habe den Laden gereinigt gekauft.
b. = Ich habe den Laden gekauft als der gereinigt war.
c. ≠ Ich habe etwas im Laden gekauft mit dem Resultat, dass der Laden gereinigt ist.

9.2.7 Summary of resultative constructions

[9.33] In this chapter I will discuss examples with the resultatives fest, fern, fertig, frei, gesund, glücklich, gut, heiß, kaputt, klein, leer, los, nass, platt, reich, sauber, satt, schlapp, schön, still, tot, trocken, voll, wach and wund. However, this list is by no means supposed to be exhaustive. Quite to the contrary, there does not appear to be any syntactic restriction on which adjectives can be used as resultative preverbials, although semantical restrictions clearly exist. For example, colour resultatives appear to be rare (though note schwarzmalen ‘doomsaying’).

[9.34] There a four major resultative constructions. These “major four” constructions occur frequently and they are attested with a wide variety of resultative adjectives. All other resultative constructions (as discussed below) only allow for just a few special resultative adjectives. Not so with the “major four”. The “major four” resultative constructions are the following:

(9.23) a. Sie schläft.
Sie schläft sich gesund.
b. Sie pflegt ihre Mutter.
Sie pflegt ihre Mutter gesund.
c. Sie betet für ihre Mutter.
Sie betet ihre Mutter gesund.
d. Er hext.
Milingo wird vorgeworfen, […] Kranke gesundgehext zu haben. Attested online at https://www.spiegel.de/politik/giftige-blume-a-003fa8d4-0002-0001-0000--000014353984, accessed 8 September 2022.

[9.35] There are six special resultative adjectives, in alphabetical order: fest‑ ‘firm’, frei‑ ‘free’, leer‑ ‘empty’, los‑ ‘loose’, voll‑ ‘full’ and weiter‑ ‘further’. Of all the dozens (possibly hundreds) of German adjectives that can be used in resultative constructions, it is only these six adjectives that can be used to create constructions other than the “major four”. These “special six” resultatives also occur regularly in the “major four” constructions, but besides those occurrences there is a long list of further resultative constructions that are all put together with just these six resultative adjectives. Note that there are also idiosyncratic diatheses with satt‑ ‘well-fed’ (Sec­tion 9.7.9) and wund‑ ‘wounded’ (Sec­tion 9.7.8). However, these do not (yet) seem to be as productive as the “special six”. The “special six” appear to become more like directionals and less like regular adjectival resultatives (cf. Sec­tion 9.2.5). They occur in the following constructions:

[9.36] There are various syntactic parallels between resultative constructions and other diatheses discussed previously in this book. These parallels come in two different guises. First, resultative adjectives are closely related to directionals, like weg‑ ‘away’ or zurück‑ ‘back’, which are in turn closely related to local prepositional phrases (see Sec­tion 9.2.5). Accordingly, some resultatives take the same syntactic position as local prepositional phrases. The most important parallels are listed in Table 9.1. Note that it is exactly the “L” in the locational remapping on the right side of the table that is absent in the resultative remapping on left side of the table.

Table 9.1: Resultativ adjective is syntactically like a local preposition.
Resultative Compare to
[n | n] Inchoativ (§9.4.1) [n– | nl] Bewegungsart (§6.8.1)
[n | n] Kontinuativ (§9.4.2) [n– | nl] Bewegungsart (§6.8.1)
[n | n] Reflexiv Resultativ (§9.4.3) [n– | nl] Reflexiv Bewegungsart (§7.8.1)
[na | na] Transitiv Resultativ (§9.4.5) [na– | nal] Transitiv Verursachte Bewegung (§6.8.4)
[n– | na] Resultativ Akkusativ (§9.8.2) [n–– | nal] Intransitiv Verursachte Bewegung (§6.8.3)

[9.37] Second, resultative adjectives are closely related to preverbs, like ver‑ or an‑ (see Chapter 8). Accordingly, some resultatives take the same syntactic position as preverbs, as summarised in Table 9.2. Note that these parallels concern the structure of the diathesis in general. It is not necessarily the case that each resultative+verb combination has a parallel preverb+verb combination.

Table 9.2: Resultativ adjective is syntactically like a preverb.
Resultative Compare to
[np | na] Resultativ Applikativ (§9.8.1) [np | na] Präverb Applikativ (§8.8.8)
[nal | nap] Resultativ Delokativ (§9.7.6) [nal | nap] Präverb Delokativ (§8.7.11)
[nla | nap] Resultativ Ganz/voll-Objekttausch (§9.7.5) [nla | nap] Präverb Ganz/voll-Objekttausch (§8.7.13)
[nla | na–] Resultativ Ganz/leer-Objekttausch (§9.7.4) [nla | na–] Präverb Ganz/leer-Objekttausch (§8.7.12)
[n–a | nap] Resultativ Teil/fest-Objekttausch (§9.8.3) [npa | nap] Präverb Teil/fest-Objekttausch (§8.9.1)

9.3 Deponent verbs

[9.38] This section summarises the various German verbs that require adverbials. All examples discussed in this section concern verbs with obligatory evaluatives. Although I see no reason why obligatory resultatives would be impossible, I have not been able to find any examples. The phenomenon to look out for are verbs with a resultative preverbial (like leerkaufen) in which the verb stem (i.e. kaufen) is not attested as an individual verb, but only occurs in combination with the resultative.

9.3.1 [ N ] Nominative+evaluative

[9.39] Some verbs have obligatory manner adverbials, called “Artergänzung” by Engelen (1986: 140). In some special situations the adverbial can be left out, but only with a subsequent strong evaluative implication. For example, with aussehen ‘to look/appear’ (9.24 a,b) without an adverbial (9.24 c) there is a strong negative implicature that somebody looks bad. In contrast, with a verb like sitzen ‘to fit’ (9.25 a), the omission of the manner adverb implies a positive fit (9.25 b). Note that negation also can function syntactically as a manner adverbial in this context (9.25 c).

(9.24) a. Er sieht gut aus.
b. ? Er sieht aus.
c. Er sieht aber aus!
(9.25) a. Der Mantel sitzt gut.
b. Der Mantel sitzt.
c. Der Mantel sitzt nicht.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[9.40] The verb klingen has two slightly different, but clearly related meanings. In the literal meaning ‘to ring’ it can only be used with a highly restricted set of nominative subjects that can actually ring, like Glocken ‘bells’ (9.26 a). In the more general meaning ‘to sound’ it can be used with a wide variety of subjects, but in this meaning an adverbial is obligatory (9.26 b,c).

(9.26) a. Die Glocken klingen.
b. Die Musik klingt gut.
c. * Die Musik klingt.

9.3.2 [ N ] Reflexive nominative+evaluative

[9.41] The obligatory reflexive verb sich benehmen ‘to behave’ preferably needs an adverbial constituent that describes how to behave (9.27 a,b), except in imperatives (9.27 c) and in some light verb constructions (9.27 d). Without an adverbial this verb has a conversational implicature of good behaviour. Note that there is a completely different meaning of benehmen without reflexive sich meaning ‘to deprive of’ (9.27 e) that does not need an adverbial.

(9.27) a. Ich benehme mich anständig.
b. ? Ich benehme mich.
c. Benimm dich!
d. Ich weiß mich zu benehmen.
e. Und trotzdem benimmt es mir fast den Atem. dwds: Die Zeit, 06.03.1992, Nr. 11.

[9.42] The verbs sich verhalten and sich aufführen ‘to behave’ similarly always need an adverbial that indicates the kind of behaviour (9.28 a-d). All such examples currently known to me describe some kind of behaviour. As always, leaving out the adverbial is sometimes possible with a strong conversational implicature, e.g. ‘bad’ behaviour with sich aufführen (9.28 e).

(9.28) a. * Ich verhalte mich.
b. Ich verhalte mich tapfer.
c. * Ich führe mich auf.
d. Ich führe mich wie ein Holzklotz auf.
e. Du führst dich aber mal wieder auf!

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[9.43] The verb anfühlen ‘to sense by touching’ is typically used intransitively with a reflexive pronoun and a manner adverbial (9.29 a). However, there are also attested uses of a causative alternant, though these are rare and seem old-fashioned (9.29 b). As an alternation, the pair in (9.29) would belong in Sec­tion 9.5.2. When (9.29 b) is ignored, the verb anfühlen belongs in this section.

(9.29) a. Seine Nase fühlt sich kalt an.
b. Sie fühlte Juliettens erfrorene Füße an. dwds: Werfel, Franz: Die Vierzig Tage des Musa Dagh II, Stockholm: Bermann - Fischer 1947 (1933), S. 383.

9.3.3 [ N ] Nominative+local adverb

[9.44] Verbs with an obligatory local prepositional phrase (Sec­tion 6.3.3), like übernachten ‘to sleep over’ (9.30 a), can of course be used with an obligatory local adverb instead (9.30 b).

(9.30) a. Er übernachtet bei Freunden.
b. Er übernachtet hier/dort/draußen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.3.4 [ N ] Reflexive nominative+local adverb

[9.45] Obligatory reflexive verbs with an obligatory local prepositional phrase (Sec­tion 7.3.4), like befinden ‘to be located’ (9.31 a), can of course also be used with an obligatory local adverb instead (9.31 b).

(9.31) a. Das Geschäft befindet sich in der Stadt.
b. Das Geschäft befindet sich außerhalb.

Attested verbs

9.3.5 [ NP ] Nominative+governed preposition+evaluative

[9.46] Both the manner adverbial and the governed preposition cannot be left out with halten von ‘to think of’ (9.32).

(9.32) a. Ich halte viel von dir.
b. * Ich halte viel.
c. * Ich halte von dir.

Attested verbs

9.3.6 [ NA ] Nominative+accusative+evaluative

[9.47] Both the manner adverbial and the accusative argument cannot be left out with stimmen in the meaning ‘to raise the atmosphere’ (9.33).

(9.33) a. Die Musik stimmt die Leute freundlich.
b. * Die Musik stimmt die Leute.
c. * Die Musik stimmt freundlich.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.3.7 [ ND ] Nominative+dative+evaluative

[9.48] The verb bekommen in the meaning ‘something agrees with someone’s health’ needs a dative and cannot be used without an adverbial (9.34 a,b). With a negation the adverbial can be left out, though with the obvious implicature that the agreement is ‘bad’ (9.34 c).

(9.34) a. Das Essen bekommt mir schlecht.
b. * Das Essen bekommt mir.
c. Das Essen bekommt mir nicht.

[9.49] The verb fallen in the meaning ‘to be difficult/easy’ can be used with either schwer or leicht, but apparently with no other adverbials (9.35).

(9.35) a. Die Aufgabe fällt mir schwer/leicht.
b. * Die Aufgabe fällt mir.

Attested verbs

9.3.8 [ D ] Dative+evaluative

[9.50] Because there is no nominative argument in this special construction with gehen, meaning approximately ‘to cope with life’ (9.36 a), a non-phoric es pronoun is necessary. Note that the same meaning of gehen also occurs in other impersonal constructions, see Sec­tion 9.3.9. Without the adverbial there is a conversational implicature that one is coping “so-so” with life (9.36 b). Without the dative it seems like the pronoun es is always referential, though the reference is often implicit. For example, in (9.36 c) the pronoun es seems to refer to something like “the using of the foot” (see also Sec­tion 9.3.9).

(9.36) a. Mir geht es gut.
b. (Wie geht es dir?) Es geht.
c. Mein Fuß ist nicht mehr eingeschränkt, es geht besser. dwds: Die Zeit, 27.07.2012 (online).

Attested verbs

9.3.9 [ N | – ] Nominative drop+evaluative

[9.51] Some verbs with an obligatory adverbial allow for the presence or absence of a nominative subject, like with aussehen ‘to appear’ (9.37 a,b). The pronoun es is valency-simulating for the nominative subject (see Sec­tion 2.2.3). Whether this is better interpreted as the loss or the addition of an agent is unclear. These verbs need an additional manner adverbial, negation, or wie comparison clause.

(9.37) a. Er sieht gut aus.
b. Hier sieht es gut aus.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.4 Alternations without diathesis

[9.52] Adverbials are a regular part of German grammar. There are many different possibilities to add such adverbials to all German sentences, and it is of course extremely common for such an adverbial to be added without any change in valency. That is actually the regular situation with adverbials as illustrated with schnell ‘quickly’ in (9.38). This will not further be considered here.

(9.38) a. Ich fahre nach Hause.
b. Ich fahre schnell nach Hause.

[9.53] The situation is more interesting with preverbials. First, there are two special adjectival preverbials that are not resultatives, namely los‑ (Sec­tion 9.4.1) and weiter‑ (Sec­tion 9.4.2). Interestingly, these two appear to be the only adjectival preverbials that are not resultatives. These non-resultative preverbials have an temporal aspectual interpretation.

[9.54] Second, the addition of a resultative preverbial regularly leads to a diathesis (see the summary in Sec­tion 9.2.7). However there are also two highly productive patterns in which the addition of a resultative does not trigger a diathesis. With intransitive verbs an additional reflexive pronoun is needed (Sec­tion 9.4.3). In contrast, with transitive verbs there is no reflexive pronoun. With those verbs the addition of a resultative does not have any syntactic repercussions (Sec­tion 9.4.5).

9.4.1 [ N | N ] los‑ Inchoative

[9.55] The preverbial los‑ can be used without any diathesis. In that usage los‑ is a preverbial, but it is not a resultative preverbial (cf. Sec­tion 9.2.6). As a non-resultative preverbial los‑ indicates that an activity is starting, i.e. it marks an inchoative aspect, like with losrennen ‘to start running’ (9.39 a). An early discussion of this inchoative aspect of los‑ is presented by Storch (1978: 113–126).

[9.56] This inchoative los‑ is clearly different from a diathesis marking “detachment” that is also marked with los‑ (9.39 b), as discussed in detail in Sec­tion 9.7.6. Diachronically, both uses of the preverbial los‑ are related to an older meaning of the adjective los, namely ‘free’. In contemporary German the adjective los basically means ‘loose’, which is not transparently related anymore to the inchoative meaning (9.39 a), only to the detachment meaning (9.39 b).

(9.39) a. Der Junge rennt.
Der Junge rennt los.
b. Der Junge bindet den Hund los.

[9.57] The inchoative los‑ occurs typically with intransitive verbs. To obtain a better indication of the kind of verbs with which the continuative los‑ is used, I classified the examples listed in the dwds dictionary to obtain the list of attested verbs below (with only a few haphazard additions of my own). Attested on https://www.dwds.de/wb/los-, accessed 3 September 2022. One central generalisation is that los‑ cannot be combined with preverbs (like ver‑ or auf‑). This incompatibility is consistent with the general complementary distribution of adjectival preverbials and preverbs (see paragraph 9.30).

[9.58] Further, it is astonishing how many manner-of-movement verbs (like hetzen, krabbeln, marschieren) and manner-of-speaking verbs (like brüllen, kichern, schwatzen) are mentioned in the dictionary. The los‑ inchoative is surely not limited to these kinds of verbs, as other intransitives are clearly attested as well (like lachen, arbeiten, spucken). However, for some reason acts of movement and speaking stand out to a lexicographer collecting data about los‑.

[9.59] There appears to be a strong overlap between the intransitive verbs that allow for los‑ and agentive intransitives (“unergative verbs”, see Sec­tion 10.2.5). The overlap is not perfect but robust. Contradicting this generalisation are various verbs have a sein perfect (see Sec­tion 10.4.2), e.g. fliehen, fließen, gehen, gleiten, schreiten, steigen, stolpern, strömen, traben. However, only very few of them allow for an attributive participle (see Sec­tion 10.2.4), namely fliehen, fließen, stolpern, and even fewer do not allow an impersonal passive (see Sec­tion 10.5.1), namely only fließen and strömen.

[9.60] Additionally, for the manner-of-movement verbs only, the inchoative los‑ converts an agentive intransitive like rennen ‘to run’ into a patientive losrennen ‘to start running’ (cf. Sec­tion 10.2.5). For example, rennen (without directional modification) takes a haben perfect and the participle cannot be used attributively (9.40 a). A sein perfect and an attributive participle are only possible after a manner-of-movement diathesis (9.40 b), see Sec­tion 6.8.1. Similarly, losrennen takes a sein perfect and allows for an attributive participle (9.40 c).

(9.40) a. Der Junge hat gerannt.
*Der gerannte Junge […].
b. Der Junge ist nach Hause gerannt.
Der nach Hause gerannte Junge […].
c. Der Junge ist losgerannt.
Der losgerannte Junge […].

[9.61] With transitive verbs, like schreiben ‘to write’ (9.41 a), lesen ‘to read’ (9.41 b) or bauen ‘to build’ (9.41 c), the inchoative los‑ is only possible in constructions without any accusative object present. In such contexts these verbs basically function as intransitive verbs.

(9.41) a. Dark schreibt los, das Klappern der Maschine erfüllt das Dachgeschoss. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 15.12.2004.
b. Nathalie kramt flink in der Bücherkiste, zieht ein Buch heraus, schlägt es auf und liest los. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 03.06.2003.
c. Gleich als der nächste Tag graute, baute er los. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 22.06.1996.

[9.62] Further, there are a two kinds of transitive verbs that allow for continuative los‑, but they additionally induce a diathesis. First, with transitive manner-of-attack verbs, like hauen ‘to bash’ (9.42 a), the addition of a los‑ is clearly continuative: loshauen means ‘starting to bash’ (9.42 b). However, the addition of los‑ with these verbs results in an antipassive diathesis, as the accusative ihn (9.42 a) becomes an optional auf prepositional phrase (9.42 b). The result is that loshauen is basically an intransitive verb. These examples are discussed in detail in Sec­tion 9.7.10.

(9.42) a. Er haut ihn.
b. Er haut auf ihn los.

[9.63] Second, transitive verbs that cause an object to move can be combined with inchoative los‑, like with schicken ‘to send’ (9.43 a). The preverbial los‑ replaces a directional location phrase in such examples (9.43 b). This delocative diathesis is discussed in detail in Sec­tion 9.7.6. Crucially, it is the accusative object that is affected by the inchoative aspect. So in the example below it is the accusative object (Brief ‘letter’) that starts moving, not the nominative subject (Mädchen ‘girl’).

(9.43) a. Das Mädchen schickt den Brief nach Amerika.
b. Das Mädchen schickt den Brief los.

[9.64] The same “object-inchoative” effect can be observed with some intransitive verbs after a caused-movement diathesis (see Sec­tion 6.8.3). For example, the intransitive hetzen ‘to rush’ can be used with a regular intransitive inchoative los‑, resulting in loshetzen meaning ‘to start rushing’ (9.44 a). However, a caused-movement diathesis with hetzen leads to a meaning ‘to rush somebody’ (9.44 b). The verb loshetzen then means ‘to cause somebody to start rushing’ (9.44 c,d).

(9.44) a. Die Tiere hetzen los. dwds: Die Zeit, 19.02.2011, Nr. 7.
b. Ich hetze die Tiere in den Wald.
c. Ich hetze die Tiere los.
d. Die serbische Spezialpolizei […] hetzte uns dann los, niemand wußte, wohin. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 10.08.1999.

[9.65] The effect of these two meanings of los‑ is that there are two syntactic patterns for the verb loshetzen. The intransitive use has a perfect with sein and the transitive has a perfect with haben. This alternation is completely parallel to the unmarked causative diathesis as discussed in detail in Sec­tion 5.6.2.

(9.45) a. Die Tiere sind losgehetzt.
b. Ich habe die Tiere losgehetzt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.4.2 [ N | N ] weiter‑ Continuative

[9.66] The word weiter in German has a wide range of uses. This section deals with its non-resultative preverbial usage that has a temporal meaning ‘to continue an activity’, like in weitergehen ‘to continue on walking’. However, before discussing this continuative usage of weiter-, the preverbial structure first has to be separated from the various highly similar adverbial uses of weiter.

[9.67] The word weiter originates as a comparative form of the adjective weit ‘far, wide’ (9.46 a). Its local meaning of ‘further’ (9.46 b) has been extended to also include a sense ‘additional’ (9.46 c) when used as an adjective. Like all adjectives in German, weiter can also be used unchanged as an adverbial (9.46 d).

(9.46) a. Er macht einen weiten Sprung.
b. Der Athlet will einen noch weiteren Sprung machen.
c. Zwei weitere Teilnehmer treten ein.
d. Sie werden noch weiter springen.

[9.68] As an adverbial, weiter has extended its local meaning to also include a more general sense of ‘to an even larger extent’ (9.47 a). Both the local meaning and this more general usage can be identified by the possibility to add noch and become noch weiter. Furthermore, adverbial weiter can also mean approximately ‘still’ in a temporal sense (9.47 b). In that usage it can be replaced by weiterhin. In contrast, the preverbial weiter‑ that will be the focus of the rest of this section cannot be replaced by either noch weiter nor by weiterhin. So, the impossibility of these paraphrases can be used as a test to separate preverbial weiter‑ from adverbial weiter.

(9.47) a. Tim und Kolja hätten die Zeitung im Unterricht gerne weiter gelesen. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 07.09.1996.
(= Sie hätten die Zeitung gerne noch weiter gelesen.)
b. Ja, natürlich, Bücher werden weiter gelesen. dwds: Die Zeit, 08.01.2009, Nr. 03.
(= Bücher werden weiterhin gelesen.)

[9.69] There are additional differences between adverbial weiter ‘further’ (9.48 a) and preverbial weiter‑ ‘to continue’ (9.48 b). Syntactically, weiter in adverbial usage can be separated from a nonfinite verb by other parts of the sentence (9.48 c). In contrast, when used as a marker of continuation then weiter‑ is a preverbial that cannot be separated from its nonfinite verb (9.48 d). This difference is typically mirrored in German orthography by writing two words (9.48 e) versus one word (9.48 f). The prosodic structure also supports this analysis, because adverbial ˈweiter ˈspringen (9.48 e) has two separate stress domains, while preverbial ˈweiterˌspringen (9.48 f) only has a single stress domain.

(9.48) a. Sie springt weiter als alle anderen Teilnehmer.
b. Sie springt weiter, bis sie ihr Ziel geschafft hat.
c. Sie will weiter bis zur roten Linie springen.
d. Sie will bis zur Erschöpfung weiterspringen.
e. Sie will weiter springen.
(= Sie will eine größere Distanz springen.)
f. Sie will weiterspringen.
(= Sie will fortfahren mit dem Springen.)

[9.70] In many sentences the adverbial and preverbial uses are quite similar, and care has to be taken not to confuse them. However, the various syntactic tests (paraphrasing, separation, prosodic structure) and of course the obvious difference in meaning should be sufficient to clearly identify adverbial weiter (9.49 a) from preverbial weiter‑ (9.49 b).

(9.49) a. Sie werden den Kahn weiter in den Hafen schleppen.
(= Sie werden den Kahn noch weiter in den Hafen hinein schleppen.)
b. Sie werden den Kahn im Hafen weiterschleppen.
(= Im Hafen werden sie fortfahren mit dem Schleppen des Kahns.)

[9.71] To obtain an indication of the kind of verbs with which the continuative preverbial weiter‑ is used, I classified many examples from the dwds dictionary. Attested on https://www.dwds.de/wb/weiter-, accessed 3 September 2022. I extended these examples with some haphazard examples of my own to obtain the list of attested verbs below. Manner-of-movement verbs are again quite frequent, just as with los‑ in Sec­tion 9.4.1. Many other intransitives are also attested and it appears that continuative weiter‑ is basically used with agentive intransitives (“unergative verbs”, see Sec­tion 10.2.5), again similar to inchoative los‑.

[9.72] However, weiter‑ also is used with other kinds of verbs, crucially including many transitive verbs, which is quite different from los‑. Among the transitive verbs listed below there are various verbs that also have preverbs, like ver‑ in weiterverfolgen ‘to continue pursuing’ or weiterverarbeiten ‘to continue processing’. Resultative preverbials cannot be used together with preverbs (see paragraph 9.30), so this indicates that weiter‑ is grammaticalising into an aspect marker. However, there are still strong restrictions on such weiter+preverb combinations. First, only verb prefixes appear to be possible (e.g. be‑ or ver‑). Verb particles are not attested (e.g. no an‑ or auf‑). Second, most attested examples are strongly lexicalised, like weiterverwenden ‘to continue using’, which is not transparently related anymore to wenden ‘to turn’.

[9.73] With ditransitive verbs, like empfehlen ‘to recommend’ (9.50 a), the preverbial weiterempfehlen (9.50 b) has a slightly different semantics. It means approximately ‘to repeat the recommendation to somebody else’. Also, the dative recipient is remapped to an an prepositional phrase (i.e. dative antipassive). For these reasons I consider this to be a different construction that will be discussed in Sec­tion 9.7.11.

(9.50) a. Ich empfehle dir diesen Kuchen.
b. Ich empfehle diesen Kuchen an meine Freunde weiter.

Attested verbs

9.4.3 [ N | N ] Reflexive intransitive resultative

[9.74] There is a special construction that apparently only exists for some intransitive verbs, like schlafen ‘to sleep’ (9.51 a). The verb is combined with a reflexive pronoun and a resultative adjectival preverbial. The meaning of this construction approximately amounts to ‘by performing the verb, the adjectival characteristic is achieved’ (9.51 b). There is no role-remapping in this alternation, so this is no diathesis. The alternation is clearly related to the reflexive manner-of-movement diathesis (9.51 c), see Sec­tion 7.8.1. Instead of a location phrase (nach New York), the current construction uses a resultative (gesund).

(9.51) a. Ich schlafe.
b. Ich schlafe mich gesund.
(= Ich schlafe, und dadurch bin ich gesund.)
c. Ich träume.
Ich träume mich nach New York.

[9.75] There are many different adjectives attested in this construction. The few examples listed below are only illustrative and are in no way intended to be an exhaustive survey. It seems like possible adjectives are only bound by a speaker’s imagination. In contrast, the intransitive verbs that allow for this construction are clearly restricted. They are strongly related to the agentive class of intransitive (see Sec­tion 10.2.5). Typical patientive intransitives are not possible in this construction, like scheitern ‘to fail’ (13.3 a) or wachsen ‘to grow’ (9.52 b), though note constructions like (9.52 c,d).

(9.52) a. * Ich scheitere mich glücklich.
b. * Ich wachse mich groß.
c. Jens Spahn scheitert sich in der Gunst der Deutschen ganz nach oben. Attested online at https://www.tichyseinblick.de/daili-es-sentials/spahn-beliebtheit-impfstart/, accessed 27 August 2022.
d. Der Wald wächst sich zu Tode. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 30.12.1998.

[9.76] The same reflexive+resultative alternation is attested with some verbs that take a governed preposition, like totlachen ‘to laugh extremely’ (9.53 a). In this alternation the governed prepositional phrase can be retained. This is crucially different from a resultative applicative (see Sec­tion 9.8.1). In that diathesis there is no reflexive pronoun and the prepositional phrase is promoted to accusative with the addition of a resultative, like with kleinlachen ‘to diminish something by laughing’ (9.53 b).

(9.53) a. Ich lache (über den Witz).
Ich lache mich tot (über den Witz).
b. Ich lache über die Politik.
[Die] große Politik wird kleingelacht. Attested online at https://www.antennebrandenburg.de/service/veranstaltungen/praesentationen/regionalstudios-praesentationen/frankfurt/2022/hunde--die-pellen--beissen-nicht.html, accessed 16 September 2022.

[9.77] When the combination of resultative and verb is considered to be a new lexicalised predicate (i.e. totlachen, festbeißen, etc.), then all these verbs would be obligatorily reflexive, alike to the verbs in Sec­tion 7.3.1.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.4.4 [ N | N ] los/fest Natural process

[9.78] In contrast to the verbs in the previous section, intransitive verbs with a resultative preverbial without a reflexive pronoun appear to be extremely rare. I know of only a few examples describing natural processes, like rosten ‘to rust’ (9.54 a). With this verb, no reflexive pronoun is added with a resultative preverbial, like festrosten ‘to fixate into something by rusting’ (9.54 b). This is clearly different from the more common intransitive construction with a reflexive pronoun discussed previously (Sec­tion 9.4.3). The verbs with fest‑ listed below are typically (but not obligatorily) used with an additional location (9.54 c).

(9.54) a. Die Züge rosten.
b. Die Züge rosten fest.
c. Züge rosten an ihren Gleisen fest. dwds: Die Zeit, 08.05.2002, Nr. 20.

[9.79] This construction only seems to occur with the resultatives fest‑ and los-, similar to the delocative diathesis that is discussed in Sec­tion 9.7.6. The example of warmlaufen seems to be an idiosyncrasy.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.4.5 [ NA | NA ] Transitive resultative

[9.80] The addition of a resultative preverbial to transitive verbs (i.e. basic nominative+accusative verbs) does not lead to any role remapping. For example, prügeln ‘to beat’ (9.55 a) and totprügeln ‘to beat to death’ (9.55 b) show exactly the same valency. Such resultative transitive verbs without diathesis appear to be frequent and the examples given below are just a few illustrative verbs. It is unclear to me whether there is any restriction on which adjectives or verbs can occur in this construction.

(9.55) a. Der Vater prügelt den Sohn.
b. Der Vater prügelt den Sohn tot.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.5 Diatheses with subject demotion

9.5.1 sbj › ø : [ N | – ] Reflexive intransitive drop+evaluative

[9.81] Many intransitives allow for a dropping of the nominative with an obligatory reflexive pronoun sich and an obligatory adjectival manner adverbial. Because of the dropped nominative there is an obligatory non-phoric es in such sentences (9.56 a). Such constructions seem to be possible with very many intransitive verbs, though with some, like aufstehen ‘rise’ (9.56 b), it is of debatable grammaticality. More research is needed into the question which intransitive verbs do not allow this diathesis. I propose to use the German name aktionsbewertung for this diathesis.

(9.56) a. In der Gruppe lacht es sich besser.
b. ? Am frühen morgen steht es sich schlecht auf.

[9.82] A very similar diathesis is attested with transitives, see Sec­tion 9.5.2, but in that case the accusative is retained as a nominative (i.e. anticausative). Also note that the connection between an intransitive subject drop and a transitive anticausative is strongly reminiscent of the unaccusative hypothesis, see Sec­tion 10.2.5. However, there does not seem to be an obvious match between patientive (“unaccusative”) verbs and the verbs that allow for the current diathesis (cf. Steinbach 1998: 15–18).

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.5.2 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] Reflexive anticausative+evaluative

[9.83] With many transitive verbs an anticausative is only possible with an evaluative manner adjective and a reflexive pronoun (9.57). There is a clear parallel to the diathesis for intransitives described in Sec­tion 9.5.1. The semantically highly similar lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv construction (9.57 c) does not need the adverbial (see Sec­tion 11.5.5). I propose to use the German name bewertungsantikausativ for this diathesis.

(9.57) a. Ich schneide die Wurst mit diesem Messer.
b. Die Wurst schneidet sich schwer mit diesem Messer.
c. Die Wurst lässt sich mit diesem Messer schneiden.

[9.84] Kunze (1996: 647) and Steinbach (1998) call this “middle”, Zifonun (2003) “fazilitives Medium”, Wiemer & Nedjalkov (2007: 465–466) classify it as a “passive-like meaning of reflexive” and Kulikov (2011: 375–376) talks about a “potential agentless passive”. Steinbach (1998: 25ff.) argues that the adverbial is not necessary in the “middle” construction, but this is because he combines different constructions under the heading of “middle”. His examples without adverbial are discussed here as a separate construction in Sec­tion 7.5.2.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[9.85] Some of these verbs can also occur with a “free” reflexive, see Sec­tion 7.4.4.

(9.58) a. Ich höre (mir) deinen Vorschlag an.
Dein Vorschlag hört sich gut an.
b. Ich verdiene (mir) ein Vermögen.
Ein Vermögen verdient sich leicht.

9.5.3 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] Anticausative+evaluative

[9.86] The verb riechen ‘to smell’ allows for an anticausative alternation (9.59 a,b), but the intransitive obligatorily needs an evaluative adverbial. It is possible to leave out the adverbial, but then a strong negative conversational implicature arises, i.e. without an adverbial the smell is bad (9.59 c). Interestingly, with schmecken ‘to taste’ the absence of an adverbial leads to a positive implicature (9.59 d).

(9.59) a. Ich rieche den Duft.
b. Der Duft riecht gut.
c. Der Müll riecht (schlecht).
d. Das Essen schmeckt (gut).

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.5.4 adj › sbj › ø : [ Np | –N ] Conciliative+evaluative

[9.87] Some verbs that have a prototypical instrument connected to the action allow for the instrument to be turned into the nominative subject, but only with the addition of an evaluative adverbial, like with schneiden ‘to cut’ (9.60).

(9.60) a. Ich schneide das Brot mit einem Messer.
b. ? Das Messer schneidet.
c. Das Messer schneidet gut.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.5.5 pbj › sbj › ø : [ NL | –N ] Reflexive location anticausative+evaluative

[9.88] With some intransitive verbs, like sitzen ‘to sit’ (9.61 a) a locational argument can be promoted to subject, but only with an additional reflexive pronoun and a manner adverbial (9.61 b). This might be interpreted as a variant of the Aktionsbewertung (9.61 c), see Sec­tion 9.5.1.

(9.61) a. Ich sitze auf der Bank.
b. Die Bänke sitzen sich gut. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 24.02.2005.
c. Es sitzt sich gut auf der Bank.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.5.6 pbj › sbj › adj : [ NL | pN ] voll/leer‑ Location passive

[9.89] A very peculiar diathesis is attested with alluvial verbs like laufen in the meaning ‘to pour’ (9.62 a). In this meaning, the location phrase is obligatory. By adding the resultative preverbial voll‑ (possibly also leer-) a passive-like diathesis arises (9.62 b). The obligatory location is promoted to nominative subject. The original nominative can optionally be retained as a mit prepositional phrase with the resultative voll-. This diathesis is clearly related to the transitive diathesis with voll and leer‑ described in Sec­tion 9.7.5 and Sec­tion 9.7.4, respectively.

(9.62) a. Das Wasser läuft in die Badewanne.
b. Die Badewanne läuft voll (mit Wasser).

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[9.90] The verb saugen ‘to suck’ (9.63) shows an interesting stack of diatheses (see Sec­tion 2.5 on the notion of a “stack”). There are three roles involved, (i) the “sucker” agent (Kind ‘child’) that does the sucking, (ii) the “suckee” liquid (Milch ‘milk’) that is being absorbed and (iii) the container, Tuch ‘cloth’ that holds the liquid. Note that the choice of container in this example is slightly unusual to make the stack of diatheses clearer. The stack starts off with a basic intransitive construction (9.63 a), which leads via a caused motion diathesis (9.63 b) and a reflexive anticausative diathesis (9.63 c) to the current resultative location anticausative diathesis (9.63 d).

(9.63) a. Das Kind saugt an dem Tuch.
b. +> Caused motion (Sec­tion 6.8.3)
= Das Kind saugt Milch aus dem Tuch.
c. +> Reflexive anticausative (Sec­tion 7.5.4)
= Die Milch saugt sich in das Tuch.
d. +> Resultative location passive (this section)
= Das Tuch saugt sich voll (mit Milch).

9.6 Diatheses with promotion to subject

9.6.1 adj › sbj : [ p | N ] voll‑ Weather location

[9.91] The diathesis in (9.64) with weather verbs like schneien ‘to snow’ is a rare example of a promotion-to-subject induced by a resultative preverbial. However, this idiosyncrasy can of course easily be explained as a slight variant of the previously discussed passive-like diathesis, but used here with verbs without a subject (see Sec­tion 9.5.6).

(9.64) a. Es schneit auf den Trainingsplatz.
b. Der Trainingsplatz schneit voll.

Attested verbs

9.7 Diatheses with object demotion

9.7.1 obj › ø : [ NA | N– ] Accusative drop+evaluative

[9.92] Many transitive verbs can be used without an accusative object. However, with some verbs such a deaccusative comes easier than for others. Real ambitransitive verbs that occur both as transitive and as intransitive, but without needing any extra marking in the intransitive, are discussed in Sec­tion 5.7.1. In contrast, for many other transitive verbs, like sehen ‘to see’ (9.65 a), the drop of the accusative is highly restricted. It might be possible in an ability setting, meaning something like ‘I am able to see’ (9.65 b). In such an intended meaning, what seems to happen is that the focus of the utterance becomes the action itself, i.e. the seeing. However, this makes much more sense with the addition of a specification of the action by an adverbial (9.65 c). It is currently unclear to me, whether this is simply a pragmatic effect or whether this amounts to a real diathesis. In German I propose the term aktionsfokus for this alternation.

(9.65) a. Ich sehe das Haus.
b. ? Ich sehe.
(= Ich kann sehen.)
c. Ich sehe gut.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.7.2 obj › ø : [ NA | N– ] Endoreflexive+evaluative

[9.93] The verb fühlen ‘to feel’ (9.66 a) is similar to endoreflexive verbs (see Sec­tion 7.7.1), but with an obligatory evaluative adverbial (9.66 b,c). Without the evaluation, a sentence like (9.66 c) might still be possible, but only when it is interpreted with self-inflicting reflexive reference, viz. ‘I touch myself’.

(9.66) a. Ich fühle die Schmerzen.
b. Ich fühle mich schlecht.
c. * Ich fühle mich.

Attested verbs

9.7.3 obj › ø : [ NA | N– ] Accusative es+evaluative

[9.94] Some verbs allow for constructions with a non-phoric pronoun es apparently in the accusative case (see Sec­tion 6.3.5). With some verbs in this construction an evaluative manner adverbial is also necessarily present, like with meinen ‘to deem’ (9.67 a,b). Without the manner adverbial the only possible interpretation of the pronoun es is phoric (9.67 d).

(9.67) a. Ich meine deinen Bruder.
b. Ich meine es ernst.
c. * Ich meine ernst.
d. ? Ich meine es.
(= Ich meine das, was ich vorher behauptet habe.)

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.7.4 pbj › obj › ø : [ NLA | NA– ] leer/frei‑ Object exchange

[9.95] This diathesis is one of the various kinds of object exchange, i.e. the role marked as accusative is exchanged between the alternants. The current variant is an example of the emptied holonym object exchange (cf. Sec­tion 2.7.5.2). The new object after the exchange is a holonym (“whole”) that is emptied from the original meronymic object (“part”). The preposition used with the holonym is either aus or von. In German I propose the term resultativ ganz/leer-objekttausch for this diathesis. There is a parallel diathesis with preverbs discussed in detail in Sec­tion 8.7.12.

[9.96] The primary group of verbs that allow for this diathesis consists of verbs that describe emptying a container, marked by the preverbial leer‑. For example, räumen ‘to clear’ (9.68 a) can be used to describing removing the contents (here Geschirr ‘cutlery’) out of a container (here Spülmaschine ‘dish washer’). In this usage, the container is expressed with an obligatory aus prepositional phrase (9.68 a,b). In contrast, the resultative verb leerräumen ‘to empty’ (9.68 c) marks the container as the accusative object, and the contents cannot be expressed anymore (9.68 d).

(9.68) a. Ich räume das Geschirr aus der Spülmaschine.
b. * Ich räume das Geschirr.
c. Ich räume die Spülmaschine leer.
d. * Ich räume die Spülmaschine vom Geschirr leer.

[9.97] A second group of verbs that allow for this diathesis consists of consumption verbs like trinken ‘to drink’ (9.69). With these verbs a container is emptied by eating or drinking the contents. Interestingly, the verb kaufen ‘to buy’ syntactically fits in perfectly with this group (9.69 b). Slightly different from the previous group, the container is not obligatory with consumption verbs, cf. the prepositional phrases with Flasche ‘bottle’ in (9.69 a) and Laden ‘shop’ in (9.69 b) can be left out.

(9.69) a. Ich trinke Wasser (aus der Flasche).
Ich trinke die Flasche leer.
b. Ich kaufe Karotten (im Laden).
Ich kaufe den Laden leer.

[9.98] The same diathesis is also attested with the resultative frei‑ ‘free’. This is used with verbs that describe some kind of uncovering. For example, the verb wischen ‘to wipe’ (9.70 a,b) obligatorily needs an accusative (here Blätter ‘leaves’) and a location (here Auto ‘car’). In contrast, freiwischen ‘to wipe clean’ normally only takes an accusative describing the object that is being cleaned (9.70 c). Different from leer‑ above, it might be possible to retain the old accusative with freiwischen, but this seems to be very uncommon (9.70 d). Semantically, the roles that are effected by the frei‑ diathesis are a cover (Blätter) and a covered object (Auto). The fact that this diathesis is possible implies that the German language treats a cover as a meronym and the covered object as the holonym.

(9.70) a. Ich wische die Blätter vom Auto.
b. * Ich wische die Blätter.
c. Ich wische das Auto frei.
d. ? Ich wische das Auto von den Blätter frei.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.7.5 pbj › obj › adj : [ NLA | NAp ] voll‑ Object exchange

[9.99] This diathesis is yet another kind of object exchange, i.e. it is a diathesis in which the role marked as accusative is changed between the alternants. The current variant is always marked with the resultative preverb voll‑ and is an example of the filled holonym object exchange (cf. Sec­tion 2.7.5.2). The new object after the diathesis is a holonym (“whole”) that is filled with the original meronymic object (“part”). When not marked as accusative, the preposition used with the holonym is either in, an or auf. The preposition for the meronym is always mit. In German I propose to use the term resultativ ganz/voll-objekttausch. There is a parallel diathesis the preverbs, discussed in detail in Sec­tion 8.7.13.

[9.100] An example is the verb schenken ‘to pour’ and the alternant vollschenken ‘to pour until full’. Before the diathesis, the moved substance (here Wein ‘wine’) is marked as an accusative object and the container (here Glas ‘glass’) is expressed as an obligatory prepositional phrase (9.71 a,b). After the diathesis, the verb vollschenken (9.71 c) marks the container as the accusative object (Glas) and the moved substance (Wein) is expressed with a mit prepositional phrase, or dropped completely. The verbs that allow for this diathesis describe an action in which a container is filled with a moved substance, so the new accusative after the diathesis is the filled holonym. This diathesis is typically stacked with a subsequent possessor-of-accusative dative (9.71 c), see Sec­tion 5.8.4, which can also be a self-inflicting reflexive pronoun (9.71 d), see Sec­tion 7.4.8.

(9.71) a. Ich schenke den Wein in das Glas.
b. * Ich schenke den Wein.
c. Ich schenke das Glas voll (mit Wein).
d. Ich schenke ihm das (‘sein’) Glas voll.
e. Er schenkt sich das (‘sein’) Glas voll.

[9.101] A second group of verbs that allow for this object exchange are verbs that describe filling some kind of canvas, i.e. writing, painting, etc. For example, the verb malen ‘to paint’ (9.72 a) marks the role of the painting as an accusative object (here Porträt ‘portrait’), and the role of the canvas is expressed with an auf prepositional phrase (here Leinwand ‘canvas’). The preverbial vollmalen ‘to paint out completely’ (9.72 b) reverses the marking of these two roles. Different from the previous verb of filling a container, the prepositional phrase for the canvas in (9.72 a) is not obligatory.

(9.72) a. Ich habe ein Porträt (auf eine Leinwand) gemalt.
b. Ich habe die Leinwand (mit einem Porträt) vollgemalt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.7.6 pbj › adj : [ NAL | NAp ] los/fest/frei‑ Resultative delocative

[9.102] A location prepositional phrase is obligatory present with verbs that describe making a connection between two entities, like binden ‘to tie’ (10.61 a,b). In contrast, when adding the resultative los‑ ‘loose’ in losbinden ‘to untie’ (9.73 c,d), then the location phrase is not obligatory anymore. This delocative diathesis is attested both with the preverbial los‑ ‘loose’ for detachment and fest‑ ‘tight’ for attachment. For the parallel diathesis with preverbs, see Sec­tion 8.7.11. The preverbial fest‑ is also used for a different diathesis, see Sec­tion 9.8.3.

(9.73) a. Ich binde den Hund an die Leine.
b. * Ich binde den Hund.
c. Ich binde den Hund von der Leine los.
d. Ich binde den Hund los.

[9.103] A different group of “excavation” verbs can be combined with the resultative frei-. They show syntactically exactly the same delocative diathesis as before. For example, the verb bohren ‘to drill’ can be used in a caused-movement construction with an obligatory accusative and location (9.74 a,b). In contrast, with the resultative freibohren ‘to drill free’ the location is not obligatory anymore (9.74 c,d).

(9.74) a. Sie haben die Bergleute aus der Höhle gebohrt.
b. * Sie haben die Bergleute gebohrt.
c. Sie haben die Bergleute aus der Höhle freigebohrt.
d. Sie haben die Bergleute freigebohrt.

[9.104] The preverbial los‑ is also attested with some verbs that cause something else to move. Although this diathesis is syntactically the same delocative diathesis as with binden above, semantically this “cause to move” construction is closer to the inchoative usage of los‑ (see Sec­tion 9.4.1). This typically applies to verbs of sending, like schicken ‘to send’ (9.75 a). However, also verbs with a caused-movement diathesis, like klopfen ‘to knock’ (9.75 b) allow for this inchoative usage of los‑ (cf. Sec­tion 6.8.3).

(9.75) a. Ich schicke den Brief nach Amerika.
Ich schicke den Brief los.
b. Ich klopfe die Rinde von dem Baum.
Ich klopfe die Rinde los.

[9.105] The example with werfen ‘to throw’ (9.76 a) illustrates the close relationship between these two uses of los-, i.e. ‘loose’ and ‘onwards’. By throwing, the Leine ‘rope’ is detached (from the ship), but at the same time the rope is also caused to move (towards the shore). Similarly with lostreten (9.76 b), which can be used locationally in the meaning ‘to unfasten by trampling’ but also temporally ‘to set in motion’.

(9.76) a. Der Kapitän wirft die Leine los. dwds: Die Zeit, 23.10.2003, Nr. 44.
b. Der Wanderer trat einen Felsen los.
Die Entscheidung trat eine Protestwelle los.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.7.7 pbj › adj : [ NL | Np ] fest/frei‑ Intransitive delocative

[9.106] A delocative diathesis is also attested with a few posture verbs that obligatorily need a location, like stecken ‘be positioned’ (9.77 a), cf. Sec­tion 6.6.2. By adding the resultative fest‑ or frei‑ the location is not obligatory anymore (9.77 b).

(9.77) a. Der Nagel steckt in der Wand.
b. Der Nagel steckt (in der Wand) fest.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.7.8 pbj › adj : [ NL | Np ] wund‑ Reflexive intransitive delocative

[9.107] Some intransitives with obligatory location, like liegen ‘to lie’ (9.78 a,b) can be used without this location when a resultative is added (9.78 c). However, this delocative needs an additional reflexive pronoun (9.78 d). This diathesis is only attested with the resultative wund‑ ‘sore’.

(9.78) a. Der Patient liegt auf dem Bett.
b. ? Der Patient liegt.
c. Der Patient liegt sich wund.
d. * Der Patient liegt wund.

Attested verbs

9.7.9 obj › adj : [ NA | Np ] satt‑ Reflexive antipassive

[9.108] The accusative object of sehen ‘to see’ is transformed into a prepositional phrase when adding the resultative satt‑ ‘well-fed’ to form sattsehen ‘to see until satisfied’ (9.79). This diathesis obligatorily introduces a reflexive pronoun. Such a reflexive antipassive diathesis is currently only attested with verbs of consumption with the resultative satt-. See Sec­tion 8.7.4 for similar examples with preverbs.

(9.79) a. Ich sehe das Gemälde.
b. Ich sehe mich satt an dem Gemälde.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.7.10 obj › adj : [ NA | Np ] los‑ Antipassive

[9.109] The preverbial los‑ is used frequently without any diathesis as a marker of inchoative aspect with intransitive verbs (see Sec­tion 9.4.1). With transitive verbs of attack, like hauen ‘to bash’ (9.80 a), the inchoative loshauen ‘starting to bash’ shows an antipassive diathesis. The accusative ihn is changed to an optional auf prepositional phrase (9.80 b). In effect, this diathesis produces an intransitive verb, compatible with the generalisation that inchoative los‑ is only used with intransitives.

(9.80) a. Er haut ihn.
b. Er haut auf ihn los.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.7.11 obj › adj : [ NAD | NAp ] weiter‑ Dative antipassive

[9.110] Ditransitive verbs like empfehlen ‘to recommend’ (9.81 a) can be used with a preverbial weiter‑ to form weiterempfehlen ‘to recommend on’ (9.81 b). With this preverbial it does not seem to be possible anymore to use a dative (9.81 a). Instead, an an prepositional phrase is used, or the recipient is completely left out, which appears to be even more common. There is some overlap between the verbs in this section with verbs allowing for an unmarked an antipassive (see Sec­tion 6.7.11).

[9.111] This diathesis is only attested with the preverbial weiter-. With non-ditransitive verbs, this preverbial does not induce any diathesis and it has a continuative aspectual meaning ‘to continue’, as discussed in Sec­tion 9.4.2. In contrast, with these ditransitive verbs the meaning of weiter‑ is more like ‘to pass something on’.

(9.81) a. Ich empfehle dir diesen Kuchen.
b. Ich empfehle diesen Kuchen an meine Freunde weiter.
c. ? Ich empfehle dir diesen Kuchen weiter.

Attested verbs

9.8 Diatheses with promotion to object

9.8.1 adj › obj : [ Np | NA ] Resultative applicative

[9.112] The resultative applicative appears to be one of the most productive kind of diathesis with a resultative preverbial. In this diathesis, a prepositional phrase of an intransitive verb, like with niesen ‘to sneeze’ (9.82 a), is reformulated as an accusative, like with vollniesen ‘to fill by sneezing’ (9.82 b). There are many different resultatives that induce this diatheses. The list presented below is in no way complete, but should just be seen as a set of random illustrative examples. This diathesis is also attested with governed prepositions, like with reden über ‘to talk about’ (9.83).

(9.82) a. Ich niese (in das Taschentuch).
b. Ich niese das Taschentuch voll.
(9.83) a. Ich rede über dein Benehmen.
b. Ich rede darüber, dass du dich gut benommen hast.
c. Ich rede dein Benehmen gut.

[9.113] Many verbs occur with different resultative preverbials. However, the new accusative object always relates to the same prepositionally marked role. For example, the verb reden ‘to talk’ (9.84 a) can be combined with many different resultatives, like gutreden, kleinreden, schönreden and totreden. However, all these verbs promote the role marked by über in the intransitive (i.e. the content of the talk). Similarly, with drücken ‘to press’ (9.84 b) there are resultatives like festdrücken, kaputtdrücken, plattdrücken that all promote the auf prepositional role (i.e. the object to which the pressure is applied). A final example is beten ‘to pray’ (9.84 c), for which both freibeten and gesundbeten promote the für prepositional role (i.e. the addressee of the prayer). These examples suggest that each verb has a preferred role for the resultative applicative diathesis. This concept of a preferred prepositional role is highly reminiscent of the notion “governed prepositions” as defined in Sec­tion 6.2.1. However, the current set of examples does not suggest any clear connection between the two concepts.

(9.84) a. Ich rede über dein Benehmen.
Ich rede dein Benehmen gut/klein/schön
b. Ich drücke auf den Deckel.
Ich drücke den Deckel fest/kaputt/platt
c. Ich bete für den Gefangenen.
Ich bete den Gefangenen frei/gesund.

[9.114] A counterexample to this preferred-role generalisation is tanzen ‘to dance’. First, there is a resultative kaputttanzen (9.85 a) that promoted the auf prepositional role (i.e. the surface on which the dancing is taking place). Second, there is schwindligtanzen (9.85 b) that promoted the with prepositional role (i.e. the parter of the dancing). This is currently the only example known to me that allows for an applicative for two different prepositional roles.

(9.85) a. Sie tanzt auf dem Parkett.
Sie tanzt das Parkett kaputt.
b. Sie tanzt mit mir.
Sie tanzt mich schwindlig.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[9.115] With some verbs, like fallen ‘to fall’ (9.86 a), this diathesis appears to be more colloquial with the addition of a possessor-of-accusative dative (see Sec­tion 5.8.4). Note that the few attested examples suggest that this possessor dative is a reflexive pronoun, coreferencing the subject.

(9.86) a. Ich falle.
b. ? Ich falle meine Hose kaputt.
c. Ich falle mir die (‘meine’) Hose kaputt.
d. Als jemand der sich Handgelenk und insbesondere das Knie mit dem Rad kaputt gefallen hat: ich bin extrem froh, dass der Kopf heile geblieben ist. Attested online at https://www.reddit.com/r/Fahrrad/comments/vtyxw7/wie_haltet_ihr_das_durch/, accessed 13 August 2022.

[9.116] The resultative verb freiboxen ‘to box somebody free’ is also typically used with an additional reflexive pronoun (9.87 a), but it can also be used with an non-coreferential accusative (9.87 b).

(9.87) a. Dass sich Fischer den Weg zum großen Auftritt mit der Energie des Straßenkämpfers freiboxen wird, ist unwahrscheinlich. dwds: Die Zeit, 04.12.2000, Nr. 49.
b. Denn in Chicago gibt es den Star‑Anwalt Flynn, der mit Riesen‑Publicity‑Shows vor Gericht Frauen freiboxt, die ihren Kerl erschossen haben. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 06.02.2003.

[9.117] Some of these verbs, like laufen ‘to run’ (9.88 a) allow for the addition of an accusative result (9.88 b), see Sec­tion 5.8.1. The diathesis between (9.88 b) and (9.88 c) then becomes an example of a object exchange, cf. Sec­tion 2.7.5.1.

(9.88) a. Ich laufe in meinen neuen Schuhen.
b. Ich laufe den Marathon in meinen neuen Schuhen.
c. Ich laufe meine Schuhe beim Marathon platt/kaputt.

9.8.2 ø › obj : [ N– | NA ] Resultative object addition

[9.118] With the addition of an resultative preverbial, some intransitive verbs obtain a completely new role in the accusative, like bellen ‘to bark’ (9.89 a) when combined with the resultative wach‑ ‘awake’ (9.89 b). There is no prepositional alternative like with the much more frequent applicatives as discussed in the previous Sec­tion 9.8.1. Instead, this construction is more closely related to the intransitive caused-motion diathesis (9.89 c), see Sec­tion 6.8.3. The new object is a clear example of an added result. The new object is not a patient of the verb, but a result.

(9.89) a. Der Hund bellt.
b. Der Hund bellt die Kinder wach.
c. Der Hund bellt die Kinder aus dem Bett.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[9.119] The verb reden ‘to talk’ is listed here in a special variant, namely heißreden ‘to arouse’. This verb is frequently used in collocation with an accusative Kopf ‘head’ and a reflexive possessor dative (9.90 a). However, it is also attested with other objects (9.90 b). Also note that there are various other resultative combinations with reden with a different diathesis (e.g. gutreden, kleinreden, schönreden). These all refer to the topic of the talk (discussed in the previous Sec­tion 9.8.1), different from heißreden.

(9.90) a. Draußen schneit es, und drinnen reden sich 100 Leute die Köpfe heiß. dwds: Die Zeit, 18.01.2017 (online).
b. Er redete die Spieler heiß. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 11.05.2001.

9.8.3 ø › obj › adj : [ NA– | NpA ] fest‑ Object exchange

[9.120] This diathesis is yet another kind of object exchange, namely a joined meronym. This is basically the reversal of the filled-holonym object exchange in Sec­tion 9.7.5. This diathesis applies to verbs of connection. After the diathesis the new accusative object is a component part (“meronym”) that is attached to the old accusative object (“holonym”). In German I propose to use the term resultativ teil/fest-objekttausch for this diathesis.

[9.121] For example, the verb nähen ‘to sew’ takes an accusative object in the role of “sewee” (i.e. the thing that is being sewn together). However, there is a resultative diathesis festnähen ‘to attach by sewing’ (9.91 b) that produces a sentence in which the accusative encodes another role, namely the attached object (here Knopf ‘button’) that is joined to something else by sewing (here Hose ‘trousers’). This attachment location is marked by an an or in prepositional phrase, and it is optional (9.91 c). This joined-meronym diathesis is similar to the diatheses discussed in Sec­tions 6.8.8-8.9.1.

(9.91) a. Er näht eine Hose.
b. Er näht den Knopf an seiner Hose fest.
c. Er näht den Knopf fest.

Attested verbs

Further examples

9.9 Symmetrical diatheses

[9.122] This section is currently empty. It is only included here to keep the numbering parallel in all chapters.

10 Light-verb alternations with Partizip

10.1 Introduction

[10.1] In German there are many different constructions that consist of a participle combined with an auxiliary-like light verb (i.e. a verb with limited lexical meaning). These include constructions without diathesis like the haben+Partizip perfekt (10.1 a) and constructions with diathesis like the werden+Partizip vorgangspassiv (10.1 b).

(10.1) a. Ich habe einen Brief geschrieben.
b. Der Brief wurde geschrieben.

[10.2] The term “participle” (German Partizip) is used here as the name for a verbform known in German grammar as Partizip II (e.g. geschrieben ‘written’). There is another participle, known in German grammar as Partizip I (e.g. schreibend ‘while writing’), but this wordform does not play any role in the marking of diathesis and will not be further discussed here. In consequence, the terms “participle” and Partizip as used in this book only refer to the Partizip II.

[10.3] Diatheses consisting of a light verb with a participle are widely acknowledged as crucial constructions of German grammar. Most prominently, the werden+Partizip passive is often seen as the quintessential example of a diathesis. Other similar constructions are also repeatedly discussed in grammatical descriptions of German, like the sein+Partizip passive (10.2 a), known as zustandspassiv (see Sec­tion 10.5.16), and the bekommen+Partizip passive (10.2 b), known as rezipientenpassiv (see Sec­tion 10.5.21). Many others are only sporadically discussed, like the gehören+Partizip passive (10.2 c), here called normpassiv (see Sec­tion 10.5.18).

(10.2) a. Der Brief ist schon fertig geschrieben.
b. Er bekommt einen Brief geschrieben.
c. Dieser Brief gehört geschrieben.

[10.4] This chapter is an attempt to provide a complete survey of all light-verb constructions with participles in German. Care has to be taken to distinguish light-verb constructions (10.3 a) from constructions in which the participle is used adverbially as a depictive secondary predicate (10.3 b). Both constructions superficially look very similar, but can be distinguished by various syntactic characteristics (see Sec­tion 10.2.3).

(10.3) a. Er hält das Haus verschlossen.
b. Er hinterlässt das Haus verschlossen.

[10.5] After all depictive uses are discarded, there remain many auxiliary-like light verbs that can be combined with a participle into a grammaticalised monoclausal construction. All these light verbs are summarised below, classified by their literal meaning. However, it is crucial to realise that these literal meanings are mostly lost in the grammaticalised constructions with participles. Also note that some of these verbs only infrequently occur as light verbs with participles. All light-verb constructions will be discussed in separate subsections throughout this chapter.

[10.6] The following twelve diatheses seem prominent enough to grant them a German name. I propose the following names:

10.2 Characterising participle constructions

10.2.1 Identifying participles

[10.7] German participles – in German grammar idiosyncratically known as Partizip II – can rather straightforwardly be identified by their morphology. This identification is complicated by the existence of a wide range of allomorphy, which will only be succinctly summarised here (cf. Duden-Grammatik 2009: 440, §613–614; Eisenberg 2006b: 201–202):

[10.8] The allomorphs without prefix ge‑ exhibit syncretism, because such participles are identical to either a third person singular finite verb (when ending in ‑t) or a first/third person plural finite verb (when ending in ‑en). For example, in (10.4 a) the wordform verkauft is a finite third person singular, while in (10.4 b) it is a participle. Given that finite verbs show agreement with the subject, checking a different subject easily differentiates between these two homonyms, e.g. in the first person singular the finite verb changes to verkaufe (10.4 c), while the participle remains unchanged (10.4 d).

(10.4) a. Er verkauft das Haus.
b. Er hat das Haus verkauft.
c. Ich verkaufe das Haus.
d. Ich habe das Haus verkauft.

[10.9] The formation of participles is highly productive in German. It is so productive that speakers have no problem producing participles for newly invented pseudo-words. As a result, every verb (i.e. every stem that can have finite person inflection) also allows for the formation of a participle. Latzel (1977b: 73–76, citing and discussing data from Mater 1969) lists various verbs that do not allow for a participle. However, many examples are very unusual verbs (e.g. ornamentieren, leiben), and many others clearly have participles (e.g. ankeuchen: er kommt angekeucht; gutachten: ich habe gegutachtet; worthalten: ich habe wortgehalten). The best examples of verbs without participles appear to be verbs with incorporated objects (e.g. bausparen, wettlaufen) that neither can be used in finite forms, nor as participle, but only as an infinitive. In these examples it is even questionable whether these words should be classified as verbs at all. Still, some participles indeed appear to be very rare, like with stammen, ?gestammt ‘to originate from’ or wogen, ?gewogt ‘to undulate’. However, examples are attested in corpora, e.g. Wir haben keinen Hinweis darauf, woher der Geruch gestammt haben könnte (dwds: Die Zeit, 29.12.2014 online) or Getanzt wird auch im Stehen nicht, nur gewogt. (dwds: Die Zeit, 16.04.2015, Nr. 16). The reversal is not true though, as there exist many participles that do not have corresponding finite verb forms (see Sec­tion 10.3).

10.2.2 Syntactic functions of participles

[10.10] Participles, like geputzt ‘cleaned’ in (10.5), can be used in three different syntactic functions in the grammar of German, namely as (i) an adnominal adjective (10.5 a), see Sec­tion 10.2.5, as (ii) a depictive secondary predicate (10.5 b), see Sec­tion 10.2.3, and as (iii) a part of light-verb construction (10.5 c,d) to be discussed extensively throughout this chapter.

(10.5) a. Das geputzte Haus erstrahlt im Sonnenlicht.
b. Er verkauft das Haus geputzt.
c. Er hat das Haus geputzt.
d. Das Haus wird geputzt.

[10.11] Arguably, these three functions are part of the spectrum of uses that are also available to German adjectives, like leer ‘empty’ in (10.6). Basically then, participles are morphologically derived verb forms that are syntactically alike to adjectives.

(10.6) a. Das leere Haus erstrahlt im Sonnenlicht.
b. Er verkauft das Haus leer.
c. Er macht das Haus leer.
d. Das Haus ist leer.

[10.12] Not all participles can be used in all three syntactic functions, however. For example, the participle geschlafen ‘slept’ (10.7) only allows for one of the contexts exemplified with geputzt in (10.5) above. Central to the discussion in this chapter is the fact that participles differ as to the kind of constructions in which they can occur.

(10.7) a. * Das geschlafene Kind liegt im Bett.
b. * Er beobachtet das Kind geschlafen.
c. Das Kind hat geschlafen.
d. * Das Kind wird geschlafen.

[10.13] Crucially, the adnominal (10.5 a) and the depictive (10.5 b) usage of participles are not monoclausal. Both can be seen as alternative expressions of a relative subordinate clause. In contrast, the light-verb constructions with participles (10.5 c,d) are monoclausal.

10.2.3 Depictively used participles

[10.14] Participles can be used adverbially, or, to be more precise, they can be used as so-called depictive secondary predicates. A depictive (for short) is an adverbial-like element that modifies an argument of a sentence (see Sec­tion 9.2.3 for a detailed discussion of depictives). The depictive usage is only adverbial in the sense “adverbial-at-large”, not in the sense “adverbial-proper” (cf. Sec­tion 9.2.3). Actually, participles (i.e. Partizip II) do not appear to be possible in adverbial-proper function. In contrast, to so-called “present” participles (i.e. Partizip I, ending in ‑end) can be used as an adverbial-proper, but that is a topic for another book. For example in (10.8 a) the participle gebogen ‘to bend’ functions syntactically like a modifier of the argument Nägel ‘nails’. So this sentence is about ‘bent nails’ and not about doing something so that the nails are bent. Not all verbs seem to be possible in this depictive participle construction, but I currently do not have any deeper insights into these restrictions. That seems to be a promising topic for further research. A crucial problem is that constructions with such modifying depictive participles (10.8 a) are superficially highly similar to light-verb constructions (10.8 b).

(10.8) a. Er verkauft die Nägel gebogen.
b. Er hat die Nägel gebogen.

[10.15] Diachronically, the depictive usage of participles is likely to be the origin of light-verb constructions. Various light-verb constructions appear to be only partially grammaticalised. For example, the participle of geschenkt in (10.9 a) can both be interpreted as a depictive predicate with the meaning as in (10.9 b) and as part of a light-verb construction with meaning as in (10.9 c), see Sec­tion 10.5.21.

(10.9) a. Er bekommt ein Buch geschenkt.
b. (= Er bekommt ein Buch als Geschenk.)
c. (= Ihm wird ein Buch geschenkt.)

[10.16] Despite these superficial similarities, participles as depictive secondary predicates and participles in light-verb constructions can be clearly separated synchronically. In the remainder of this section I will present five criteria for this separation:

  1. Leaving out the participle.
  2. Word order in subordinate clauses.
  3. Adding negation to the participle.
  4. The semantic scope of the participle.
  5. Retention of arguments with the participle.

[10.17] First, a participle used as a secondary predicate (10.10 a) can in most cases easily be identified by trying to leave it out of the sentence (10.10 b) or replace it with an adverb (10.10 c). The main predicate of the sentence (here verkaufen ‘to sell’) should not change its meaning, and in general the meaning of the sentence will remain almost identical (except of course for the meaning of the missing or replaced participle). With light-verb constructions this is not the case: leaving out the participle is either ungrammatical or leads to a radically different interpretation of the light verb (10.11).

(10.10) a. Er verkauft die Nägel gebogen.
b. Er verkauft die Nägel.
c. Er verkauft die Nägel jetzt.
(10.11) a. Er bekommt die Haare geschnitten.
b. * Er bekommt die Haare.
c. * Er bekommt die Haare jetzt.

[10.18] Second, depictive participles can be distinguished from light-verb constructions by investigating the word order in subordinate constructions. Light-verb constructions (10.12 a) obligatorily place the participle geputzt ‘cleaned’ directly in front of the finite light verb bekommen in a subordinate clause (10.12 b). They cannot be separated (10.12 c). In contrast, a depictive participle geputzt (10.13 a) can occur adjacent to (10.13 b) or separated from (10.13 c) the main verb kaufen in a subordinate clause.

(10.12) a. Er bekommt die Schuhe im Geschäft immer geputzt.
(= Ihm werden die Schuhe im Geschäft immer geputzt.)
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) er die Schuhe im Geschäft immer geputzt bekommt.
c. * (Es ist bekannt, dass) er die Schuhe immer geputzt im Geschäft bekommt.
(10.13) a. Er kauft die Schuhe im Geschäft immer geputzt.
(= Er kauft die Schuhe, die immer geputzt sein müssen, im Geschäft.)
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) er die Schuhe im Geschäft immer geputzt kauft.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) er die Schuhe immer geputzt im Geschäft kauft.

[10.19] Third, secondary predication with participles can also be distinguished from light-verb constructions by considering negation. Negation in sentences with a participle as a secondary predicate normally negates this secondary predicate itself (lexical scope), just like negation of adverbs (10.14 a,b). With secondary predicates it is often even possible to use the prefix un‑ to mark the lexical scope of the negation over the participle (10.14 c). When the prefix un‑ can be added, this is an easy test for secondary-predicate usage (Rothstein 2007a: 161–162). However, this test does not work in reverse (i.e. the impossibility to add un‑ is not necessarily a sign of a light-verb construction), because many participles simply do not exist with the un‑ prefix.

(10.14) a. Er kauft die Schuhe nicht jetzt.
b. Er kauft die Schuhe nicht geputzt.
c. Er kauft die Schuhe ungeputzt.

[10.20] In contrast, negation in a monoclausal light-verb construction with a participle has a wide scope reading over the whole sentence. For example, in (10.15 a) the verb bekommen has two different readings. Either, as in (10.15 b), the verb bekommen is a full lexical verb with the meaning ‘to get as a gift’ and a narrow scope negation over the participle nicht geputzt (which is almost equivalent to ungeputzt ‘uncleaned’), resulting in a meaning of ‘he gets a gift of uncleaned shoes’. In this interpretation, the participle is a secondary predicate. Alternatively (10.15 c), bekommen can be interpreted as a light verb with a meaning ‘to get something done for you’ with a full verb as participle geputzt ‘cleaned’. Together with the wide scope negation the meaning of the sentence then becomes ‘he doesn’t manage to get his shoes cleaned’. In this interpretation, the participle is part of a light-verb construction bekommen+Partizip, see Sec­tion 10.5.21.

(10.15) a. Er bekommt die Schuhe nicht geputzt.
b. (= Er kriegt ein Geschenk, nämlich ungeputzte Schuhe.)
c. (= Er schafft es nicht seine Schuhe putzen zu lassen.)

[10.21] Note further that the sentence stress in (10.15 a) differs for both readings. With the reading as in (10.15 b), the first sentence has stress on the negation nicht (as is usually the case for lexical scope), while in the reading as in (10.16 c) the first sentence has stress on the participle geputzt (which is the regular stress placement for a wide-scope negation of the indicative main clause).

[10.22] Fourth, a further difference between participles as secondary predicates (10.16 a) and in light-verb constructions (10.16 b) is that secondary predicates are in many contexts ambiguous as to the scope of the predicate. For example, in (10.16 a) the secondary predicate angekleidet ‘dressed’ can be interpreted both as referring to the accusative object Patienten ‘patients’ and (in this infamous example with a humorous undertone) to the nominative subject Doktor ‘doctor’. With light-verb constructions (10.16 b) there is never any such ambiguity, because the participle does not directly modify an argument.

(10.16) a. Der Doktor untersucht seine Patienten immer angekleidet.
b. Der Doktor wird von seinem Assistenten immer angekleidet.

[10.23] Fifth and finally, in some circumstances arguments can be retained when participles are used as secondary predicate, but this is not possible in light-verb constructions. For example, the syntactic function of the adverb kaputt ‘broken’ in (10.17 a) can be replaced by a participle überlassen ‘to abandon’, but only when the dative dem Wetter is retained (10.17 b,c). This dative is not governed by the main verb aussehen ‘to appear’ but by the embedded participle überlassen used as an depictive secondary predicate.

(10.17) a. Der Balkon sieht kaputt aus.
b. (replacing kaputt with Irgendjemand überlässt den Balkon dem Wetter:)
Der Balkon sieht dem Wetter überlassen aus.
c. * Der Balkon sieht überlassen aus.

[10.24] Some more examples of such retained arguments are shown in (10.18) with intransitive (quälen) and reflexive (sich fühlen) main verbs, and prepositional (von Schmerzen) and dative (dem Gericht) retained arguments, respectively.

(10.18) a. Er hustete plötzlich.
(replacing plötzlich with Schmerzen quälen ihn:)
Er hustete von Schmerzen gequält.
b. Der Beschuldigte fühlt sich schlecht.
(replacing schlecht with Er ist dem Militär eng verbunden:)
Der Beschuldigte fühlt sich dem Militär eng verbunden.

10.2.4 Adnominally used participles

[10.25] The first known observation of a restriction on German adnominal participle usage goes back to the Sprachlehre of Carl Friedrich Aichinger (1754: 282ff.). He reserves the term participium for those stems that allow for an adnominal usage of their participles, like with eingeschlafen in (10.19 a). His rationale for this restriction is that “real” participles should allow for declension (like in Latin) and in German only the adnominal usage shows declension, be it minimal (viz. the suffix ‑e in eingeschlafene). In contrast, participles that never occur adnominally, like geschlafen in (10.19 b) are morphologically immutable in German. Inflected word forms like geschlafene, geschlafenes or geschlafenen do not exist in German.

(10.19) a. Das eingeschlafene Kind schnarcht.
b. * Das geschlafene Kind schnarcht.

[10.26] Aichinger proposes a separate name for such immutable participles like geschlafen, namely supinum. This nomenclature is unfortunate, because the German participle has no relation at all to the Latin supine, neither formally nor functionally. Being criticised for this terminology, Aichinger in a later reply explains that he uses the term Supinum solely because the Latin supine is also an immutable verb from (Aichinger 1776: 627). Although there are many unfortunate terminological confusions in the history of linguistics, this usage of the term Supinum is regrettably still around in German grammatical literature to this day (with a history of transmission that deserves more in-depth study), most forcefully reinforced by the usage of this term in Bech (1955) and the large literature building on that influential work.

[10.27] The basic observation of Aichinger, though, is sound. There is clearly a group of verbs in German that do not allow for an adnominal usage of their participle. The impossibility of participles to function adnominally is nowadays often included as one of the characteristics of so-called unaccusative intransitives (here called “agentive”). Basically (and strongly simplified), the claim is that the verbs without adnominal participles are intransitive verbs that take the auxiliary haben in the perfect (see Sec­tion 10.2.5). Empirically, this correlation appears to be rather strong, though it is not without exceptions. For example, the verb schmerzen ‘to hurt’ (participle geschmerzt) and the verb lügen ‘to lie’ (participle gelogen) both have a perfect with the auxiliary haben and their participles are typically not used adnominally. However, exceptions can be found (10.20), though semantically these examples suggest a “patientive” relation between the participle and the noun.

(10.20) a. Sein Körper hat geschmerzt.
Ähnlich ekstatisch geschmerzte Körper zeichneten der junge Kokoschka und Egon Schiele, als das Jahrhundert gerade begonnen hatte. dwds: Die Zeit, 19.02.1988, Nr. 08.
b. Er hat über die Geschichte gelogen.
Die offizielle, aber gelogene Variante der Geschichte hat ihn selber mehr ergriffen. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 08.05.2001.

[10.28] Further, many intransitive verbs with a haben perfect can be used with an added-result accusative, for example verbs like weinen ‘to cry’ or tanzen ‘to dance’ (see Sec­tion 5.8.1). With such an added accusative these verbs are transitives, and then the participle can be used adnominally with the new accusative object (10.21).

(10.21) a. Er hat (die Worte) geweint.
Ich höre laute Schreie und unverständlich geweinte Worte aus dem Nebenzimmer. dwds: Die Zeit, 11.01.2006, Nr. 02.
b. Er hat (den Tanz) getanzt.
Besonders der im Biedermeierkostüm getanzte Aschenbrödeltanz mit Vertonung von Zepler ergab wirkungsvolle Bilder. dwds: Berliner Tageblatt (Abend-Ausgabe), 12.03.1918.

[10.29] An even more intricate detail occurs with some movement verbs like laufen ‘to walk’ that allow for a manner-of-movement diathesis (cf. Sec­tion 6.8.1). When used with a directional phrase like nach Hause ‘home’ such verbs take the auxiliary sein (10.22 a) and then the participle together with the directional phrase can be used adnominally (10.22 b). In contrast, the auxiliary haben seems incompatible with a directional phrase (10.22 c) and the participle without the directional phrase cannot be used adnominally (10.22 d).

(10.22) a. Der Schüler ist nach Hause gelaufen.
b. Der nach Hause gelaufene Schüler weint.
c. Der Schüler hat *(nach Hause) gelaufen.
d. * Der gelaufene Schüler weint.

10.2.5 Lexical restrictions on participle constructions

[10.30] In recent years there has been an extensive discussion about two classes of intransitive verbs depending on their light-verb possibilities. This discussion originated with the discussion on the impersonal werden passive (see Sec­tion 10.5.1) in Perlmutter (1978). He introduced the terms unergative/unaccusative for intransitive verbs that do (unergative) or do not (unaccusative) allow for such impersonal passives (see Pullum 1988 for a discussion of the origin of the term and scholarly predecessors; for an early discussions in German, see Wunderlich 1985). The most extensive discussion of the grammatical possibilities of intransitives in German can be found in Grewendorf (1989), though unfortunately (and confusingly) using the term “ergative” for what Perlmutter calls “unaccusative”.

[10.31] Similar phenomena of splits in intransitives have long been recognised in the typological literature under various names. Instead of unergative/unaccusative one can find active/inactive (Sapir 1917: 85), Sa/So (Dixon 1979: 70) or more mnemonic agentive/patientive (cf. Mithun 1991). These last terms will be used here. The term agentive is used here because the sole argument of an agentive intransitive verb is syntactically treated similar to the agent of a transitive verb. Likewise, The name patientive is used because the sole argument of patientive intransitive verb is syntactically treated similar to the patient of a transitive verb.

[10.32] The basic proposal from Perlmutter (1978) is the unaccusative hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that the sole argument of certain intransitive verbs is underlyingly alike to a transitive object (i.e. patientive). Such verbs can be identified by various syntactic characteristics. For example, a patientive verb like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ combines with sein to form the perfect (10.23 a) and not with haben (10.23 b). Further, patientives do not allow for an impersonal werden passive (10.23 c), but they can be used adnominally (10.23 d). In contrast, an agentive intransitive verb like schlafen ‘to sleep’ has the reversed distribution (10.24).

(10.23) a. Das Kind ist eingeschlafen.
b. * Das Kind hat eingeschlafen.
c. * Jetzt wird eingeschlafen.
d. Das eingeschlafene Kind schnarcht.
(10.24) a. * Das Kind ist geschlafen.
b. Das Kind hat geschlafen.
c. Jetzt wird geschlafen.
d. * Das geschlafene Kind schnarcht.

[10.33] However, there is much more variation in the distribution of light-verb constructions besides just agentive participles (e.g. geschlafen) and patientive participles (e.g. eingeschlafen), as summarised in Table 10.1. Basically, every theoretical possibility of light verb with a participle is attested (except for the combination of neither sein nor haben). The real challenge concealed behind the unaccusative hypothesis is the question how widespread all of these possibilities are. The einschlafen-class (patientive) and the schlafen-class (agentive) are undoubtedly large classes of intransitive verbs in German. In contrast, the rosten class seems to be very small (see Sec­tion 10.4.3). It is a clear desideratum for more research in corpus-based lexicology to exhaustively classify verbs in this way. Only then will it be possible to judge which classes are significant for German grammar and which classes, if any, consist of only incidental exceptional examples.

Table 10.1: Possible combinations of light-verbs with participles
participle sein haben werden
eingeschlafen +
gefallen + +
gerostet + +
geklettert + + +
geblutet +
geschlafen + +

[10.34] Looking even further, there are many more light-verb constructions besides sein, haben and werden that can be included. For example, bleiben+Partizip (see Sec­tion 10.4.10) only seems possible with einschlafen, while scheinen+Partizip (see Sec­tion 10.4.14) seems possible with einschlafen and fallen, and kommen+Partizip (see Sec­tion 10.4.9) only applies to fallen and klettern. Also of interest in this context is the possibility of various impersonal diatheses (see e.g. Sec­tion 9.5.1 and Sec­tion 11.5.1). This chapter will not attempts to answer the question how many different such verb classes have to be distinguished in German, but only takes the first step of presenting a list of relevant constructions to be investigated further in future research.

10.2.6 Temporal interpretation of participle constructions

[10.35] The temporal interpretation of light-verb-plus-participle constructions is a widely discussed topic (cf. Höhle 1978: 42; Nedjalkov 1988: 412; Maienborn 2008: 88; Businger 2011: 162, among many others). Using my own terms here, there is a recurrent observation of a difference between process-orientation (Vorgangsausrichtung) and result-orientation (Zustandsausrichtung). What is called “result-orientation” here is basically “perfect” in the sense of Comrie (1976: Ch. 3; cf. “perfect-resultative” in Nedjalkov 1988: 415). However, I will avoid the term “perfect” because in the German grammatical tradition there is a verbform called the Perfekt that, confusingly, is process-oriented and not perfect/result-oriented (see the end of this section).

[10.36] Basically, a construction is process-oriented when the action (as described by the verb) starts at the time reference as expressed in the sentence. Such constructions revolve around the process of the ongoing action. In contrast, a construction is result-oriented when the action is finished at the specified time reference. Such constructions focus on the result of the finished action. Before syntactically distinguishing these two options, a brief digression is needed to summarise the expression of time and tense in German.

[10.37] German tense is marked obligatorily on all finite verbs. There are just two possibilities, namely an opposition between non-past (i.e. present/future, called Präsens in the German tradition) and past (called Präteritum in German). Basically, these tenses are used according to their names. There is a conversational implicature (but no necessity) for past tense to indicate that an action has ended. Many further details about the use of these tenses are described in great length in every decent German grammar and will not be repeated here. All finite verbs are marked obligatorily as to tense, so with participle constructions tense is marked obligatorily on the finite light verb.

[10.38] German time reference is marked by optional adverbial expressions. Although syntactically optional, each sentence can be assumed to have such a time reference, either expressed explicitly or otherwise deducible from context. Such adverbial time is crucial for the current discussion, so I will give a slightly excessive summary of the different possibilities below. Time reference can be one of the following:

[10.39] Now, for the following discussion I will ignore the haben/sein Perfekt because it is exceptional in various ways. With that out of the way, the temporal structure of German participle construction is really very simple. Namely: everything goes, except:

(10.25) participle time/tense rules
a. if: non-past time, then: non-past tense.
b. if: past time, then: past tense.
c. if: gradual time, then not: result-orientation.

[10.40] The first two rules (10.25 a,b) are rather obvious (again, remember to ignore the haben/sein Perfekt for now), but they crucially work in one direction only. When there is some explicit point-time reference, then inflectional tense has to follow suit. However, for any of the other kinds of time reference (any of the “period” or “process” options), tense can be either Präsens or Präteritum with no restrictions.

[10.41] As an illustration, consider the following werden-passive examples. The sentences in (10.26 a) show the restrictions with point time, while (10.26 b) and (10.26 c) show the independence of period/process time and paste/non-past tense. Note that the independence of time and tense entails that both kinds of marking add some facet to the overall meaning of the sentence. So different choices of tense really mean something different.

(10.26) a. Die Scheune wird/*wurde morgen gebaut.
Die Scheune *wird/wurde vor drei Tage gebaut.
b. Sie wird/wurde dauernd verbessert.
Sie wird/wurde seitdem zerstört.
Sie wird/wurde bis jetzt nicht wieder repariert.
Sie wird/wurde den ganzen Tag dem Wetter überlassen.
c. Sie wird/wurde plötzlich neu errichtet.
Sie wird/wurde allmählich wieder wahrgenommen.
Sie wird/wurde jeden Tag bewundert.

[10.42] Returning now to the temporal structure of participle construction, a construction like the werden+Partizip passive above in (10.26) is a process-oriented construction because there are no further restrictions (except for the point-time/tense coupling). In contrast, the bleiben+Partizip construction as illustrated below in (10.27) is a result-oriented construction. The crucial difference is embodied by the restriction as stated above (10.25 c): gradual time reference (here allmählich ‘gradually’) is incompatible with a result-oriented construction, as illustrated below in (10.27 c).

(10.27) a. Der Eingang bleibt/*blieb morgen geöffnet.
Der Eingang *bleibt/blieb vor drei Tage geöffnet.
b. Er bleibt/blieb dauernd geöffnet
Er bleibt/blieb seitdem geöffnet.
Er bleibt/blieb bis jetzt geöffnet.
Er bleibt/blieb den ganzen Tag geöffnet.
c. Er bleibt/blieb plötzlich geschlossen.
*Er bleibt/blieb allmählich geschlossen.
Er bleibt/blieb jeden Tag geschlossen.

[10.43] This might look like a minor and somewhat random difference. Yet, although it is indeed minor, it surely is not random. I have specifically selected this minor difference because it can be used as an indicator to distinguish the two classes. It is a graduality test, so to speak. This test was inspired by a different usage of gradual time by Latzel (1977b: 180). The rationale behind this test is that with result-oriented constructions the action as described by the main verb is already finished at the start of the time reference. Being finished is incompatible with performing the action in a gradual way. In contrast, with process-oriented constructions the action starts at the specified time reference. Such an ongoing action can readily be combined with gradual time reference. As an aside, note that period-time reference is compatible with result-orientation (10.27 b) because the expressed period (e.g. seitdem ‘since’) refers to the period that the finished result is kept in place and not to the period leading up to the finished result.

[10.44] This graduality test has a minor issue with punctual verbs like treten ‘to kick’ or verwarnen ‘to reprimand’. The problem is that these actions are of a very short duration (hence “punctual”), so the start of the action practically coincides with the end of the action. Because it is rather hard to conceive of such a short action as gradual, adding a gradual time adverbial feels very artificial. The best solution I can offer for such verbs is to use the gradual adverbial in Zeitlupe ‘in slow motion’ to stretch out the perceived duration of the action. This is compatible with werden+Partizip (10.28 a) but not with bleiben+Partizip (10.28 b).

(10.28) a. Der Spieler wurde in Zeitlupe verwarnt.
b. * Der Spieler bleibt in Zeitlupe verwarnt.

[10.45] The process-oriented constructions, that are compatible with gradual time, are listed in (10.29). The result-oriented constructions, incompatible with gradual time, are listed in (10.30).

(10.29) process-oriented constructions
haben/sein perfect (Sec­tion 10.4)
kommen movement (Sec­tion 10.4.9)
werden passive (Sec­tion 10.5.15)
gehören passive (Sec­tion 10.5.18)
bekommen/kriegen passive (Sec­tion 10.5.21)
(er)scheinen/aussehen/wirken anticausative (Sec­tion 10.5.10)
geben/zeigen anticausative (Sec­tion 10.5.12)
wissen/glauben/sehen/finden novative (Sec­tion 10.6)
(10.30) result-oriented constructions
sein passive (Sec­tions 10.5.16-10.5.23)
haben passive (Sec­tion 10.5.22)
bleiben anticausative (Sec­tion 10.5.17)
halten continuative (Sec­tion 10.4.12)
lassen continuative (Sec­tion 10.4.11)

[10.46] Finally now, let me return to the haben+Partizip and sein+Partizip constructions. First, these constructions are used for various different kinds of passives: the Zustandspassiv (Sec­tion 10.5.16), the Erlebniskonversiv (Sec­tion 10.5.23) and the Pertinenzpassiv (Sec­tion 10.5.22). These passives follow the general time/tense rules for participle constructions as discussed above, and these passives are all result-oriented.

[10.47] In contrast, the haben/sein+Partizip Perfekt (see also the next Sec­tion 10.2.7) is process-oriented, because it is compatible with a gradual time specification like nach und nach ‘gradually’ (10.31 a). Additionally, the Perfekt has completely different time/tense rules from all other participle constructions. It cannot be used with future time reference (10.31 b), and tense marking is not correlated with time reference. As a result, the Perfekt can be used with a combination of past time and Präsens tense marking (10.31 c). This combination is otherwise completely unattested in German participle constructions, and it is thus reliable indicator of a Perfekt construction.

(10.31) a. Ich habe das Haus nach und nach gekauft.
b. * Ich habe das Haus morgen gekauft.
c. Ich habe das Haus gestern gekauft.

10.2.7 haben+Partizip and sein+Partizip as a unified construction

[10.48] The combination of the light verbs haben and sein with a participle is traditionally considered to be a single tense/aspect construction, called perfekt in the German grammatical terminology. Given the latinate origin of much of modern grammatical theory, the wish for a unified German equivalent of the inflectional Latin perfectum is perfectly understandable. However, it is far from obvious that this German Perfekt is a unified construction. It is mostly simply assumed “from tradition” that both haben+Partizip and sein+Partizip are a single construction. In this section I will present some arguments in favour of this analysis. The detailed discussion of the distrubution of haben vs. sein is presented in Sec­tion 10.4.1 and subsequent sections.

[10.49] The first argument in favour of a unified German Perfekt construction is that the light verbs haben and sein occur in almost complete complementary distribution. Only very few verbs are attested that allow for both. However, for this generalisation to work, various diatheses have to be excluded (see Sec­tions 10.4.3-10.4.4). Also the haben/sein+Partizip passives have to be separated (see Sec­tions 10.5.16, 10.5.22, 10.5.23).

[10.50] A second intriguing argument is that all German verbs have a Perfekt. In other words, every stem that allows for finite inflection also has at least one of the two constructions haben+Partizip or sein+Partizip without any role mapping (i.e. without diathesis). Such an universal applicability of a construction to all verbs is otherwise only attested (arguably) with Modalverben (see Sec­tion 11.4.9 and subsequent sections). This universal applicability of the Perfekt and the Modalverben is reflected in the widespread practice of the German grammatical tradition to consider the haben+Partizip, sein+Partizip and werden+In­fi­ni­tiv as part of the inflectional paradigm of a verb. In contrast, all the hundreds of other constructions discussed in this book always have a restricted domain of application, i.e. they do not apply to all verbs (cf. Sec­tion 1.3.4).

[10.51] The universal applicability of the Perfekt is known to have been developed in the late Middle Ages and was only completed in the 16th century with the development of a haben+Partizip construction for the Modalverben (Fischer 2020: 258). Fischer writes: “Ab 1300 und häufiger erst ab 1400 bildet auch das Verb haben Perfektformen (hat gehabt). Perfektbildungen der Modalverben sind erst ab Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts belegt, wobei diese im Mittelhochdeutschen noch verschiedene Konkurrenzformen haben […]. Erst dann hat die Perfektgrammatikalisierung alle Verben des Deutschen erfasst und ist vollständig vollzogen.” (Fischer 2020: 258) However, examples of a Perfekt with various Modalverben are still really rare in German. For example, only a few examples of haben gedurft are attested in the dwds corpus, almost exclusively with haben in the Konjunktiv. For example, the search “@gedurft haben” gives 60 hits in the Referenz- und Zeitungskorpora (available at https://www.dwds.de/d/korpora/public). Only three of those are not in the Konjunktiv, and one of those appears to be an error. Similarly, the search “haben #4 @gedurft” gives 64 hits with only 5 not in the Konjunktiv. All searcher were performed on 21 September 2022.

[10.52] There is a lot of fluidity in the temporal interpretation of the Perfekt, with much dialectal variation, ongoing change, and idiosyncratic diversity (Fischer 2020). Basically, the Perfekt in contemporary German is very close to the simple past (Präteritum) and seems to replace it in various contexts. Also, while this constructions is called Perfekt, it is clearly not marking a grammatical perfect aspect (see Sec­tion 10.2.6). Additionally, the temporal structure of the Perfekt is completely exceptional compared to all other participle constructions. First, it cannot be used with point-time reference to the future, e.g. morgen ‘tomorrow’ (10.32 a) and, second, any inflectional tense marking is independent from time reference. As a result, the Perfekt can be used with a combination of past time reference (e.g. gestern ‘yesterday’) and Präsens tense marking (10.32 b). These characteristics are otherwise completely unattested in German participle constructions, and it is thus reliable indicator of a Perfekt construction.

(10.32) a. * Ich habe das Haus morgen gekauft.
b. Ich habe das Haus gestern gekauft.

10.2.8 Different diatheses with the same light verb

[10.53] Many light-verb constructions with participles will be discussed in more than one subsection in this chapter. This is necessary because many light-verb constructions show different sentence alternations for verbs with different valency. Typically, participles of intransitive and participles of transitive verbs will lead to different alternations. For example, some intransitive verbs, like schlafen ‘to sleep’ (10.33 a), allow for an werden impersonal passive in which the nominative argument is dropped (see Sec­tion 10.5.1). In contrast, with many transitive verbs, like putzen ‘to clean’ (10.33 b), the werden passive shows a different diathesis in which the accusative is turned into a nominative (see Sec­tion 10.5.15).

(10.33) a. Das Kind schläft.
Jetzt wird geschlafen.
b. Irgendjemand putzt das Haus.
Das Haus wird geputzt.

[10.54] There are many different such “repeated” light-verb constructions. A recurring phenomenon, exemplified here with the light-verb construction with bleiben, is one in which intransitives show no diathesis (10.34 a), see Sec­tion 10.4.10, while transitives display an anticausative diathesis (10.34 b), see Sec­tion 10.5.17. This combination will be called absolutive here, calling on the “ergative/absolutive” terminology as used in linguistic typology. This affinity of intransitive subjects to transitive objects is also reminiscent of the unaccusative hypothesis discussed previously, which proposes that some intransitive subjects are underlyingly objects. However, these absolutive phenomena are not uniform in German grammar. Exactly which verbs are amenable for which constructions appears to be rather unpredictable (or maybe better: “lexically dependent”), and the survey in this chapter is proposed to be a step towards a more precise understanding the such constructional distributions.

(10.34) a. Der Schlüssel verschwindet.
Der Schlüssel bleibt verschwunden.
b. Irgendjemand schließt den Schrank.
Der Schrank bleibt geschlossen.

[10.55] A recurrent topic of debate in German grammar is the question whether the different constructions with the auxiliary sein should be considered to be a single construction or not (cf. Thieroff 2007 for a summary of the debate). I will here distinguish four different constructions with sein that are all in complementary distribution (i.e. a specific predicate can only occur in one of these):

  1. the sein-Perfekt (10.35 a) with some intransitives like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’, see Sec­tion 10.4.2,
  2. the sein-Zustandspassiv (10.35 b) with some transitives like waschen ‘to wash’, see Sec­tion 10.5.16,
  3. the sein-Erlebniskonversiv (10.35 c) with a restricted set of experiencer transitives like erstaunen ‘to astonish’, see Sec­tion 10.5.23 and
  4. sein adjectival predication, like with wach ‘awake’ (10.35 d), see Sec­tion 10.2.9.

[10.56] Because these constructions are in complementary distribution, I see no objection to consider them as one construction. However, there are also obvious differences, so splitting them up is likewise sensible. Whether one of these points of view is better than the other seems like a moot question to me. Both perspectives are useful.

(10.35) a. Der Junge schläft ein.
Der Junge ist eingeschlafen.
b. Irgendjemand wäscht den Jungen.
Der Junge ist gewaschen.
c. Die Strafe erstaunt den Jungen.
Der Junge ist erstaunt (über die Strafe).
d. Der wache Junge läuft.
Der Junge ist wach.

[10.57] Similarly, with opiniative light verbs wissen, glauben, sehen and finden there exist different diatheses depending on the valency of the main verb. These different constructions are clearly related, and I tend to consider them all to be special cases of the same underlying construction. First, intransitives like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ (10.36 a) obtain a new role as subject (the opinionator), see Sec­tion 10.6.1. Second, transitive verbs like aufheben ‘to preserve’ (10.36 b) are passivised before the opinionator is added as subject Sec­tion 10.6.5.

(10.36) a. Der Junge schläft ein.
Der Großvater wusste den Jungen eingeschlafen.
b. Das Archiv hebt den Nachlass auf.
Der Großvater wusste den Nachlass im Archiv gut aufgehoben.

[10.58] In contrast to the previous examples, the separation between structurally similar constructions becomes critical when there is no complementary distribution, but possible ambiguity. For example, there are two clearly different constructions of haben with a participle, and some verbs can occur in both constructions, leading to possibly ambiguous sentences, exemplified here with schneiden ‘to cut’. First, there is the haben-Perfekt (10.37 a), see Sec­tion 10.4 and second the haben-Pertinenzdativ (10.37 b), see Sec­tion 10.5.22. There is a crucial difference here in who is doing the cutting, as disambiguated by the words in brackets.

(10.37) a. Der Friseur hat (mir) die Haare geschnitten.
b. Der Friseur hat die Haare geschnitten (bekommen).

[10.59] An exceedingly complex situation occurs with the light verb machen, which induces many different diatheses depending on the main verb. Fehrmann (2018) extensively describes machen constructions with adjectives, but he seems to have completely ignored the complex situation with participles. There appear to be at least the following five different possibilities:

  1. No diathesis, leading to a resultative/stative interpretation
    For example (10.38 a), see Sec­tion 10.4.16.
  2. A conciliative diathesis
    For example (10.38 b), see Sec­tion 10.5.25.
  3. A passive diathesis with an additional reflexive pronoun
    For example (10.38 c), see Sec­tion 10.5.19.
  4. An inverted passive diathesis with an additional reflexive pronoun
    For example (10.38 d), see Sec­tion 10.6.9.
  5. A subject switch, i.e. a commutative diathesis
    For example (10.38 e), see Sec­tion 10.9.2.
(10.38) a. Der Verlust betrifft mich.
Der Verlust macht mich betroffen.
b. Ich begehre den Job wegen der Bezahlung.
Die Bezahlung macht den Job begehrt.
c. Die Polizei verdächtigt ihn.
Er macht sich bei der Polizei verdächtigt.
d. Ich eigne mich durch meine Qualifikation für den Job.
Die Qualifikation macht mich geeignet für den Job.
e. Er vergisst den Verlust.
Ich mache den Verlust (bei ihm) vergessen.

10.2.9 Adjectives in light-verb constructions

[10.60] Because of the similarity between participles and adjectives, it is instructive to turn the tables and investigate light-verb constructions with predicatively used adjectives like schmutzig ‘dirty’ or offen ‘open’. Most light verbs are used identically with adjective and participle constructions, but there are few interesting differences.

[10.61] The verbs sein, werden, bleiben, known as kopulaverben in German grammar (e.g. Duden-Grammatik 2009: 416), can be used both with participles and adjectives (10.39). Note that this parallelism implies that werden+Adjektiv is similar to a passive. The werden construction with adjectives (10.39 c) might appear to be more of a werden+In­fi­ni­tiv future (see Sec­tion 11.4.9) than a werden+Partizip passive (see Sec­tion 10.5.15). However, this is not the case. For example, the nominative subject in (10.39 c) is not an agent.

(10.39) a. Mein Fahrrad ist schmutzig.
b. Mein Fahrrad bleibt schmutzig.
c. Mein Fahrrad wird schmutzig.

[10.62] The appearance verbs wirken, (er)scheinen and aussehen likewise can be used both with participles (see Sec­tions 10.5.10-10.5.11) and adjectives (10.40) with no apparent differences between the two.

(10.40) a. Mein Fahrrad wirkt schmutzig.
b. Mein Fahrrad scheint schmutzig.
c. Mein Fahrrad erscheint schmutzig.
d. Mein Fahrrad sieht schmutzig aus.

[10.63] The light verb geben (with obligatory reflexive pronoun) can be used with participles (see Sec­tion 10.5.12) and adjectives (10.41) without any apparent differences.

(10.41) a. Er ist weltoffen.
b. Er gibt sich weltoffen.

[10.64] The light verbs machen, lassen, halten and finden are both used with adjectives and participles. With adjectives they all induce a novative alternation, i.e. a new subject role is added (see Sec­tion 2.7.3.2). However, with participles they lead to different kinds of diatheses.

  1. The light verb finden adds an opinionator, both with adjectives and participles (see Sec­tion 10.6.4).
  2. The subject of the light verb lassen has a permissive meaning with adjectives (10.42 b), but an additional continuative meaning with participles (see Sec­tion 10.4.11).
  3. Similarly, the subject of halten has a causative meaning with adjectives (10.42 c) but like lassen it has an added continuative meaning when combined with participles (see Sec­tion 10.4.12).
  4. Finally, machen has many different uses with adjectives (Fehrmann 2018: 218), among them a causative reading (10.42 d). With participles, machen likewise induces various different kinds of constructions, which need a similarly in-depth study as Fehrmann’s study of adjectives (see paragraph 10.59).
(10.42) a. Ich finde mein Fahrrad schmutzig.
Ich finde das Projekt gescheitert.
b. Ich lasse die Tür offen.
Ich lasse die Tür geschlossen.
c. Ich halte den Kaffee warm.
Ich halte die Tür geschlossen.
d. Ich mache mein Fahrrad schmutzig.
Der Verlust macht mich betroffen.

[10.65] The combination of haben with predicative adjectives (10.43) does not show any relationship to the haben+Partizip perfect, see Sec­tion 10.4.1. However, it is possible to draw a connection to the other haben+Partizip construction, namely the dative passive (10.43 b), see Sec­tion 10.5.22. In both constructions the new subject is an experiencer, who is also the possessor of the object (Rechnung, Haare).

(10.43) a. Sie hat noch eine Rechnung offen.
(= Ihre Rechnung ist noch offen.)
b. Sie hat die Haare geschnitten.
(= Ihre Haare sind geschnitten.)

[10.66] Finally, the light verbs gehören, sehen, wissen and glauben can be combined with participles, but they do not seem to occur with predicative adjectives.

10.3 Deponent verbs

[10.67] Most participles are regularly derived from verb stems that also have finite inflection. However, there are various participles that are not directly related to a finite verb, but that still occur in light-verb constructions. Such a participle is sometimes called a Scheinpartizip in German (cf. Haig 2005). However, this name is somewhat of a misnomer as there is nothing ‘apparent’ (schein) about these participles. In contrast, it is the finite verb that is missing. A name like Scheinverbpartizip ‘participle of an apparent verb’ would be more accurate, but of course rather cumbersome. In this section, I will discuss the following kinds of participles without finite counterpart (cf. Rapp 1997: 220ff.; Haig 2005):

10.3.1 Idiomatic meaning of participles

[10.68] Some participles have obtained a specialised idiomatic meaning, different from the finite use of the verb. For example verwenden ‘to plead for’ with participle verwandt (10.44 a) has given rise to a completely separate participle verwandt ‘to be related’ (10.44 b). Unrelated, there is also a separate verb verwenden meaning ‘to utilise’ with a different participle verwendet. Similarly idiomatic are the participles verrückt ‘crazy’ from verrücken ‘to relocate’ (10.45 a), verklemmt ‘prudish’ from verklemmen ‘to get jammed’ (10.45 b) and abgestanden ‘flat, stale’ from abstehen ‘to stand out’ (10.45 c). The extreme consequence of such an idiomatic meaning of a participle would be a participle without any finite corresponding verb, which could arise when the original verb is lost. I have not been able to find any convincing examples of this in contemporary German.

(10.44) a. Er hat sich sehr für die Einrichtung eines Spielplatzes verwandt.
b. Wir sind verwandt.
(10.45) a. Er ist verrückt.
b. Er ist verklemmt.
c. Das Bier ist abgestanden.

[10.69] The verb regnen ‘to rain’ is of course a completely normal finite verb in German, typically used with a non-phoric pronoun es (10.46 a). However, there is a special usage of this verb with an animate subject and an obligatory manner adverbial (cf. Sec­tion 9.3.1) that can be used as a participle geregnet (10.46 b), but not as a finite verb (10.46 c). This special usage could be a participle derived from the noun Regen ‘rain’ instead, as discussed in Sec­tion 10.3.3 below.

(10.46) a. Es regnet.
b. Ich bin nass geregnet.
c. * Ich regne nass.

[10.70] The participle bekannt ‘well-known’ appears to be morphologically derived from bekennen ‘to confess’, although the meaning of the participle is related to kennen ‘to know’, which has a participle gekannt. Such examples are discussed in Sec­tion 10.3.4 below.

(10.47) a. Jeder kennt den Schauspieler.
b. Der Schauspieler ist bekannt/*gekannt.

Attested verbs

Notes

[10.71] Eisenberg (2006b: 201) also mentions entsetzt ‘appalled’ as an idiomatic participle, but the verb entsetzen ‘to appall’ seems to be perfectly possible as a finite verb (10.48 a). The intended meaning from Eisenberg is then simply the anticausative Zustandspassiv (10.48 b). Likewise, the dwds mentions verfroren as an idiomatic participle, Attested at https://www.dwds.de/wb/verfroren, accessed 21 September 2022. but the verb verfrieren ‘to freeze’ is attested, though rare (10.48 c,d).

(10.48) a. Der Anblick entsetzt ihn. Der Anblick hat ihn entsetzt.
b. Er ist entsetzt.
c. Bei Wind verfrieren die Wangen in kürzester Zeit. dwds: Die Zeit, 10.01.1997, Nr. 03.
d. Meine Wangen sind verfroren.

10.3.2 Deponent participles from loanwords

[10.72] There are some participles ending in ‑iert that do not have any finite counterparts. These are build using a widespread German suffix ‑ier to turn loanwords into German verbs, like with montieren ‘to assemble’. This verb clearly has finite and non-finite forms, among them a participle montiert. This participle has no prefix ge‑ because of the general German rule that verbs with non-initial stress do not get a prefix (Wiese 1996: 92). With these loan verbs, the suffix ‑ier is always stressed, so there is never any prefix.

[10.73] However, there are various participle-like forms ending in ‑iert that do not appear to be have finite forms, like alkoholisiert ‘to be full of alcohol’ (Haig 2005: 117). Although many German dictionaries mention this verb, including sometimes listing finite forms, I have been unable to find any finite example of this verb. Only the infinitive alkoholisieren and the participle alkoholisiert are attested. It is unclear to me whether the finite forms have simply been lost, or whether they have never existed at all.

Attested verbs

10.3.3 Deponent participles from nouns

[10.74] There exist various German words that are clearly participles in form, but their stems are nouns and not finite verbs (cf. Haig 2005: 119). This might look like conversion, but it is not. The wholesale (zero-marked) conversion of nouns into finite verbs is clearly attested in German (e.g. ölen ‘to apply oil’ from the noun Öl, ‘oil’), but this is far from as productive as in English.

[10.75] In contrast, the participles that are of interest here do not exist as finite verbs, i.e. there are no German verbs blumen ‘to put flowers on something’ or flügeln ‘to put wings on something, but the participles geblümt ’flowered’ (from noun Blume ‘flower’) and geflügelt ‘winged’ (from noun Flügel ‘wing’) are perfectly possible. Semantically, the noun-based participles express a kind of possessive relationship “subject exists with noun”. For example, geblümt means ‘to exist with flowers applied to it’.

[10.76] Further, various participles are derived from nouns using verb prefixes be‑ and ver-. As discussed earlier, it is a relatively widespread phenomenon for finite verbs to be derived from nominal stems using these prefixes (see Sec­tion 8.2.3). For example, the verb vergiften ‘to poison’ is derived from the noun Gift ‘poison’ without any verb like giften in between (10.49 a,b). As a consequence, the participle vergiftet also exist (10.49 c).

(10.49) a. * Sie giftet ihn.
b. Sie vergiftet ihn.
c. Er ist vergiftet.

[10.77] Differently, the participle verhasst ‘hated’ appears to be derived from the noun Hass ‘hate’, but actually both are derived from the verb hassen ‘to hate’ (10.51 a). However, the verb verhassen cannot be used as a finite verb (10.51 b), only as a participle (10.51 c). These examples are discussed in Sec­tion 10.3.4 below.

(10.50) a. Sie hasst ihn.
b. * Sie verhasst ihn.
c. Er ist verhasst.

Attested verbs

Notes

[10.78] The finite verb zacken ‘to produce indentation’ is also attested, though rare (10.51 a), so gezackt might not be a good example of a participle without finite usage. In contrast, the verb schweifen ‘to ramble’ exists (10.51 b), but is semantically not directly related to the participle geschweift ‘curled’. Both seem independently derived from the noun Schweif ‘bushy tail’. The same holds for the participle gestreift ‘striped’ and the verb streifen ‘to roam, to streak’, which are probably both independently related to the noun Streifen ‘strip, band’.

(10.51) a. Die Streifen zackten sich über Schuhe, Bänke, Tische, Mäntel, Bettgitter. dwds: Fichte, Hubert: Das Waisenhaus, Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl. 1988 [1965], S. 139.
b. Man schweifte wie auf einem riesigen Schuttplatz jenseits der Ränder der bekannten Welt. dwds: Jünger, Ernst: In Stahlgewittern, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta 1994 [1920], S. 110.

[10.79] The participle gelaunt (from noun Laune ‘mood’) needs a manner adverbial (cf. Sec­tion 9.3.1).

(10.52) a. Ich bin gut gelaunt.
b. * Ich laune gut.

10.3.4 Deponent participles with preverbs

[10.80] Words like einverstanden ‘agreed’ (10.53 a) look morphologically like a regular participle from a verb einverstehen. However, that verb does not exist (10.53 b), only the non-prefixed verb verstehen exists. Latzel (1977b: 79–80) discussed various examples with the preverb aus‑ and Rothstein (2007a: 162) lists examples with the preverb an‑ that only occur in construction with light verb kommen (see Sec­tion 10.4.9). Participles with preverbs that do not have a corresponding finite verb appear to be a common phenomenon and the participles listed here should only to be taken as illustrative examples.

(10.53) a. Ich bin einverstanden.
b. * Ich verstehe ein.

Attested verbs

10.4 Alternations without diathesis

10.4.1 [ N | N ] haben+Partizip Intransitive perfect

[10.81] Many intransitive verbs have a perfect with the auxiliary haben, like lachen ‘to laugh’ (10.54 a). Typically, the participle of such verbs cannot be used adnominally (10.54 b), see Sec­tion 10.2.4, but the impersonal werden passive is possible (10.54 c), see Sec­tion 10.5.1.

(10.54) a. Die Schüler lachen.
Die Schüler haben gelacht.
b. * Die gelachte Schüler sind froh.
c. Heute wurde viel gelacht.

[10.82] Although verbs with a haben perfect are often though of as “agentive” verbs, there are many semantically non-agentive verbs, for example describing bodily processes (like bluten ‘to bleed’) or bodily sensations (like jucken ‘to itch’) that also take haben in the perfect.

Attested verbs

10.4.2 [ N | N ] sein+Partizip Intransitive perfect

[10.83] A large group of intransitive verbs only allow for a perfect with the auxiliary sein, like flüchten ‘to flee’ (10.55 a). In contrast to the intransitives with haben, the verbs with sein allow for an adnominal usage of the participle (10.55 b), but do not (easily) allow for an impersonal passive (10.55 c). There appear to be only a restricted set of monomorphemic verbs with a sein perfect, but a much larger number of such verbs with preverbs (cf. Sec­tion 8.4.4).

(10.55) a. Der Gefangene flüchtet.
Der Gefangene ist geflüchtet.
b. Der geflüchtete Gefangene wurde wieder gefasst.
c. ? Heute wird geflüchtet.

[10.84] There is a strong semantic tendency for the nominative subject of intransitives with sein to be more like a patient. Many of the verbs describe actions that are not performed deliberately, but more or less happen to the subject (e.g. sterben ‘to die’, fallen ‘to fall’ or scheitern ‘to fail’). However, there are also many verbs that do not fit into this semantic characterisation (e.g. flüchten ‘to flee’, gehen ‘to go’ or abreisen ‘to depart’). Note that the characterisation “change-of-location/state” verbs (Keller & Sorace 2003: 65) likewise does not fit to describe the semantics of the verbs as listed below.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.4.3 [ N | N ] haben/sein+Partizip Intransitive perfect

[10.85] There is a surprisingly large group of intransitive verbs that allow for both a haben and a sein perfect. However, most turn out to be the result of some diathesis productively applied to these verb. Besides those productive diatheses there is only a very small group of intransitive verbs that alternate between haben and sein. In this section I have collected all those different kinds of intransitive verbs that allow for both auxiliaries (see also Hinze & Köpcke 2007; Gillmann 2016: Ch. 5). Additionally, the next Sec­tion 10.4.4 discusses verbs that allow for an intransitive haben perfect with a reflexive pronoun and an intransitive sein perfect without a reflexive pronoun.

[10.86] The main group of intransitive verbs that are attested with both haben and sein (without the involvement of a diathesis) are verbs that describe a natural process, like splittern ‘to splinter’ (10.56 a) or faulen ‘to rot’ (10.56 b). These verbs can both be used to describe the process (with a haben perfect) and the result of this process (taking a sein perfect), though these semantic differences are very faint. Curiously, almost all verbs that show this phenomenon also have as ver/zer‑ prefixed variant with minimal semantic change (cf. Sec­tion 8.4.4). These prefixed variants, e.g. zersplittern, verfaulen, verrosten, consistently take sein in the perfect.

(10.56) a. Das Holz war nicht brauchbar, es hat zu sehr gesplittert. Attested online at the dwds dictionary at https://www.dwds.de/wb/splittern, accessed 21 September 2022.
Die Fensterscheibe ist in tausend Scherben gesplittert. Attested online at the dwds dictionary at https://www.dwds.de/wb/splittern, accessed 21 September 2022.
b. Blut und Fleischinfus, das längere Zeit gefault hat, scheint weniger schädlich zu wirken. dwds: Koch, Robert: Untersuchung über die Aetiologie der Wundinfectionskrankheiten. Leipzig, 1878.
Und wir haben gehungert, so gehungert, daß mir das Fleisch am Leibe gefault ist. dwds: Die Zeit, 30.09.1988, Nr. 40.

[10.87] The faint semantic difference indicates that the sein perfect with these verbs is closely related to the sein passive, which also is used to express a result (cf. Sec­tion 10.5.16). And indeed, the graduality test also seems to apply (cf. Sec­tion 10.2.6), namely the sein+Partizip construction is incompatible with a gradual time specification like langsam ‘slowly’, as illustrated with rosten ‘to rust’ in (10.57).

(10.57) a. Die Fässer hätten viel zu lange nahezu unbeobachtet vor sich hin gerostet. dwds: Die Zeit, 09.02.2015 (online).
b. Die Fässer sind mittlerweile so stark gerostet, daß Giftdämpfe entweichen. dwds: Die Zeit, 03.06.1988, Nr. 23.
c. Die Fässer haben langsam gerostet.
d. * Die Fässer sind langsam gerostet.

[10.88] A similar situation is attested with a few incidental verbs describing mental states, like verzweifeln ‘to despair’. Interpreted as a state, this verb takes a sein perfect (10.58 a). However, when interpreted as a process leading to this state, this verb takes a haben perfect (10.58 b).

(10.58) a. Sie ist ganz verzweifelt.
b. Und ich steh hier am teuflischen 17. Loch, wo so viele verzweifelt haben. dwds: Die Zeit, 04.01.2001, Nr. 02.

[10.89] Other than these, all examples of intransitive verbs with both a haben and a sein perfect exist because of a diathesis that is productively applied to these verbs. There are two diatheses involved, namely the manner-of-movement diathesis (Sec­tion 6.8.1) and the unmarked anticausative diathesis (Sec­tion 5.5.5). These two phenomena will briefly be summarised here.

[10.90] First, and most famously, both haben and sein perfects are attested with movement verbs. This is mainly due to the manner-of-movement diathesis (see Sec­tion 6.8.1). There also seems to be some dialectal and idiolectal variation as to the choice of haben vs. sein with movement verbs. This needs more in-depth investigation. For example, a verb like wackeln ‘to shake, to wiggle’ can be used as a verb performing the action, and then it takes a haben perfect (10.59 a). Alternatively, it can be used to describe a manner of motion to reach a new position, and then it takes a sein perfect (10.59 b). Various semantic and syntactic phenomena go along with this diathesis, as described in detail in Sec­tion 6.8.1.

(10.59) a. Er wackelt mit dem Schwanz.
Er hat mit dem Schwanz gewackelt.
b. Er wackelt durch den Garten.
Er ist durch den Garten gewackelt.

[10.91] A similar phenomenon can be observed with some weather verbs, like stürmen ‘to storm’ (see Sec­tion 6.8.2). When used as a description of a type of weather it takes a haben perfect (10.60 a). However, when used (metaphorically) as a manner-of-movement description it takes a sein perfect (10.60 b).

(10.60) a. Es stürmt.
Es hat gestürmt.
b. Sie stürmen in den Saal.
Sie sind in den Saal gestürmt.

[10.92] Second, anticausative verbs like kochen ‘to cook’ (see Sec­tion 5.5.5) allow for both an intransitive sein passive of the transitive kochen (10.61 a) and a haben perfect of the intransitive kochen (10.61 b). In effect, this results in verbs with two intransitive constructions, one with haben+Partizip and one with sein+Partizip. However, the sein+Partizip construction is actually a Zustandspassiv in such examples, with all semantic and syntactic characteristics that go along with that (see Sec­tion 10.5.16).

(10.61) a. Die Oma kocht eine Suppe.
Die Oma hat eine Suppe gekocht.
Die Suppe ist gekocht.
b. Die Suppe kocht.
Die Suppe hat gekocht.

[10.93] A similar diathesis is attested with some of the anticausative verbs with obligatory location like kleben ‘to stick to’ (10.62), see Sec­tion 6.5.10.

(10.62) a. Ich klebe den Teller an den Tisch.
Ich habe den Teller an den Tisch geklebt.
Der Teller ist am Tisch geklebt.
b. Der Teller klebt am Tisch.
Der Teller hat am Tisch geklebt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[10.94] Intransitive altern with haben+Partizip is not in current use anymore (10.63 a). The verb dorren is typically listed as having only a sein perfect, but note examples like (10.63 b) with haben.

(10.63) a. Sie fand, daß er in der letzten Zeit stark gealtert hatte. dwds: Die Grenzboten. Jg. 70, 1911, Viertes Vierteljahr.
b. Denn der eigentliche Zauber einer Oase erschließt sich nur demjenigen, der zuvor einige Stunden in der Sonne gedorrt hat. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 19.04.1997.

10.4.4 [ N | N ] haben/sein+Partizip Reflexive intransitive perfect

[10.95] There is a further group of verbs that occur both with an intransitive haben+Partizip and with an intransitive sein+Partizip construction, but with a special twist. These verbs also have a reflexive pronoun in the haben construction, like with sich verspäten ‘to be late’ (10.64). With such verbs it looks like there are two different intransitive perfects, one with haben and a reflexive pronoun (10.64 a) and one with sein without a reflexive pronoun (10.64 b). However, this last construction is probably best analysed as a special kind of Zustandspassiv (see Sec­tion 10.5.16).

(10.64) a. Der Zug hat sich verspätet.
b. Der Zug ist verspätet.

[10.96] There is a difference in the temporal interpretation of the two participle constructions (cf. Sec­tion 10.2.6). The haben construction is process-oriented and has no temporal restrictions (10.65 a). In contrast, the sein construction is result-oriented and cannot be combined with gradual time specification, like schrittweise ‘gradually’ (10.65 b). So, to be clear, the verbs in this section do not have two different perfects. There only is a single reflexive Perfekt with haben. The non-reflexive construction with sein is a Zustandspassiv. The interesting aspects of the verbs in this section is that both these options occur in the intransitive.

(10.65) a. Der Zug hat sich schrittweise immer mehr verspätet.
b. * Der Zug ist schrittweise immer mehr verspätet.

[10.97] This phenomenon is found with many verbs with an obligatory reflexive pronoun (see Sec­tion 7.3.1 ff.), like the previous example sich verspäten. A similar situation arises with reflexive anticausative verbs like schließen ‘to close’ (see Sec­tion 7.5.2). Such verbs occur in transitive constructions, which allow for an intransitive Zustandspassiv with sein (10.66 a). Alternatively, such verbs have an intransitive usage with a reflexive pronoun with a haben perfect (10.66 b). In effect, there are two different intransitive participle constructions, one with haben and a reflexive pronoun (10.66 b) and one with sein without a reflexive pronoun (10.66 a). Again, gradual time (schrittweise) is not possible with sein+Partizip. Note that gradual time is possible with the addition of worden, but that is a completely different construction (see Sec­tion 10.5.16 for a discussion of the difference).

(10.66) a. Ich schließe den Schrank.
Der Schrank ist (*schrittweise) geschlossen.
b. Der Schrank schließt sich.
Der Schrank hat sich (schrittweise) geschlossen

[10.98] A similar situation also occurs with many (though not all) endoreflexive verbs (cf. Sec­tion 7.7.1) like entblößen ‘to undress’ (10.67 a), resulting in both an intransitive reflexive haben perfect (10.67 b) and an intransitive non-reflexive sein construction (10.67 c). The sein construction is not compatible with gradual time specification, so it is similar to a Zustandspassiv.

(10.67) a. Der Patient entblößt den Oberkörper.
Der Patient entblößt sich.
b. Der Patient hat sich (allmählich) entblößt.
c. Der Patient ist (*allmählich) entblößt.

[10.99] Likewise, some verbs allow for both a reflexive conversive (Reflexiv Erlebniskonversiv, see Sec­tion 7.5.6) and also a sein+Partizip passive (Zustandspassiv, see Sec­tion 10.5.16). When both are possible, then such verbs have both a sein and a haben intransitive construction. For example aufregen ‘to upset’ is such a verb (10.68 a). This verb allows for a conversive diathesis with a reflexive pronoun, which in turn takes a haben perfect (10.68 b). However, there is also a sein passive without reflexive pronoun (10.68 c), which is best analysed as the Zustandspassiv of the original transitive construction (10.68 a) because it does not allow for gradual time.

(10.68) a. Der Lärm regt ihn auf.
Der Lärm hat ihn aufgeregt.
b. Er regt sich auf (über den Lärm).
Er hat sich aufgeregt (über den Lärm).
c. Er ist (*schrittweise) aufgeregt (wegen des Lärms).

[10.100] The verbs below are repeated from the previous sections in which the various phenomena are discussed in detail. However, only those verb are listed here that actually allow for both the intransitive haben reflexive participle construction and the intransitive sein participle construction. It remains an interested topic for more research why not all verbs from the relevant sections allow for both.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.4.5 [ ND | ND ] haben+Partizip Dative perfect

[10.101] Verbs with a dative argument are strictly split between sein and haben. There do not appear to be any verbs that allow for both. The grammatical status of the datives is slightly different among these verbs (see Sec­tions 5.3.5, 5.7.4, 6.7.10, 8.8.13 for detailed discussion). Similar to intransitives, the dative verbs with a haben perfect, like antworten ‘to answer’ (10.69 a), do not allow for a construction with an adnominal participle (10.69 b), but the impersonal werden passive is possible (10.69 c).

(10.69) a. Die Professorin hat dem Studenten geantwortet.
b. * Der geantwortete Student ist zufrieden.
c. Heute wird dem Studenten geantwortet.

Attested verbs

10.4.6 [ ND | ND ] sein+Partizip Dative perfect

[10.102] Similar to intransitives, the dative-verbs with a sein+Partizip perfekt, like gelingen ‘to succeed’ (10.70 a), all appear to allow for a construction with an adnominal participle (10.70 b), while the impersonal werden passive is not possible (10.70 c). Among these verbs, there are very many with the ent‑ prefix. Other than that special group, there does not appear to be any obvious semantic differentiation between the nominative+dative verbs that take sein+Partizip vs. those that take haben+Partizip (as discussed in the previous section).

(10.70) a. Das Gemälde ist mir gelungen.
b. Das gelungene Gemälde ist schön.
c. * Heute wird mir gelungen.

Attested verbs

Notes

[10.103] The verb folgen ‘to follow’ typically takes sein, but there are incidental instances of haben (10.71 a) connected to a slightly different meaning ‘to obey’ (10.71 b). This usage seems to be old-fashioned. Similarly, the verb begegnen ‘to meet’ typically takes sein, but haben is attested (10.71 c).

(10.71) a. […] wenn China und Nordkorea den Empfehlungen der Kommission gefolgt hätte. dwds: Archiv der Gegenwart, 2001 [1953]. Note the error in the verb agreement, which is like this in the original.
b. [Sie] hätten nur Befehlen gefolgt. dwds: Die Zeit, 27.10.2017 (online).
c. Er nannte Beispiele, wie er während seiner Präsidentschaft Notständen begegnen mußte und begegnet habe. dwds: Archiv der Gegenwart, 2001 [1952].

10.4.7 [ NP | NP ] sein+Partizip Governed preposition perfect

[10.104] Almost all verbs with governed prepositions take a haben perfect, and these will not be separately listed here. Only a small group take a sein+Partizip perfect, for example scheitern an ‘to fail’ (10.72 a). Only very few examples of obligatory local prepositions belong in this category, like einziehen ‘enter’ (10.72 b).

(10.72) a. Ich scheitere an der Aufgabe.
Ich bin an der Aufgabe gescheitert.
b. Die Sportler zogen in das Stadion ein.
Die Sportler sind in das Stadion eingezogen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.4.8 [ NA | NA ] sein+Partizip Transitive perfect

[10.105] Almost all transitive (nominative+accusative) verbs take a haben perfect, and these will not be separately listed here. There is only a small group of transitive verbs that use sein in the perfect, like angehen ‘to tackle’ or loswerden ‘to get rid of’ (cf. Grewendorf 1989: 9; Strobel 2008: 102, 107ff.).

(10.73) a. Ich bin die Prüfung ruhig angegangen.
b. Ich bin den Verfolger losgeworden.

[10.106] Movement verbs with the separable preverbs ab‑ (in the meaning ‘along’) and durch‑ (with the meaning ‘through’) appear to be quite productive in producing transitive verbs with a sein Perfect. For example, a verb like abkriechen ‘to crawl along’ does not appear in regular German lexical resources, but can productively be created and seems to take quite naturally a perfect with sein (10.74 a). Similarly, the somewhat more widespread verb durchkriechen ‘to crawl through’ also takes sein in the perfect (10.74 b).

(10.74) a. Ich bin dann mit dem Messgerät auch nochmal das gesamte Fahrzeug abgekrochen. Attested online at https://www.wohnmobilforum.de/w-t88559,start,45.html, accessed 23 April 2021.
b. Sobald man das Loch durchgekrochen ist, hat man einen grandiosen Blick auf das schöne Gletscherpanorama. Attested online at https://sac-saas.ch/24-02-2020-hangende-gletscher/, accessed 23 April 2021.

[10.107] Likewise, directional preverbials (see Sec­tion 9.2.5) quite productively turn movement verbs into transitive verbs with a sein+Partizip perfect. This is particularly frequent with vertical movement, for example with hoch-, e.g. hochkriechen ‘to crawl up’ (10.75 a), and with hin/her-, e.g. hinunterrennen ‘to run down’ (10.75 b) and hinaufgehen ‘to walk up’ (10.75 c).

(10.75) a. Deinen Hals ist es hochgekrochen. dwds: Die Zeit, 12.02.2013, Nr. 6.
b. Der Kleine war aufgestanden und die Stiege hinuntergerannt. dwds: Die Zeit, 07.04.2004, Nr. 16.
c. Schließlich waren sie einen Hügel hinaufgegangen ins Iglu-Dorf. dwds: Die Zeit, 15.10.2009, Nr. 43.

[10.108] Finally, the verb laufen allows for both sein and haben in the intransitive (see Sec­tion 10.4.3), while also allowing for an added-result accusative (see Sec­tion 5.8.1). Because of this combination, both haben and sein appear possible in transitive constructions (10.76 a). The same is also attested with springen ‘to jump’ (10.76 b).

(10.76) a. Ich habe den Marathon gelaufen.
Ich bin den Marathon gelaufen.
b. Ich habe einen Salto gesprungen.
Daß ich den Weltrekord nicht gesprungen bin, ist nicht so schlimm. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 26.01.1998.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.4.9 [ N | N ] kommen+(an-)+Partizip Movement towards

[10.109] The kommen+Partizip construction (10.77) is used to convey that the subject is approaching while performing a specific kind of movement. It is very similar to a main verb kommen ‘to come’ with a secondary adverbial predicate (10.78). Rothstein (2007a; 2011) observed various structural differences between these constructions (see also the general discussion about participles as secondary predicates in Sec­tion 10.2.3). The kommen+Partizip construction, like with hüpfen ‘to hop’, can be identified by the impossibility of adding the negating un‑ prefix to the participle (10.77 b) and by the clause-final position of the participle (10.77 c,d). With secondary predicates like verkleidet ‘dressed up’ these syntactic characteristics are reversed (10.78 b-d).

(10.77) a. Er kommt gehüpft.
b. * Er kommt ungehüpft.
c. Er kommt aus seinem Zimmer gehüpft.
d. * Er kommt gehüpft aus seinem Zimmer.
(10.78) a. Er kommt verkleidet.
b. Er kommt unverkleidet.
c. * Er kommt aus seinem Zimmer verkleidet.
d. Er kommt verkleidet aus seinem Zimmer.

[10.110] Rothstein also observes that these two different kinds of participles cannot be conjoined. A secondary predicate like verkleidet can be conjoined with adverbials like froh or springend (10.79 a). In contrast, this is not possible with gehüpft (10.79 b). Likewise verkleidet and gehüpft cannot be conjoined in a kommen+Partizip construction (10.79 c).

(10.79) a. Er kommt froh, springend und verkleidet.
b. * Er kommt froh, springend und gehüpft.
c. * Er kommt verkleidet und gehüpft.

[10.111] The kommen+Partizip construction is typically attested with intransitive verbs of movement, like hüpfen. However, there are also examples of movement verbs with additional accusative (10.80 a) or dative (10.80 b) arguments. These possibilities need more in-depth investigation.

(10.80) a. Er kommt den Berg herabgelaufen.
b. Er kam mir nachgelaufen.

[10.112] A widely discussed special variant is the construction with participles with a preverb an‑ (see Eisenberg 2006b: 266; Rothstein 2007a: 162; Felfe 2012: 194, 241). Many of these an‑ verbs are only possible in this construction, i.e. they do not occur in finite clauses (Rothstein 2007a: 162), see also Sec­tion 10.3.4. Besides with movement verbs, like reiten ‘to ride on horseback’ (10.81 a), the an‑ construction also occurs with sound-production verbs, like keuchen ‘to pant’ (10.81 b). These two possibilities are related to the manner-of-movement construction, see Sec­tion 6.8.1, and the manner-of-speaking construction, see Sec­tion 5.8.1.

(10.81) a. Er kommt angeritten.
(= Er geht reitend irgendwohin.)
b. Er kommt angekeucht.
(= Er geht keuchend irgendwohin.)

[10.113] The secondary predicate usage is also possible with transitive verbs, but then typically with an anticausative argument reversal (10.82).

(10.82) a. Er packt das Geschenk ein.
Das Geschenk kommt (un)eingepackt.
b. Er kocht die Rüben.
Die Rüben kommen (un)gekocht.
c. Er schreibt einen Brief.
Sein Brief kam schon fertig geschrieben bei mir auf den Tisch.

Attested Verbs

Further Example

10.4.10 [ N | N ] bleiben+Partizip Continuative

[10.114] The bleiben+Partizip construction can be used with transitive verbs leading to a passive diathesis (see Sec­tion 10.5.17), and with intransitive verbs, but then without any diathesis (this section). For example, intransitive verbs like verschwinden ‘to vanish, to go missing’ (10.83 a) or zufrieren ‘to freeze over’ (10.83 b) allow for this epithesis. There is a close connection to the sein+Partizip passive construction, though with an added notion of continuation.

(10.83) a. Der Schlüssel verschwindet.
Der Schlüssel bleibt verschwunden.
b. Der Binnensee ist zugefroren.
Weihnachten rückt näher, und der Binnensee bleibt zugefroren. Attested online at https://www.haz.de/Umland/Wunstorf/Nachrichten/Inselvogt-Zobel-von-Feuerwehr-gerettet, accessed 16 July 2021.

[10.115] The bleiben+Partizip construction is only possible with intransitive verbs that also allow for a sein+Partizip perfect (Sec­tion 10.4.2), though far from all verbs allow for both. In general, it turns out to be not easy to find many examples of bleiben+Partizip with intransitive verbs, suggesting that there are restrictions on the application of this construction. There is a strong semantic intuition that only reversible events allow for a bleiben+Partizip construction (Helbig & Buscha 2001: 163; Schlücker 2007: 152). However, examples are attested with clearly irreversible events like verbrennen ‘to burn’ (10.84 a) or punctual events like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ (10.84 b). The notion “reversibility” is thus clearly not the whole explanation.

(10.84) a. ? Das Buch bleibt verbrannt.
Die Haut bleibt verbrannt, egal wieviel Sonnenmilch sie dann auftragen. Attested online at https://www.leben-mit-ms.de/expertenrat/ms-kortison, accessed 16 July 2021.
b. ? Das Kind bleibt eingeschlafen.
Alex rührt sich, aber bleibt eingeschlafen. Attested online at https://blogs.cornell.edu/glp-spr58/2014/05/07/jesus-christus-und-ikea-in-wolfgang-beckers-goodbye-lenin/, accessed 16 July 2021.

Attested Verbs

Further Examples

10.4.11 [ NA | NA ] lassen+Partizip Permissive continuative

[10.116] Similar to the previous construction, the lassen+Partizip construction also can be used to express the continuation of a state, like with einschalten ‘to turn on’ (10.85). Although this construction can be used with many different verbs, it turns out to be much more difficult to find suitable examples, which suggests that there are some additional constraints of the applicability of this construction. Semantically, lassen+Partizip expresses permissive continuative (cf. the permissive reading of lassen with infinitive, see Sec­tion 11.2.5).

(10.85) a. Ich schalte den Fernseher ein.
b. Ich lasse den Fernseher eingeschaltet.

Further examples

10.4.12 [ NA | NA ] halten+Partizip Caused continuative

[10.117] A widespread option for transitive verbs is to use the halten+Partizip construction to express the conscious decision by the subject to prolong a reached state, like with schließen ‘to close’ (10.86). Semantically, the nominative subject of the halten+Partizip construction is a causative agent. The attested verbs listed below are only a few exemplary lexemes. This construction is applicable to a much wider group of verbs.

(10.86) a. Er schließt die Tür.
b. Er hält die Tür geschlossen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.4.13 [ NA | NA ] bekommen/kriegen+Partizip Achievement

[10.118] The construction of the light verbs bekommen/kriegen+Partizip is widely discussed as a dative passive (Rezipientenpassiv, see Sec­tion 10.5.21). However, transitive verbs without dative arguments can also occur in this construction with a completely different ‘to be able to’ interpretation (10.87). This usage is discussed as the “bekommen-Konstruktion 2” (Leirbukt 1997: 15–16) or as the “resultative usage” of bekommen/kriegen (Lenz 2013: 86, 238–239). Different from the dative passive, the light verb erhalten is not possible in this construction. I propose the German name effektiv (from Lat. effectus ‘accomplishment’) for this construction. In some situations it is even possible to construct ambiguous sentences, that can either have an Effektiv (10.87 b) or a Rezipientenpassiv (10.87 c) interpretation.

(10.87) a. Ich koche einen Tee.
b. Ich bekomme (schon noch) einen Tee gekocht!
(= Ich schaffe es, einen Tee zu kochen.)
c. Ich bekomme (von meiner Mutter) einen Tee gekocht.
(= Meine Mutter kocht einen Tee für mich.)

[10.119] The light verb kriegen is also frequently used with resultative preverbials (see Sec­tion 9.2.6) instead of the participle, e.g. flottkriegen, kaputtkriegen, kleinkriegen, loskriegen, totkriegen, vollkriegen. This seems somewhat less productive with bekommen, e.g. fertigbekommen, kleinbekommen, losbekommen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.4.14 [ N | N ] scheinen/erscheinen+Partizip Inferred evidence

[10.120] The light verbs scheinen and erscheinen are used with participles of some intransitive verbs to describe an inference being made by the speaker. The intransitive verbs that are used in this construction are patientive verbs that have a sein perfect, like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ (10.88 a). Agentive intransitives, like schlafen ‘to sleep’ are not possible (10.88 b). With transitive verbs this construction leads to an anticausative diathesis (see Sec­tion 10.5.10).

(10.88) a. Das Kind schläft endlich ein.
Das Kind scheint endlich eingeschlafen.
b. * Das Kind scheint geschlafen.

[10.121] An additional experiencer dative is sometimes attested to express the role of the person making the inference. When this dative is not present, then the speaker is making the inference (10.89 a). The dative can be used to express that somebody else is making the inference (10.89 b).

(10.89) a. Das Kind scheint mir endlich eingeschlafen.
(= Das Kind scheint endlich eingeschlafen.)
b. Der jüdische Publizist Julius Rodenberg schien ihm als Namenspatron geeignet. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 24.06.1999.

[10.122] These constructions are analysed by Lasch (2016: 253ff.) as Askription mit modaler Relation. However, I propose to categorise these construction as a kind of evidential, following the proposal by Diewald & Smirnova (Diewald & Smirnova 2010: 177–191). Diewald and Smirnova present an extensive discussion of the meaning of scheinen in various constructions, but, inexplicably, they did not include the construction with a participle. Still, their proposal that scheinen can express an inferential evidential also seems fitting for the participle construction. The German name perfektinferenz is proposed here because of the perfectivity of the main verb. It stands in opposition to the Imperfektinferenz construction, which uses a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (see Sec­tion 12.4.10).

Attested verbs

[10.123] The following attested verbs are only illustrative examples taken from the data analysed by Lasch (2016). Data accessed on 24 May 2012, available online at https://goo.gl/xUng8v for aussehen, https://goo.gl/Xj7EW6 for erscheinen, https://goo.gl/5YvKiw for scheinen and https://goo.gl/yCai8B for wirken. There are many more verbs possible in these constructions, but these lists present a good sample of the kind of verbs that are actually attested.

10.4.15 [ N | N ] aussehen/wirken+Partizip Sensory evidence

[10.124] The light verbs aussehen and wirken can be used with participles of intransitive verbs to describe an evaluation of an event based on sensory evidence by the speaker. It is typically used with patientive verbs that have a sein perfect, like ausschlafen ‘to sleep in’ (10.90 a). Agentive verbs with a haben perfect are not possible, like arbeiten ‘to work’ (10.90 b).

(10.90) a. Er schläft aus.
Er wirkt ausgeschlafen.
b. * Er wirkt gearbeitet.

[10.125] These constructions are analysed by Lasch (2016: 253ff.) as Askription mit modaler Relation, but an evidential analysis seems more suitable (cf. the discussion in Sec­tion 10.4.14). For aussehen/wirken I propose to categorise the participle constructions as a direkt evidential based on sensory evidence by the speaker (Sinnesevidenz). With transitive verbs these constructions evoke an anticausative diathesis (see Sec­tion 10.5.11).

Attested verbs

[10.126] The following attested verbs are only illustrative examples taken from the data analysed by Lasch (2016). Data accessed on 24 May 2012, available online at https://goo.gl/xUng8v for aussehen, https://goo.gl/Xj7EW6 for erscheinen, https://goo.gl/5YvKiw for scheinen and https://goo.gl/yCai8B for wirken. There are many more verbs possible in these constructions, but these lists present a sample of the kind of verbs that are actually attested.

10.4.16 [ NA | NA ] machen+Partizip Resultative

[10.127] This is one of the various alternations that occur with machen+Partizip (see Sec­tion 10.2.8). With some experiencer verbs like betreffen ‘to concern’ this alternation does not induce any role-remapping, i.e. there is no diathesis.

(10.91) a. Der Verlust betrifft mich.
b. Der Verlust macht mich betroffen.

[10.128] There are various highly frequent examples of machen+Partizip in which the participle is not directly derived from a finite verb (see Sec­tion 10.3.4).

(10.92) a. Das Geschäft macht mich angesehen.
b. Die Arbeit macht mich erfahren.
c. Der Film macht ihn beliebt.
d. Der Rauch macht mich benommen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.4.17 [ NA | NA ] nehmen+Partizip Imprisonment

[10.129] The nehmen+Partizip construction frequently occurs with fangen ‘to catch’ in the context of imprisonment (10.93). Incidental cases with other verbs are attested, but these seem to be highly unusual.

(10.93) a. Er fängt den Dieb.
b. Er nimmt den Dieb gefangen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.4.18 [ NA | NA ] setzen+Partizip Imprisonment

[10.130] The setzen+Partizip construction appears to be only possible with the verb fangen ‘to catch’ in the context of imprisonment (10.94).

(10.94) a. Er fängt den Dieb.
b. Er setzt den Dieb gefangen.

Attested verbs

10.5 Diatheses with subject demotion

10.5.1 sbj › ø : [ N | – ] werden+Partizip Impersonal

[10.131] This and the following [sbj › ø] diatheses are widely referred to as unpersönliches Passiv in the German grammatical tradition, because the actual constructions (using light verbs like werden, sein or gehören) show a parallel to the real passives. However, to call this and the following [sbj › ø] diatheses “passive” is actually a misnomer, because there is no promotion of an argument to subject status. Also the retention of the original subject is mostly not possible. According to the categorisation of diatheses as used in this book a term like Insubjektiv would be a more suitable name (see Sec­tion 2.7.2).

[10.132] The werden+Partizip impersonal passive is a widely discussed phenomenon in German grammar (cf. Primus 2011 and the references therein) that occurs with some intransitive verbs like schlafen ‘to sleep’ (10.95). A special and very atypical characteristic of this diathesis is that there is no grammatical subject expressed. Typically in German, when a nominative subject is dropped, then a valency-simulating pronoun es is inserted (see Sec­tion 2.2.3). However, in this diathesis the pronoun es is only position-simulating (i.e. it occurs when the first position of the sentence is empty). In contrast, when the first position is filled, the pronoun es is absent (10.95 b).

(10.95) a. Das kleine Kind schläft im Bett.
Das kleine Kind hat im Bett geschlafen.
b. Es wird im Bett geschlafen.
Im Bett wird (*es) geschlafen.

[10.133] This diathesis has become famous in grammatical discussions because of the claimed correlation with unaccusative verbs (here called “agentive verbs”, see Sec­tion 10.2.5). Basically, the claim is that there is a correlation between the sein/haben selection in the perfect and the possibility of the werden impersonal passive. Concretely, the claim is that (agentive) intransitive verbs with haben allow for the impersonal passive (10.95), while (patientive) intransitive verbs with sein do not (10.96).

(10.96) a. Das kleine Kind schläft im Bett ein.
Das kleine Kind ist im Bett eingeschlafen.
b. * Im Bett wird eingeschlafen.

[10.134] Although there indeed seems to be a tendency here, there are many counterexamples. For example, with verbs with haben+Partizip like lügen ‘to lie’, jucken ‘to itch’ or blühen ‘to blossom’ it appears to be neigh impossible to use an impersonal passive. Possible examples are attested only with additional modal verbs like können or dürfen (10.97).

(10.97) a. In den Rieselfeldern kann ungehemmt gestunken und gelärmt werden. dwds: Die Zeit, 16.12.1983, Nr. 51.
b. Im Gericht gibt es Fragen, bei denen gelogen werden darf. Attested online at http://www.rhetorik.ch/Aktuell/11/01_27/index.html, accessed 4 June 2021.

[10.135] In contrast, intransitive verbs with sein mostly do not allow for the impersonal passive, though examples can be found rather easily in corpora (10.98). Primus (2011: 289–290) observes that this typically induces a repetitive interpretation. The examples below suggest a habitual reading as a further possible interpretation.

(10.98) a. Lange Zeit weiß niemand - Patrick eingeschlossen - wovor hier eigentlich geflohen wird. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 05.01.2002.
b. Außerdem: Wie brutal ist das Betrachten eines Regenbogens, wenn nebenan krepiert wird? dwds: Arjouni, Jakob: Chez Max, Zürich: Diogenes 2006, S. 61.
c. Auch 2001 soll mit zweistelliger Rate weiter gewachsen werden. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 30.05.2001.
d. In meiner Umgebung wird nicht gestorben. dwds: Die Zeit, 05.03.2017 (online).

[10.136] In some specific contexts this impersonal construction also seems possible for transitive verbs like überarbeiten ‘to rework’ (10.99 a) or even ditransitive verbs like geben ‘to give’ (10.99 b). However, note that in all such cases it appears to be impossible to retain any of the non-subject arguments (10.99 c), so these impersonal passives can be analysed as being stacked on top of an action focus diathesis (see Sec­tion 9.7.1) dropping the accusative role and leading to an intransitive verb.

(10.99) a. Ich überarbeite den Aufsatz.
Morgen wird dann weiter überarbeitet.
b. Ich schenke dir die Bücher.
Geschenkt wird erst morgen wieder.
c. * Erst morgen wird dir wieder geschenkt.

[10.137] Related to impersonal passives, there is a recurrent proposal for a special Reflexivpassiv in the German grammatical literature (e.g. Eisenberg 2006a: 131; Lasch 2016: 119). This does not appear to be a special diathesis, but rather an effect of an impersonal passive stacked on top of any construction with a reflexive pronoun. For example, verbs with obligatory reflexive pronouns retain this reflexive pronoun in an impersonal passive, like konzentrieren ‘to concentrate’ (10.100 a), see Sec­tion 7.3.1. Also, sentence constructions that include a reflexive pronoun because of another diathesis can be stacked with an impersonal passive on top. For example kümmern ‘to worry, to take care’ shows a conversive diathesis with an reflexive pronoun (see Sec­tion 7.5.6) and retains this reflexive pronoun in an impersonal passive (10.100 b). Similarly, regular “self-inflicting” reflexive constructions retain the reflexive pronoun in an impersonal passive (10.100 c). In summary, the Reflexivpassiv is not a separate phenomenon, but a combination of two separate diatheses. The term should preferably not be used.

(10.100) a. Die Regierung hat sich konzentriert auf die systemrelevanten Banken.
Zunächst solle sich auf die systemrelevanten Banken konzentriert werden. dwds: Die Zeit, 11.09.2012, Nr. 37
b. Ich kümmere mich darum.
Es wird sich jetzt endlich darum gekümmert.
c. Ich rasiere mich.
Heute wird sich rasiert.

10.5.2 sbj › ø : [ NP | –P ] werden+Partizip Impersonal+preposition

[10.138] Many, but not all, verbs with governed prepositions (but without accusative argument, cf. Sec­tion 6.7.1) appear to allow for an impersonal passive, like warten auf ‘to wait for’ or arbeiten an ‘to work on’ (10.101). Note that these verbs all take a haben+Partizip perfekt. Although it seems possible to retain the original subject as a von prepositional phrase, I have not been able to find good examples of such subject retention in corpora.

(10.101) a. Auf den Professor wurde gewartet.
b. An den Aufsatz wurde gearbeitet.

[10.139] Many, but not all, verbs that allow for a reflexive conversive diathesis, like empören ‘to appal’ or aufregen ‘to upset’ (10.102), see Sec­tion 7.5.6, also allow for an impersonal passive in the reflexive usage with a governed preposition.

(10.102) a. Über die Zerstörung der Schöpfung […] wird sich empört. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 24.11.2003
b. In braver Einigkeit wird sich darüber aufgeregt, dass die Debattenkultur in Deutschland zu lahm, zu konsensuell, zu träge geworden sei. dwds: Die Zeit, 12.09.2017 (online).

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.5.3 sbj › ø : [ ND | –D ] werden+Partizip Impersonal+dative

[10.140] Only a small subset of all verbs with a dative argument allow for an impersonal passive. Although this appears to be slightly more common for verbs with a haben perfect, like entsprechen ‘to conform’ or helfen ‘to help’ (10.103 a), cf. Sec­tion 10.4.5, there are also verbs with a sein perfect that allow for an impersonal passive, like entfliehen ‘to flee’ or beitreten ‘to join’ (10.103 b), cf. Sec­tion 10.4.6.

(10.103) a. Seiner Bitte wird entsprochen.
Den Eltern wurde geholfen.
b. Dem Gefängnis wird entflohen.
Dem Verein wird beigetreten.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.5.4 sbj › ø : [ N | – ] sein+Partizip Impersonal

[10.141] It appears to be impossible for intransitives to be used in a sein+Partizip impersonal passive. This section is only included to discuss the theoretical possibility of this construction, because there is a curious parallel with the other impersonal constructions, which makes it noteworthy that this diathesis does not exist. Impersonal constructions with light verbs werden, sein and gehören occur with additional governed prepositions and with additional datives (see the next sections), but a parallel construction with sein is (apparently) not attested for “real” intransitives (10.104).

(10.104) a. * Es ist geschlafen.
b. * Während des Protests ist viel gehupt.

[10.142] Such constructions only seem to be possible with an additional worden (10.105), which is effectively a stack of an impersonal werden+Partizip passive with a sein+Partizip perfect as discussed in detail in Sec­tion 10.5.16 (with the participle of werden showing up as the idiosyncratic form worden).

(10.105) a. Da ist geschrien worden.
b. Vier Jahre ist geschlafen worden, jetzt sollen wir alles in vier Tagen machen. Attested online at https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/dachau/brandschutz-karlsfeld-wohnhaeuser-kritik-1.5250267, accessed 17 June 2021.

10.5.5 sbj › ø : [ NP | –P ] sein+Partizip Impersonal+preposition

[10.143] It turns out to be astonishingly hard, but not impossible, to find examples of a sein impersonal passive with a governed preposition, like with denken (10.106 a). Constructions with an additional worden are more widespread (10.106 b), but those are stacks of werden passive with a sein perfect (10.106 c). See Sec­tion 10.5.16 for a more in-depth discussion of this difference.

(10.106) a. Aber auch daran ist gedacht.
b. An nichts ist gearbeitet worden.
c. Jemand arbeitet an nichts.
+> werden+Partizip impersonal passive
= An nichts wird gearbeitet.
+> sein+Partizip perfect
= An nichts ist gearbeitet worden.

Attested verbs

10.5.6 sbj › ø : [ ND | –D ] sein+Partizip Impersonal+dative

[10.144] In contrast, sein impersonal passives with nominative+dative verbs are easy to find. All nominative+dative verbs that allow for a werden impersonal passive (see Sec­tion 10.5.3) also are possible with sein (10.107).

(10.107) a. Dem Entschluss ist entsprochen.
„Es gibt kein Zurück“, sagte Metzger, „ganz gleich, ob dem Willen des Haushaltsausschusses entsprochen ist oder nicht.“ dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 27.04.2002.
b. Ihm ist geholfen.
Ich glaube nicht, dass den Jungs damit geholfen ist. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 17.05.2003.
c. Ihm ist gekündigt.
Schon gar nicht, bevor dem Mieter dort wirksam gekündigt ist. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 03.05.2003.

Attested verbs

10.5.7 sbj › ø : [ N | – ] gehören+Partizip Impersonal

[10.145] The gehören+Partizip passive occurs in some examples with intransitive verbs, resulting in an impersonal constructions. An in-depth introduction to the gehören+Partizip passive for transitive verbs can be found in Sec­tion 10.5.18. The usage of this construction with intransitive verbs needs more in-depth study, as many examples seem doubtful (10.108 a,b). However, they are sparingly attested (10.108 c).

(10.108) a. ? In der Sauna gehört geschwitzt.
b. ? In der Nacht gehört geschlafen.
c. Um die Uhrzeit gehört geschlafen. Attested online at https://www.motor-talk.de/forum/empire-bikes-und-klaus-huelsmann-t3208043.html?page=7, accessed 16 June 2021.

10.5.8 sbj › ø : [ NP | –P ] gehören+Partizip Impersonal+preposition

[10.146] Impersonal passive constructions with a governed preposition are attested with the light verb gehören (10.109). Basically the same verbs that occur with werden+Partizip (see Sec­tion 10.5.2) can also occur with gehören+Partizip, though a more detailed study into this construction is necessary.

(10.109) a. Ich kämpfe gegen den Feind.
Gegen den Feind gehört gekämpft.
b. Darüber gehört diskutiert, darüber gehört gestritten. Attested online at https://katharina-schulze.de/zukunft-wird-aus-mut-gemacht/, accessed 17 June 2021.

Attested verbs

10.5.9 sbj › ø : [ ND | –D ] gehören+Partizip Impersonal+dative

[10.147] Impersonal passives with a dative are widespread with the light verb gehören (10.110). Such examples were already included in one of the first discussions of the gehören+Partizip passive (Reis 1976: 70).

(10.110) a. Ich helfe dem Studenten.
Dem Studenten gehört geholfen.
b. Ich kündige ihm.
Ihm gehört gekündigt.

Attested verbs

10.5.10 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] scheinen/erscheinen+Partizip Anticausative

[10.148] The light verbs scheinen and erscheinen can be used with participles in monoclausal constructions. With intransitive verbs these light verbs do not induce any diathesis (see Sec­tion 10.4.14). In contrast, with transitive verbs these constructions result in an anticausative diathesis (10.111). Such constructions are analysed by Lasch (2016: 253ff.) as Askription mit modaler Relation. However, inspired by the analysis by Diewald & Smirnova (Diewald & Smirnova 2010: 177–191) it seems better to consider these expression as marking inferential evidence. As a German name I propose to use the term inferenzantikausativ.

(10.111) a. Die Polizei hat die Straßensperre aufgehoben.
Die Straßensperre scheint aufgehoben.
b. Die Spekulation hat die Aktienkurse aufgeblasen.
Die Aktienkurse erscheinen aufgeblasen.

[10.149] The retention of the agent using a von prepositional phrase appears to be possible, though examples are very rare (10.112). Note that examples with wie von phrases have to be discarded as such phrases do not instantiate an agent. Because of the very rare attestation of retained agents I consider these diatheses to be anticausatives, not passives.

(10.112) a. Im Längsschnitt erscheint der helle Innenraum von zwei dunklen Linien begrenzt. Lasch 2016, citing dwds: Nultsch, Wilhelm, Allgemeine Botanik, Stuttgart: Thieme 1964, S. 52.
b. Zuletzt scheinen von diesem Prozeß die biblischen Gleichnisse betroffen. Lasch 2016, citing dwds: Busch, Werner, Das sentimentalische Bild, München: Beck 1993, S. 284.

[10.150] Other arguments, like datives (10.113 a) or governed prepositions (10.113 b), are simply retained as such with this diathesis.

(10.113) a. Jemand hat das Dorf dem Erdboden gleichgemacht.
Das Dorf scheint dem Erdboden gleichgemacht. dwds: Die Zeit, 01.11.2016 (online).
b. Die Mannschaft wappnet sich für die Aufgabe.
Deutschlands U 21 scheint für anspruchsvollere Aufgaben gewappnet. dwds: Die Zeit, 10.09.2013 (online).

[10.151] These constructions are regularly attested with an additional experiencer dative (10.114). This dative expresses the role of the person making the inference. This role is not a lexical role of the main verb, but an additional role that is part of this evidential diathesis. Without this dative, the person making the inference is assumed to be the speaker, so the first person pronoun mir is mostly superfluous (10.114 a,b). By using an explicit non-first person dative the inference can be assigned to another person (10.114 c). Combined with a retained dative (as illustrated above) such an inferential dative can result in a sentence with two datives (10.114 d).

(10.114) a. Der Titel […] scheint mir unglücklich gewählt. Lasch 2016, citing dwds: Der Spiegel 23.02.1987.
b. Sein Gesicht erschien mir vertrocknet. Lasch 2016, citing dwds: Blos, Wilhelm, Denkwürdigkeiten eines Sozialdemokraten, Band 1, München: G. Birk, 1914., S. 9306.
c. Aber der Streit […] schien ihm längst beigelegt. dwds: Die Zeit, 11.02.2010, Nr. 07.
d. Alles scheint mir dem sowjetischen Vorbild nachgeformt. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 20.03.1999.

[10.152] The light verb scheinen can also occur with a zu sein construction (10.115), which is analysed here as a stack of a sein+Partizip perfect (see Sec­tion 10.4.2) with a scheinen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction (see Sec­tion 12.4.10). The two examples in (10.115 a,b) are thus two different constructions, though the semantic difference needs a more in-depth investigation.

(10.115) a. Der Gast scheint abgereist.
b. Der Gast scheint abgereist zu sein.
c. Der Gast reist ab.
+> sein+Partizip perfect
= Der Gast is abgereist.
+> scheinen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv evidential
= Der Gast scheint abgereist zu sein.

Attested verbs

[10.153] The following attested verbs are only illustrative examples taken from the data analysed by Lasch (2016). Data accessed on 24 May 2012, available online at https://goo.gl/xUng8v for aussehen, https://goo.gl/Xj7EW6 for erscheinen, https://goo.gl/5YvKiw for scheinen and https://goo.gl/yCai8B for wirken. There are many more verbs possible in these constructions, but these lists present a good sample of the kind of verbs that are actually attested.

10.5.11 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] aussehen/wirken+Partizip Anticausative

[10.154] The verbs aussehen ‘to appear’ and wirken ‘to have an effect’ can be used as light verbs with participles in monoclausal constructions. With intransitive verbs such constructions do not induce a diathesis (see Sec­tion 10.4.15). In contrast, with transitive verbs like quälen ‘to agonise’ (10.116 a) or verändern ‘to change’ (10.116 b) these constructions result in an anticausative diathesis. Inspired by the analysis by Diewald & Smirnova (Diewald & Smirnova 2010: 177–191) I consider these expression as evidentials that mark direct evidence by sensory experience. As a German name I propose to use the term sinnesantikausativ.

(10.116) a. Die Erinnerung quält ihn.
Er wirkt gequält.
b. Die Renovierung verändert den Bahnhof.
Der Bahnhof sieht verändert aus.

[10.155] The retention of the agent using a von phrase appears to be possible, though examples are rare (10.117). Note that the frequently occurring wie von phrases do not instantiate an agent. It seems like the retention of an agent is more acceptable with verbs describing a mental state, like quälen (10.116 a), in contrast to verbs that describe a change of state, like verändern (10.116 b). Because of the very rare attestation of such agents I consider these diatheses to be anticausatives, and not passives.

(10.117) a. […] deren Zweige übrigens schon von der Sonnenhitze schnell verdorrt aussahen. dwds: Keil, Ernst (Hrsg.): Die Gartenlaube. Jg. 2 (1854).
b. Auch bei der Messe in Györ […] wirkte der Papst […] von Strapazen gezeichnet. Lasch 2016, citing dwds: Archiv der Gegenwart, 2001.

[10.156] Like the (er)scheinen evidential construction discussed previously (see Sec­tion 10.5.10), the aussehen/wirken construction is sometimes attested with an additional experiencer dative, expressing the role of the person making the evidential inference. However, with aussehen/wirken this is very rare (10.118). With aussehen (10.118 a) it is only and very rarely attested in older examples and with wirken it seems to be more common to use an auf prepositional phrase instead of a dative (10.118 b).

(10.118) a. […] der alte Kriegsheld sieht mir sehr determinirt aus […]. dwds: Wallenrodt, Johanna Isabella Eleonore von: Fritz, der Mann wie er nicht seyn sollte oder die Folgen einer übeln Erziehung. Bd. 2. Gera, 1800.
b. Der Herr Assauer wirkte mir doch leicht angesäuselt. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 30.05.2003.
Der Herr Assauer wirkte auf mich doch leicht angesäuselt.

Attested verbs

[10.157] The following attested verbs are only illustrative examples taken from the data analysed by Lasch (2016). Data accessed on 24 May 2012, available online at https://goo.gl/xUng8v for aussehen, https://goo.gl/Xj7EW6 for erscheinen, https://goo.gl/5YvKiw for scheinen and https://goo.gl/yCai8B for wirken. There are many more verbs possible in these constructions, but these lists present a good sample of the kind of verbs that are actually attested.

10.5.12 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] geben/zeigen+Partizip Anticausative+reflexive

[10.158] The diatheses with geben+Partizip (10.119 a) and zeigen+Partizip (10.119 b) obligatorily need a reflexive pronoun. These two constructions are semantically rather similar as they both express an observable presentation of a state-of-mind. In German I propose to use the term darstellungsantikausativ for this diathesis.

(10.119) a. Die Musik entspannt ihn.
Er gibt sich entspannt.
b. Das kommende Konzert motiviert das Orchester.
Auch das Orchester zeigte sich motiviert. dwds: Die Zeit, 08.04.1999, Nr. 15.

[10.159] With some verbs it is possible to retain the original nominative subject (10.120). However, this seems to be relatively uncommon, so I classify this construction as anticausative and not as passive.

(10.120) a. Das Ergebnis beeindruckt sie.
Selbst Rot-Grün gab sich von dem Ergebnis beeindruckt. dwds: Die Zeit, 04.03.2016 (online).
b. Der Unfall erschüttert sie.
Das Hotelmanagement zeigte sich von dem tragischen Unfall erschüttert. dwds: Die Zeit, 15.06.2016 (online).

[10.160] This construction frequently occurs with participles that are not transparently related to their meaning as finite verbs. For example, the verbs reservieren ‘to reserve’ and aufräumen ‘to clean up’ are only metaphorically related to their usage as states-of-mind participles in this construction (10.121).

(10.121) a. Er gibt sich reserviert.
b. Er gibt sich aufgeräumt.

Attested verbs

10.5.13 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] stehen+Partizip Anticausative

[10.161] Some instances of stehen with a participle appear to have an anticausative effect. However, such examples are quite rare and also rather idiomatic (10.122). They are also close to depictive secondary predication (see Sec­tion 10.2.3). So, maybe this construction should not be treated as a grammaticalised diathesis.

(10.122) a. Irgendjemand hat das Fenster geöffnet.
b. Das kleine Fenster steht geöffnet. ~DWDS: Die Zeit, 11.08.1955, Nr. 32.

[10.162] Most examples of finite stehen with a participle are no diathesis. Typically, the verb stehen is used in its literal meaning ‘to stand’ and the participle is a depictive secondary predicate describing the manner of the position (10.123 a). Another frequent use of stehen with a participle is attested with text-manipulation verbs, like schreiben, erwähnen, nennen, eintragen, vermerken, etc. (10.123 b,c). This seems to be a metaphorical usage of stehen, in the sense that letters “stand” on a page. The participle in these constructions is likewise a depictive secondary predicate.

(10.123) a. Das Planschbecken stand im Garten aufgebaut.
b. Die Worte stehen auf der Titelseite geschrieben.
c. Ein Erzählwettbewerb stand ausgeschrieben. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 08.12.1999.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.5.14 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] gehen+Partizip Anticausative

[10.163] The construction gehen+Partizip appears to be only possible in very few examples, like with verlieren ‘to lose’ (10.124). The retention of the agent as a dative is sometimes possible (10.124 b).

(10.124) a. Ich verliere den Ring.
b. Der Ring geht (mir) verloren.

[10.164] The verb gehen is attested with various other participles, but these are different constructions. First, the construction (10.125 a) is a fixed construction es geht with a dative experiencer and an adverb describing a personal feeling (see Sec­tion 9.3.8). This adverb can sometimes look like a participle, like ausgezeichnet ‘fine’ or beschissen ‘crappy’, but these are idiomatic and their meaning is only metaphorically related to their finite verbs, e.g. auszeichnen ‘to stand out’ and bescheißen ‘to screw somebody’. Second, the construction in (10.125 b) has a participle as a depictive secondary predicate (see Sec­tion 10.2.3). In this sentence the verb gehen is the independent verb meaning ‘to walk’.

(10.125) a. Mir geht es ausgezeichnet/gut.
b. Er geht gebückt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.5.15 obj › sbj › adj : [ NA | pN ] werden+Partizip Passive

[10.165] The werden+Partizip vorgangspassiv is the quintessential diathesis according to textbooks on German grammar. This diathesis promotes an accusative to nominative and (optionally) retains the original nominative, typically as a prepositional durch or von phrase (10.126), but see Sec­tion 6.2.6 for a discussion of the status of these prepositions. Pape-Müller (1980: 77–85) discusses various other grammatical possibilities to express the agent. Any further arguments, like datives or governed prepositions, are simply retained (10.126 c,d).

(10.126) a. Der Handwerker hat das Haus angemalt.
b. Das Haus wird angemalt (durch den Handwerker).
c. Er schenkt mir den Schrank.
d. Der Schrank wird mir (von ihm) geschenkt.

[10.166] A very peculiar construction occurs when a perfect ist stacked on top of a werden passive. The verb werden takes a sein+Partizip perfect (see Sec­tion 10.4.2) with a participle geworden when used as an independent verb meaning ‘to become’ (10.127 a). However, as a light verb of the Vorgangspassiv, the participle of werden in the perfect construction is the idiosyncratic wordform worden and not the expected geworden (10.127 b). This seems to be the only use of the wordform worden in German, so any occurrence of worden is a definitive sign of a passive+perfect stack. Note that it is easy to find examples of geworden as well in this situation (10.127 c,d), but the constructions with worden seems to be much more frequent. It is unclear to me whether there is any difference between the use of worden and geworden in such contexts.

(10.127) a. Du bist aber groß geworden.
b. Die Tür ist geschlossen worden.
c. Tsipras schloss einen Rücktritt aus, der diskutiert geworden war, […]. dwds: Die Zeit, 23.07.2015 (online).
d. Als die Krise in ihrer ganzen Dimension erkannt geworden sei, habe die Regierung gut reagiert. dwds: Die Zeit, 06.04.2015, Nr. 13.

[10.167] This werden passive typically occurs with transitive verbs with an accusative argument, though it is also frequently attested as an impersonal passive with intransitive verbs (see Sec­tion 10.5.1). Also some nominative+dative verbs allow for such an impersonal passive (see Sec­tion 10.5.3). Reflexive pronouns in the accusative case do not count as an accusative argument, as they will never be promoted to nominative subject. However, some verbs with an accusative reflexive pronoun allow for an impersonal passive (see Sec­tion 10.5.1).

[10.168] Not all transitive verbs allow for this werden+Partizip passive diathesis. For example, this diathesis is not possible for various verbs that also have a reflexive conversive diathesis (see Sec­tion 7.5.6), like wundern ‘to wonder’ (10.128 a,b) or a non-reflexive conversive diathesis (Sec­tion 10.5.23), like entsetzen ‘to appall’ (10.128 c,d). The passive is also not possible with verbs with obligatory quantified object (see Sec­tion 5.3.4), like wiegen ‘to weight’ (10.129 a,b). Also verbs of possession, like besitzen ‘to possess’ (10.129 c,d) do not allow for a passive.

(10.128) a. Sein Verhalten wundert mich.
b. * Ich werde gewundert durch sein Verhalten.
c. Sein Verhalten entsetzt mich.
d. * Ich werde entsetzt durch sein Verhalten.
(10.129) a. Der Lastwagen wiegt einen Zentner.
b. * Ein Zentner wird von dem Lastwagen gewogen.
c. Ich besitze einen Hund.
d. * Ein Hund wird von mir besessen.

Attested verbs

[10.169] The werden+Partizip passive is possible with almost all verbs that take an accusative argument, except for the following:

10.5.16 obj › sbj › adj : [ NA | pN ] sein+Partizip Passive

[10.170] The second most widely discussed diathesis in the German grammatical literature (closely after the werden+Partizip passive) is the sein+Partizip zustandspassiv (Nedjalkov 1988; Rapp 1996; Maienborn 2008, just to cite a few major contributions to this topic). There is a long and ongoing discussion whether this construction should be considered a separate construction in its own right or not (see Sec­tion 10.2.8). Following the discussion by Maienborn (2008) I will treat it as a separate construction here.

[10.171] Most verbs with an accusative argument seem to allow for a Zustandspassiv, like for example with öffnen ‘to open’ (10.130 a). The agent can optionally be retained, though often only with difficulty (10.130 b). Inanimate agents appear to be most amenable to such retention (10.130 c). Different from the other passives discussed here, the Zustandspassiv cannot by used as an impersonal passive with intransitive verbs (see Sec­tion 10.5.4). However, an impersonal variant for nominative+dative verbs is clearly attested (see Sec­tion 10.5.6).

(10.130) a. Der Pförtner öffnet die Tür.
b. Die Tür ist ?(durch den Pförtner) geöffnet.
c. Das Kronendach sei durch Holzeinschlag geöffnet, so daß mehr Sonnenlicht durchdringen und den Boden austrocknen könne. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 29.09.1997.

[10.172] There are some transitive verbs that do not appear to allow a Zustandspassiv, like ärgern ‘to irritate’ (10.131 a,b). Among those verbs without a Zustandspassiv there is a recurrent alternative to use a preverb to attain the expected meaning, like verärgern ‘to irritate’ (10.131 c), see also Sec­tion 8.4.5. Maienborn (2008: 102–103) also discusses the claims in the literature that some verbs do not allow for a Zustandspassiv, but she dismisses such claims as the effect of pragmatic restrictions on their usage. At the end of this section I will list some verbs that appear to be at least problematic, if not completely impossible. However, the extent of applicability of the Zustandspassiv needs more in-depth corpus investigation.

(10.131) a. Die Schüler ärgern den Lehrer.
b. * Der Lehrer ist geärgert.
c. Der Lehrer ist verärgert.

[10.173] Some transitive verbs have a sein+Partizip diathesis, but only with a rather strong semantic shift in the meaning of the verb. For example, anhalten means ‘to stop’, but angehalten sein means ‘to be admonished’ (10.132 a). Likewise, stören means ‘to disturb’, but gestört sein means ‘to be crazy’ (10.132 b) and ergeben means ‘to yield’, but ergeben sein means to be devoted to (10.132 c).

(10.132) a. Ich halte den Bus an.
Die Botschaften sind angehalten, Visa nicht auszustellen. dwds: Beförderungsverbot. In: Aktuelles Lexikon 1974–2000, München: DIZ 2000.
b. Der Lärm stört den Mann.
Der Mann ist gestört.
c. Die Transaktionen ergaben einen hohen Gewinn.
Ich weiß aber, daß Herr Dulles dem Frieden ergeben ist. dwds: Archiv der Gegenwart, 2001 [1956].

[10.174] Crucially, there is an important difference between the Zustandspassiv (with sein+Partizip) and the highly similar sein+Partizip+worden construction. These are sometimes seen as free-choice alternatives, but they are clearly not interchangeable. There is a classical test in the literature to distinguish between the two (Nedjalkov 1988: 412; Maienborn 2008: 88). This test proposes to compare point-time and period-time adverbials. I repeat the examples from Maienborn here in (10.133). The claim is that period-time reference (seit zwei Stunden) is only compatible with sein+Partizip (10.133 a,b), while point-time reference (vor zwei Stunden) is only compatible with sein+Partizip+worden (10.133 c,d).

(10.133) a. Das Fenster ist seit zwei Stunden geöffnet.
b. * Das Fenster ist seit zwei Stunden geöffnet worden.
c. * Das Fenster ist vor zwei Stunden geöffnet.
d. Das Fenster ist vor zwei Stunden geöffnet worden.

[10.175] Unfortunately, this test does not work. I will lay out the problems with this test and then propose an alternative test based on gradual-time reference. The first problem concerns the claimed ungrammaticality of (10.133 b). The problem is that I have no problem finding examples of such constructions. The combination of period-time reference with sein+Partizip+worden is mostly not ungrammatical at all (10.134).

(10.134) a. Der Inhalt dieser Akte, die seit 1928 nicht mehr geöffnet worden war, erhellt plötzlich Grete Marksteins Leben. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 02.10.1999.
b. Der Schatz war in einer von zwei Tempelkammern aufbewahrt, die zuvor rund 150 Jahre lang nicht geöffnet worden waren. dwds: Die Zeit, 08.07.2011 (online).

[10.176] The second problem concerns the ungrammaticality of (10.133 c). This sentence is indeed ungrammatical, but for a different reason. The sentence is ungrammatical because the past-time reference vor zwei Stunden is not compatible with the present tense of the light verb ist (see Sec­tion 10.2.6). Simply replacing the present tense (ist) with the past tense (war) resolves the ungrammaticality. So, in contrast to the claimed ungrammaticality, it is actually no problem to combine point-time reference with the sein+Partizip passive, as long as the tense agrees with the time (10.135).

(10.135) a. Das Munch-Museum in Oslo war gestern wieder geöffnet. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 25.08.2004.
b. Die Fachmesse ist heute und morgen geöffnet. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 27.02.2002.

[10.177] Third, the really peculiar observation in the proposed test is the grammaticality of example (10.133 d), repeated here as (10.136 a). This sentence has present tense (ist) but past time reference (vor zwei Stunden). This combination should not be possible, but the sentence is definitively grammatical. The solution to this conundrum is that this sentence is a stack of two different constructions: first a werden+Partizip passiv and then a sein+Partizip perfect applied on top (10.136 b). Note that the sein+Partizip perfect of werden leads to the idiosyncratic participle worden (see Sec­tion 10.5.15). Crucially, the sein+Partizip perfekt is the culprit, as this Perfekt is the only German participle construction that allows for the combination of present tense with past time (see Sec­tion 10.2.6).

(10.136) a. Das Fenster ist vor zwei Stunden geöffnet worden.
b. Jemand öffnete das Fenster vor zwei Stunden.
+> werden+Partizip Vorgangspassiv
= Das Fenster wurde vor zwei Stunden geöffnet.
+> sein+Partizip Perfekt
= Das Fenster ist vor zwei Stunden geöffnet worden.

[10.178] This analysis of the sein+Partizip+worden construction as a stack of two constructions suggests a much easier test to differentiate that construction from the sein+Partizip passiv. The important observation (see Sec­tion 10.2.6) is that the two stacked constructions (werden passive and sein perfect) are both process-oriented, i.e. the action starts at the specified time reference. In contrast, the sein+Partizip passiv is result-oriented, i.e. the action is finished at the specified time reference. As proposed in Sec­tion 10.2.6, gradual time adverbials (e.g. allmählich, schrittweise, in Zeitlupe) are not compatible with an action that has already finished. And indeed, the combination of gradual time reference with the sein+Partizip is ungrammatical (10.137 a), while there is no problem for the sein+Partizip+worden construction (10.137 b).

(10.137) a. * Das Fenster ist in Zeitlupe geöffnet.
b. Das Fenster ist in Zeitlupe geöffnet worden.

Attested verbs

[10.179] Almost all transitive verbs allow for a Zustandspassive. The following verbs with accusative arguments do not seem to allow for this sein+Partizip passive construction:

Further examples

10.5.17 obj › sbj › adj : [ NA | pN ] bleiben+Partizip Passive

[10.180] The construction bleiben+Partizip is both used with intransitive verbs (see Sec­tion 10.4.10) and with transitive verbs (this section). The verb bleiben has even more uses as a light verb (see Sec­tion 11.4.4, 12.9.1) and it can also be used as a main verb with a meaning ‘to remain’. This wide variety of uses has lead to quite some discussion in the German grammatical literature about the unity of all these constructions (Eroms 2000: 404; Helbig & Buscha 2001: 163; Krämer 2004; Schlücker 2007: 152; Lasch 2016: 72). Following the general approach in this book, all constructions are discussed separately. However, this is no way precludes any underlying connection between them (see Sec­tion 4.3.7 and the subsequent sections for a quick summary of the similarities and differences). I propose to use the German name Fortsetzungspassiv for the transitive bleiben+Partizip construction, adapted from Helbig & Buscha (2001: 163).

[10.181] This construction is closely related to the sein+Partizip passive (see Sec­tion 10.5.16), but adds a notion of continuation of the resulting state (10.138 a). Like with the sein passive, it is often difficult to retain the agent with a bleiben passive (10.138 b). However, many examples of retained agents can be found (10.139). The factors governing the possible retention of the agent need more research. Like with sein inanimate agents seem more receptive for retention.

(10.138) a. Die Tür ist geöffnet.
Die Tür bleibt geöffnet.
b. ? Die Tür bleibt durch den Wind geöffnet.
(10.139) a. Der Platz, inzwischen mit hohem Baumbestand, bleibt durch die Oranienstraße geteilt. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 02.08.2005.
b. Die Raumtiefe bleibt durch einen Vorhang verborgen. dwds: Die Zeit, 06.04.2005, Nr. 15.
c. Und die Mieter bleiben durch Gesetze und Verträge geschützt, auch wenn ihre Wohnungen kein öffentliches Gut mehr sind. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 26.05.2004.

[10.182] The bleiben+Partizip is only possible with a small subset of all verbs that allow for sein+Partizip. For example, it seems at least odd (if not impossible) to use it with schreiben ‘to write’ (10.140 a) or waschen ‘to wash’ (10.140 b). Helbig & Buscha (2001: 163) offer an explanation for the restricted applicability of this construction. They propose that only verbs that describe reversible events allow for this diathesis.

(10.140) a. * Das Buch bleibt geschrieben.
b. * Das Auto bleibt gewaschen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.5.18 obj › sbj › adj : [ NA | pN ] gehören+Partizip Passive

[10.183] The gehören+Partizip passive adds a normative aspect to the meaning of the passive. It expresses that something ought to happen. I propose to use the German term normpassiv for this diathesis. Early (short) discussions of this construction are given by Reis (1976: 70) and Höhle (1978: 50–51), with slightly more elaboration later in Engel (1996: 458), Eroms (2000: 405–412) and Szátmari (2002: 179–182). More recent discussions are found in Stathi (2010) and Lasch (2016: 84ff.).

[10.184] This construction is widespread for transitive verbs like verbrennen ‘to burn something’ (10.141 a). Any further arguments can be retained, like the dative ihm ‘to him’ with the verb sagen ‘to say’ (10.141 b). The retention of the agent with a durch prepositional phrase seems to be perfectly possible (10.141 c), although not frequent. There are no examples of gehören+Partizip with a retained agent in the corpus compiled by Lasch (2016), see https://goo.gl/VPJbAb. Höhle claims that the retention of the agent ist not possible (1978: 50–51), though his examples seem perfectly acceptable to me.

(10.141) a. Er verbrennt dieses Buch.
Dieses Buch gehört verbrannt.
b. Hanna sagt ihm die Meinung.
Ihm gehört die Meinung gesagt.
c. Der Schiedsrichter verwarnt den Spieler.
Der Spieler gehört verwarnt (durch den Schiedsrichter).

[10.185] This construction is also attested with intransitive verbs as an impersonal passive, but that seems to be rare (see Sec­tion 10.5.7). However, impersonal passive are widespread for nominative+dative verbs (see Sec­tion 10.5.9).

Attested verbs

[10.186] Various authors have listed verbs that allow for this construction. I have reproduced those lists here to illustrate the kind of verbs that can be used in this construction.

10.5.19 obj › sbj › adj : [ NA | pN ] machen+Partizip Passive+reflexive

[10.187] This is yet another diathesis involving the light verb machen, this time with an obligatory reflexive pronoun. A summary of the various other possibilities of machen+Partizip is presented in paragraph 10.59.

(10.142) a. Die Polizei verdächtigt ihn.
b. Er macht sich bei der Polizei verdächtigt.

[10.188] There are various more such machen+sich+Partizip constructions that do not appear to be transparently related anymore to the finite usage of the main verb (10.143). These appear to be lexicalised collocations that are rather frequent in German.

(10.143) a. Ich mache mich auf alles gefasst.
b. Ich mache mich um etwas verdient.
c. Die Loyalität macht sich bezahlt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.5.20 obj › sbj › adj : [ ND | pN ] bekommen+Partizip Intransitive dative passive

[10.189] The bekommen dative passive is typically found with verbs with a dative and an accusative argument (see the next Sec­tion 10.5.21). Leirbukt (1997: 64–67) only finds a single example without an accusative in his corpus, but he lists various examples as presented by other authors. Examples with verbs like helfen ‘to help’ are questionable (10.144 a,b), but are widely attested inside a modal constructions (10.144 c). The light verbs kriegen and erhalten also occur in the same construction instead of bekommen.

(10.144) a. Die Ärztin hilft mir.
b. ? Ich bekomme geholfen (von der Ärztin).
c. Ich bin krank und will geholfen bekommen! dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 12.01.2002.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.5.21 obj › sbj › adj : [ NDA | pNA ] bekommen+Partizip Dative passive

[10.190] The dative passive is widely discussed in the German grammatical literature under the name Rezipientenpassiv. Leirbukt (1997) presents a major monograph-sized investigation of this construction. This diathesis promotes the dative argument to nominative subject. For example, the dative dem Schüler of the verb abnehmen ‘to take away’ (10.145 a) is remapped to nominative der Schüler (10.145 b). As with all passives, the original agent can be expressed with a von or durch prepositional phrase, though this is uncommon. Leirbukt (1997: 130) finds 10-20% expressed agents, most using von, and almost all being semantically animate.

(10.145) a. Der Lehrer nimmt dem Schüler das Handy ab.
b. Der Schüler bekommt das Handy (von dem Lehrer) abgenommen.

[10.191] The light verbs kriegen and erhalten also occur in the same construction instead of bekommen. The choice between the light verbs bekommen, kriegen and erhalten does not seem to have any clear semantic impact, but is mainly determined stylistically and dialectally (Leirbukt 1997: Ch. 4; Lenz 2013: 427ff.).

Attested verbs

[10.192] Leirbukt (1997: 68–99) lists hundreds of verbs organised in many semantic classes, which will not be repeated here.

Further examples

10.5.22 obj › sbj › adj : [ NDA | pNA ] haben+Partizip Possessor passive

[10.193] Transitive verbs that allow for a possessor-dative alternation (see Sec­tion 5.8.4) can be used in a very special haben+Partizip diathesis. For example, the possessor of the object of reparieren ‘to repair’ (10.146 a) can alternatively be expressed as a dative (10.146 b). In the sein+Partizip diathesis this dative is retained (10.146 c). But this dative can also be promoted to subject in a special haben+Partizip construction (10.146 d). In isolation, the resulting sentence (10.146 d) is highly ambiguous and has a strong preference for the plain reading ‘I have repaired the computer’. A special context is needed for this sentence to be understood in the intended beneficiary meaning ‘The computer has been repaired on my behalf’.

(10.146) a. Der erfahrene Techniker hat meinen Rechner repariert.
b. Der erfahrene Techniker hat mir den Rechner repariert.
c. Mir ist der Rechner repariert
d. Ich habe den Rechner repariert.
(= Der Rechner ist für mich repariert worden.)

[10.194] As extensively discussed by Leirbukt (2000) the beneficiary reading is preferred with an additional modal, for example with wollen ‘to want’ (10.147 a). Further, the beneficiary interpretation is most easily obtained with verbs that are typically outsourced, i.e. verbs that describe actions that are often performed by somebody else, for example die Haare schneiden ‘to cut the hair’ (10.147 b) or das Bein brechen ‘to break a leg’ (10.147 c).

(10.147) a. Ich will den Rechner repariert haben.
(= Ich will, dass mein Rechner repariert wird.)
b. Er hat die Haare geschnitten.
(= Ihm sind die Haare geschnitten worden.)
c. Ich habe das Bein gebrochen.
(= Mein Bein ist gebrochen.)

[10.195] The retention of the original agent is only possible in very few situations (10.148 a). However, retention is widespread with the light verb in the Konjunktiv (10.148 b) and with the stacked modal construction (10.148 c). Because of these possibilities I decided to classify this construction as a passive and not as an anticausative.

(10.148) a. Er hat das Gesicht von tiefen Falten durchfurcht. Example from Latzel (1977a: 301).
b. Ich hätte den Rechner gerne von dem erfahrenen Techniker repariert.
c. Ich will den Rechner von dem erfahrenen Techniker repariert haben.

[10.196] The possibility of this construction with intransitives is discussed by Rothstein (2007b: 295–296), but his examples (öffnen, schließen) are not applicable, because they are covert anticausatives (see Sec­tion 5.5.5). There are a few other intriguing examples without an accusative object, but they show a rather different remapping of roles as discussed in detail in Sec­tion 10.9.1.

[10.197] There is a long scholarly history describing this beneficiary reading of the haben+Partizip construction (e.g. Kruisinga 1935: 122; Bech 1955: 20–21; Stopp 1957: 278; Seiler 1973: 842–843; Latzel 1977a: 289; Helbig 1978: 42–43; Höhle 1978: 46; Eroms 2000: 395–396, 420–421). The first more in-depth discussion is by Leirbukt (1981; 2000), followed by Hole (2002), Rothstein (2007b), and most recently Lasch (2016: 87ff.) and Businger (2011: Ch. 4). In the recent literature following Hole (2002), this construction is known as the “Partizipiale haben-Konfiguration (PHK)”. I find this name rather cumbersome and uninformative. I propose to call this construction pertinenzpassiv as there is a strong connection to the Pertinenzdativ (see Sec­tion 5.8.4) and the Rezipientenpassiv (see Sec­tion 10.5.21).

[10.198] There are various tests to disentangle the two haben+Partizip constructions (i.e. Perfekt and Pertinenzpassiv). Businger (2011: 160–171) presents an extensive discussion of such criteria. I will describe only a few criteria here. In general, it is rather easy to force a Perfect interpretation, but much harder to force a Pertinenzpassiv reading.

(10.149) a. Ich habe den Rechner (allmählich) repariert.
(= Perfekt: Allmählich repariere ich den Rechner.)
b. Ich habe meinen Rechner repariert.
(= Perfekt: Ich repariere meinen Rechner.)
c. Ich habe mir den Rechner repariert.
(= Perfekt: Ich repariere meinen Rechner.)
d. Ich habe den Rechner repariert (bekommen).
(= Pertinenzpassiv: Jemand repariert meinen Rechner.)
e. Ich habe den Rechner (durch seinen Einsatz) repariert .
(= Pertinenzpassiv: Er hat meinen Rechner repariert.)

[10.199] A connection between the Pertinenzpassiv and the bekommen passive (Sec­tion 10.5.21) is repeatedly proposed (e.g. already in Kruisinga 1935: 122) and regularly criticised (e.g. Hole 2002: 172–173; Businger 2011: 176–184). The basic observation is the parallel as shown in (10.150) with haben+Partizip+bekommen playing a similar role as sein+Partizip+worden (cf. Sec­tion 10.5.16). Although there is undoubtedly a similarity between (10.150 a) and (10.150 b), these two sentences are clearly different constructions. For example, both constructions have different temporal structures. The Pertinenzpassiv is result-oriented and not compatible with gradual time adverbs like langsam (10.151 a). In contrast, the bekommen+Partizip construction is process-oriented and can easily be combined with such adverbs (10.150 b).

(10.150) a. Ich habe den Arm verbunden.
(= Mir ist der Arm verbunden.)
b. Ich habe den Arm verbunden bekommen.
(= Mir ist der Arm verbunden worden.)
(10.151) a. Ich habe den Arm langsam verbunden.
(≠ Mir ist der Arm verbunden.)
b. Ich habe den Arm langsam verbunden bekommen.
(= Mir ist der Arm verbunden worden.)

[10.200] It is crucial for the Pertinenzpassiv that the possessor of the accusative can also be expressed as a dative. It is neither verbs with just datives, nor with just accusative possessors, that allow for a Pertinenzpassiv (Hole 2002: 175–177). The Pertinenzpassiv-interpretation is only available when both dative and possessor expressions are possible for the role of the beneficiary (cf. Sec­tion 5.8.4). More general, there is a curious and extremely fascinating parallel between different kinds of possessor-datives and different constructions with the light verb haben:

(10.152) a. Mein Haus brennt.
Mir brennt das Haus.
Ich habe das Haus am brennen.
b. Der Friseur schneidet meine Haare.
Mir schneidet der Friseur die Haare.
Ich habe die Haare geschnitten.
c. Der Affe sitzt auf meiner Schulter.
Mir sitzt der Affe auf der Schulter.
Ich habe den Affen auf der Schulter sitzen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.5.23 obj › sbj › pbj : [ NA | PN ] sein+Partizip Conversive

[10.201] Some emotional verbs like verärgern ‘to irritate’ (10.153 a) evoke a special conversive diathesis with the light verb sein (Nedjalkov 1988: 422 calls these “emotive quasi-resultatives”). When used with a sein+Partizip construction, the original nominative subject (i.e. the cause of the emotional reaction, here Nachricht ‘notice’) can be retained as a governed preposition. This preposition differs between the various verbs that allow for such a diathesis. For example, the verb verärgern induces the preposition über (10.153 b). The governed status of this preposition can be shown by using the da(r)+Preposition, dass paraphrase (10.153 c), see Sec­tion 6.2.1.

(10.153) a. Die Nachricht verärgert mich.
b. Ich bin verärgert über die Nachricht.
c. Ich bin verärgert darüber, dass die Nachricht verbreitet wurde.

[10.202] Some verbs that allow for this sein+Partizip conversive diathesis (see Sec­tion 2.7.3.1 for the term “conversive”) also allow for a reflexive conversive diathesis, as discussed in Sec­tion 7.5.6. For example, amüsieren ‘to amuse’ (10.154 a) allows for both sein+Partizip (10.154 b) and haben+sich+Partizip (10.154 c). However, not all verbs allow for both diatheses. For example ärgern ‘to irritate’ does not allow the sein+Partizip conversive, but does allow the reflexive conversive (10.155). In contrast, the verb anwidern ‘to nauseate’ shows the reverse distribution (10.156).

(10.154) a. Der Witz amüsiert mich.
b. Ich bin von dem Witz amüsiert.
c. Ich habe mich über den Witz amüsiert.
(10.155) a. Der Witz ärgert mich.
b. * Ich bin geärgert von dem Witz.
c. Ich habe mich über den Witz geärgert.
(10.156) a. Der Witz widert mich an.
b. Ich bin angewidert von dem Witz.
c. * Ich habe mich von dem Witz angewidert.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.5.24 obj › sbj › pbj : [ NA | PN ] liegen+Partizip Conversive

[10.203] The few examples that exist with the liegen+Partizip diathesis (10.157 a,b) all have a governed preposition in (10.157 c).

(10.157) a. Das Desaster begründet die Hoffnung.
b. Im Desaster liegt immer auch die Hoffnung begründet.
c. Die Hoffnung liegt darin begründet, dass ein Desaster Änderung verursacht.

[10.204] Most examples with a finite verb liegen and a participle have a different structure, like (10.158). In these examples the verb liegen has the literal meaning ‘to lie’ and the participle is a depictive secondary predicate (see Sec­tion 10.2.3).

(10.158) a. Er liegt in der Kirche aufgebahrt.
b. Das Geschenk liegt in der Schublade versteckt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.5.25 adj › sbj › ø : [ NpA | –NA ] machen+Partizip Conciliative

[10.205] This is yet another diathesis involving the light verb machen (see paragraph 10.59), for example attested with the verb begehren ‘to desire’ (10.159). The example with beschämen ‘to make ashamed’ is somewhat contrived (10.160). It is unclear, whether this alternation really should be classified as a separate diathesis. In the form as presented here, it is a nice example of a conciliative diathesis (see paragraph 2.103 for the term “conciliative”).

(10.159) a. Ich begehre den Job (wegen der Bezahlung).
b. Die Bezahlung macht den Job begehrt.
(10.160) a. Sie beschämt mich (durch ihre Großmut). Adapted from the dwds dictionary available at https://www.dwds.de/wb/beschämen, accessed 23 September 2022.
b. Ihre Großmut macht mich beschämt.
Dieser Verweis machte den General sehr beschämt. Bruce, Peter Henry: Des Herrn Peter Heinrich Bruce Nachrichten von seinen Reisen in Deutschland, Rußland, die Tartarey, Türkey, Westindien u.s.f. Leipzig, 1784.

Attested verbs

10.6 Diathesis with promotion to subject

[10.206] The four verbs wissen ‘to know’, glauben ‘to believe’, sehen ‘to see’ and finden ‘to find’ (and apparently only those four) allow for a construction with a participle, reminiscent of the Latin accusativus cum participio. This construction describes an opinion by somebody (expressed as a newly added nominative subject) about the veracity of a statement (of which the verb is expressed as a participle). Consequently, such a diathesis will be called an opiniative here. This opinion is marked as either more certain (wissen, finden) or less certain (glauben, sehen).

[10.207] Such opiniatives with glauben (10.161 a) and wissen (10.161 b) can be syntactically be identified by the possibility to paraphrase them with a dass finite complement clause. In contrast, the participle constructions with finden (10.162 a) and sehen (10.162 b) cannot directly be reformulated with a dass finite complement clause. The meanings of these verbs have been grammaticalised in this construction to mean something like überzeugt sein ‘to be sure’ (10.162 a) and glauben ‘to believe’ (10.162 b), respectively.

(10.161) a. Sie glaubt ihn eingeschlafen.
(= Sie glaubt, dass er eingeschlafen ist.)
b. Sie weiß den Nachlass im Archiv gut aufgehoben.
(= Sie weiß, dass der Nachlass im Archiv gut aufgehoben ist.)
(10.162) a. Er findet das Kunstwerk gelungen.
(= Er ist überzeugt, dass das Kunstwerk gelungen ist.)
b. Er sieht seinen Erfolg bedroht.
(= Er glaubt, dass sein Erfolg bedroht ist.)

[10.208] The participles in such constructions are either derived from patientive intransitive verbs, like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ (10.161 a) or gelingen (10.162 a), or transitive verbs, like aufheben ‘to take care’ (10.161 b) or bedrohen (10.162 b). These two possibilities lead to quite different diatheses. With intransitive clauses, like er schläft ein (10.161 a), the erstwhile nominative turns into an accusative and a new nominative opinionator is introduced, i.e. a remapping pattern [–n | na]. In contrast, with transitive clauses like das Archiv hebt den Nachlass auf (10.161 b), the accusative does not change and the erstwhile nominative is dropped or can optionally be expressed with a prepositional phrase. Together with the newly introduced opinionator this leads to a remapping pattern [–na | npa]. These two remapping patterns will be discussed separately below.

[10.209] In identifying these constructions, care has to be taken (again) with the verbs finden and sehen. These verbs occur in superficially similar constructions, as exemplified in (10.163), which actually have a completely different underlying structure. In these examples the verbs finden and sehen are used in their literal transitive meaning of finding/seeing an object. Additionally, these sentences are modified by a depictive secondary predicate in the form of a participle, as introduced in Sec­tion 10.2.3. The verb finden can also be combined with a regular adverb like in das finde ich gut, see Sec­tion 9.3.6. This does not appear to be possible with the other opiniative verbs wissen, glauben and sehen. In these constructions, it is not possible to paraphrase the participle with a dass complement clause.

(10.163) a. Sie findet ihn am Schreibtisch eingeschlafen.
(= Sie findet ihn, während er am Schreibtisch eingeschlafen ist.)
(≠ Sie findet, dass er am Schreibtisch eingeschlafen ist.)
b. Er sieht die Buchstaben verzerrt.
(= Er sieht die Buchstaben, aber die Buchstaben sind verzerrt.)
(≠ Er sieht, dass die Buchstaben verzerrt sind.)

[10.210] As originally observed by Leirbukt (2000), all these constructions appear to be much more acceptable (and much more frequent) when they are stacked inside a modal verb like wollen (see Sec­tion 2.5 for the term “stacking”). Leirbukt only discusses sehen (10.164) and wissen (10.165) and seems to have missed the constructions with glauben and finden. He also discussed constructions with haben, but these are separated here as a completely different diathesis in Sec­tion 10.5.22.

(10.164) a. ? Sie sahen in dem Interview ihre Namen nicht genannt.
b. Sie wollten in dem Interview ihre Namen nicht genannt sehen.
(10.165) a. ? Die Belegschaft weiß das Wahlergebnis keinesfalls als Zustimmung verstanden.
b. Die Belegschaft möchte das Wahlergebnis keinesfalls als Zustimmung verstanden wissen.

[10.211] Similarly, these opiniatives are much more acceptable (and much more frequent) when they form a stack in combination with a self-inflicting reflexive pronoun alternation (see Sec­tion 7.4.5). The reflexive marking indicates that the opinionator and the opined object are the same participant. This is possible both with intransitives (10.166) and transitives (10.167).

(10.166) a. Ich scheitere.
b. ? Der Lehrer sieht mich gescheitert.
c. Ich sehe mich gescheitert.
(10.167) a. Die Polizei verfolgt den Dieb.
b. ? Ich weiß den Dieb von der Polizei verfolgt.
c. Der Dieb weiß sich von der Polizei verfolgt.

10.6.1 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] wissen+Partizip Intransitive opiniative

(10.168) a. Das Kind schläft ein.
b. Sie weiß das Kind eingeschlafen.

Attested verbs

10.6.2 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] glauben+Partizip Intransitive opiniative

(10.169) a. Der Sieg kommt.
b. Er glaubte den Sieg gekommen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.6.3 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] sehen+Partizip Intransitive opiniative

(10.170) a. Die UN scheitert.
b. Viele Menschen sehen die UN bereits gescheitert.
(= Viele Menschen glauben, dass die UN bereits gescheitert ist.)

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.6.4 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] finden+Partizip Intransitive opiniative

(10.171) a. Das Projekt scheitert.
b. Ich finde das Projekt gescheitert.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.6.5 ø › sbj › adj : [ –NA | NpA ] wissen+Partizip Transitive opiniative

(10.172) a. Das Archiv hebt den Nachlass auf.
b. Ich weiß den Nachlass im Archiv gut aufgehoben.

[10.212] The following example (10.173) from Leirbukt (2000) shows that any additional dative arguments are simply retained.

(10.173) a. Jemand unterstellt die Ostgebiete dem Kontrollrat.
b. Ich weiß die Ostgebiete dem Kontrollrat unterstellt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

[10.213] Examples stacked with a modal verb:

[10.214] Examples stacked with a self-inflicting reflexive alternation:

10.6.6 ø › sbj › adj : [ –NA | NpA ] glauben+Partizip Transitive opiniative

(10.174) a. Der Wind zerreist das Seil.
b. Er glaubt das Seil vom Wind zerrissen.
(= Er glaubt, dass das Seil vom Wind zerrissen ist.)

Attested verbs

Further examples

[10.215] Examples stacked with a self-inflicting reflexive alternation:

10.6.7 ø › sbj › adj : [ –NA | NpA ] sehen+Partizip Transitive opiniative

(10.175) a. Der Autor bricht das Vertrauen.
b. Die Zeitung sieht das Vertrauen durch den Autor gebrochen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

[10.216] Examples stacked with a self-inflicting reflexive alternation:

10.6.8 ø › sbj › adj : [ –NA | NpA ] finden+Partizip Transitive opiniative

(10.176) a. Das Alter verändert mich.
b. Du findest mich vom Alter verändert?

Attested verbs

Further examples

[10.217] Examples stacked with a self-inflicting reflexive alternation:

10.6.9 adj › sbj › obj : [ pN | NA ] machen+Partizip Inverted passive+reflexive drop

[10.218] One of the many different diathesis with the light verb machen (cf. paragraph 10.59). With the addition of the machen+Partizip diathesis, the reflexive pronoun is lost.

(10.177) a. Ich eigne mich durch meine Qualifikation für den Job.
b. Die Qualifikation macht mich geeignet für den Job.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.7 Diatheses with object demotion

[10.219] Not attested.

10.8 Diatheses with promotion to object

[10.220] Not attested.

10.9 Symmetrical diatheses

10.9.1 obj › sbj › obj : [ DN | NA ] haben+Partizip Intransitive possessor passive

[10.221] A few incidental intransitive verbs allow for a special variant of the possessor passive diathesis Sec­tion 10.5.22. In the possessor passive (Pertinenzpassiv), the possessor of an accusative object (10.178 a) is remapped to nominative subject (10.178 c). This is only possible with possessors that can alternatively be expressed as a dative (10.178 b).

(10.178) a. Der Friseur schneidet meine Haare.
b. Der Friseur schneidet mir die Haare.
c. Ich habe die Haare geschnitten.

[10.222] A similar diathesis for the possessor of an intransitive subject is also attested, though it is very rare (cf. Businger 2011: 162–163). An example is the verb anschwellen ‘to swell’, for which the possessor of the subject (10.179 a) can be expressed as a dative (10.179 b) and as a subject in a haben+Partizip construction (10.179 c).

(10.179) a. Sein Arm schwillt an.
b. Ihm schwillt der Arm an.
c. Er hat den Arm angeschwollen.

[10.223] A related, but different, diathesis with intransitive verbs uses the haben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv constructions (10.180), discussed extensively in Sec­tion 13.9.1. This seems to be more widespread than the haben+Partizip diathesis with intransitives.

(10.180) a. Meine Holzkohle glüht.
b. Mir glüht die Holzkohle.
c. Ich habe die Holzkohle am Glühen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

10.9.2 ø › sbj › ø : [ –NA | N–A ] machen+Partizip Commutative

[10.224] One of the many different diathesis with the light verb machen (cf. paragraph 10.59). This diathesis is only attested with the verb vergessen ‘to forget’ (10.181). Crucially, the person forgetting something, i.e. the nominative in (10.181 a), is no the same participant as the person causing the forgetting, i.e. the nominative in (10.181 b).

(10.181) a. Er vergisst den Verlust.
b. Ich mache den Verlust vergessen.

Attested verbs

10.9.3 ø › sbj › ø : [ –NA | N–A ] geben+Partizip Commutative

[10.225] This diathesis with geben+Partizip is apparently only possible with the main verb verlieren ‘to lose something’. Crucially, the person losing something (10.182 a) is not necessarily the same person as the person declaring the loss (10.182 b).

(10.182) a. Irgendjemand verliert den Ring.
b. Ich gebe den Ring verloren.

Attested verbs

11 Light-verb alternations with Infinitiv

11.1 Introduction

[11.1] Constructions with a light verb and an infinitive are common in German. Most familiar to German speakers are infinitives used in combination with modal verbs like müssen or wollen (11.1 a), see Sec­tion 11.4.7. More intriguingly, infinitives can be used with sein to express the rationale for the absence of the subject (11.1 b), see Sec­tion 11.4.1. Less widely discussed is a construction of haben with an infinitive and an adverbial to express the fortunate circumstances in which the nominative subject finds itself (11.1 c), see Sec­tion 11.4.5.

(11.1) a. Die Schülerin muss/darf/will/kann die Pflanzen gießen.
b. Die Schülerin ist die Pflanzen gießen.
c. Die Schülerin hat gut reden.

[11.2] All these examples mentioned above are constructions that do not show any role-remapping, i.e. they exhibit epithesis. In contrast, there are also various light verbs that induce a diathesis when used together with an infinitive. For example, lassen induces a causative/permissive diathesis (11.2 a), see Sec­tion 11.6.2. Likewise widely acknowledged are verbs of perception like sehen that give rise to an experiencer construction (11.2 b), see Sec­tion 11.6.6. Less widely discussed is the diathesis of haben with an infinitive of a position verb, expressing that the nominative subject is some kind of agent/experiencer mixture (11.2 c), see Sec­tion 11.9.2.

(11.2) a. Die Lehrerin lässt den Schüler ihre Pflanzen gießen.
b. Die Lehrerin sieht den Direktor ihre Pflanzen gießen.
c. Die Lehrerin hat ihre Pflanzen auf der Fensterbank stehen.

[11.3] Following Bech (1955) such constructions are often designated as Erster Status in the German grammatical literature. However, this name is not very transparent nor particularly mnemonic, so I prefer to use the more descriptive designation “light-verb+infinitive” construction, often simply abbreviated to infinitive construction.

[11.4] There are twelve frequently occurring diatheses that use a light-verb+infinitive construction and for which I propose a German name, as listed below. Note that the lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv construction occurs in many different guises. A discussion comparing and distinguishing them can be found in Sec­tion 11.2.5.

11.2 Characterising infinitive constructions

11.2.1 Identifying the infinitive

[11.5] The German infinitiv (cf. Duden-Grammatik 2009: 443) is straightforwardly identified as a wordform ending in ‑en (11.3 a) with an allomorph ‑n after stems ending in ‑el/er (11.3 b). This infinitive is used as the citation form of a verb in German, for example occurring as the index entry in dictionaries. Note that there is widespread syncretism between the infinitive and the finite 1st and 3rd person plural of most verbs. For example, the wordform werden in (11.3 c) is a finite 1st person plural, while laufen is an infinitive. This can be ascertained by changing the subject to the singular (11.3 d), which shows the different agreement of the finite form werde, while the infinitive laufen does not change.

(11.3) a. lauf-en, versteh-en, werd-en
b. sammel-n, bedauer-n, änder-n
c. Wir werden laufen.
d. Ich werde laufen.

11.2.2 Nominal predication

[11.6] Functionally, the infinitiv is a nominal form of the verb. Consequently, it regularly occurs preceded by a determiner. In such usage, German orthography urges for the capitalisation of the infinitive, e.g. das Laufen ‘the running’ (11.4 a). This nominal nature of the infinitive contrasts nicely to the adjectival nature of the participle, e.g. gelaufene (11.4 b), as discussed in the previous chapter (see especially Sec­tion 10.2.9).

(11.4) a. Das Laufen fällt mir schwer.
b. Die selten gelaufene Distanz fällt mir schwer.

[11.7] Given the nominal nature of the infinitive, there is a close connection between light-verb+infinitive constructions and nominal predication, i.e. constructions of a light verb with a bare noun. Nominal predication in German is typically constructed with the light verbs werden, sein or bleiben (Duden-Grammatik 2009: 812–813). The parallel between infinitives and nouns is obvious with the future meaning of werden (11.5 a), see Sec­tion 11.4.9, and the continuative meaning of bleiben (11.5 b), see Sec­tion 11.4.4. However, as illustrated in (11.5 c), the meaning of sein+noun (“identification”) is quite different from sein+infinitive (“absentive”), see Sec­tion 11.4.1.

(11.5) a. Ich werde Vater.
Ich werde wenig schlafen.
b. Ich bleibe Vater.
Ich bleibe lieber sitzen.
c. Ich bin Vater.
Ich bin dann mal einkaufen.

[11.8] Modal verbs (see Sec­tion 11.4.7) are normally not used for nominal predication. However, in recent political framing the nominal predication Kanzler können ‘to know how to be a chancellor’ has become famous (11.6 a), even leading to other modal verbs being used in the same construction, like dürfen (11.6 b). Kubczak (2014) investigates the parallels between such usage of modal verbs and nominal constructions of ability (11.6 c).

(11.6) a. Kurt Beck, der kann Kanzler. Nürnberger Nachrichten, 30.04.2007: 3, cited from Kubczak (2014: 128).
b. Rosier darf Kanzler! Süddeutsche Zeitung, 03.08.2011, cited from Kubczak (2014: 129).
c. Er kann den Dialekt dieser Gegend.

[11.9] A further kind of nominal predication uses the verb heißen ‘to be called’ (Duden-Grammatik 2009: 813), indicating that the subject has a particular name (11.7 a). Instead of a noun it is also possible to use infinitives, either without zu (11.7 b) or with zu (11.7 c). Both these constructions indicate equation, and it is unclear whether there is any difference between the equations with or without zu. Interestingly, both the subject and the predicate in such sentences need to be infinitives (and both either with or without zu). Note that the light verb heißen can also be used in a (somewhat old-fashioned) causative construction (11.7 d), which seems to be completely separate from the equational usage (see Sec­tion 11.6.5).

(11.7) a. Dieses Sternbild heißt Großer Bär. Duden-Grammatik (2009): 813
b. Die Symbole abschaffen heißt die Freimaurerei abschaffen. dwds: Die Zeit, 20.11.2017, Nr. 47.
Von den Erwachsenen lernen, heißt Reife beweisen. In: Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache: Wörterbuch zur Verbvalenz. Grammatisches Informationssystem grammis. https://grammis.ids-mannheim.de/verbs/view/400556/1, accessed 27 September 2021.
c. Diese Wahrheit zu akzeptieren, hieße zu resignieren. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 25.07.2005.
Eine Katze zu haben, heißt, sich um ein Lebewesen kümmern zu müssen. Duden-Grammatik (2009): 813
d. Der Henker hieß ihn niederknien.

[11.10] Structurally similar to nominal predication, possession can be indicated by using the verb haben with a noun phrase. In this construction the possessed nouns typically need a determiner (11.8 a). With mental states like Schmerzen ‘pain’ or Geduld ‘patience’ it is possible to use the same haben construction with bare nouns (11.8 b). Compare that possessive use of haben to the two different constructions using haben with an infinitive. The Ortspertinenzinversiv construction (11.8 c) still includes a sense of possession, see Sec­tion 11.9.2. The subject of this construction (here Sportler ‘sportsman’) is necessarily the possessor of the object in the prepositional phrase (here Nase ‘nose’). In contrast, the Fortunativ construction (11.8 d) has no relation to possession at all, see Sec­tion 11.4.5 .

(11.8) a. Ich habe eine Tasse.
b. Ich habe Geduld/Schmerzen.
c. Der Sportler hat einen Tropfen an seiner Nase hängen.
d. Er hat leicht reden.

11.2.3 ACI accusativus cum infinitivo

[11.11] Given the immense influence of Latin grammar on grammatical theory, it is no surprise that the classical Latin concept of an accusativus cum infinitivo (aci) is often used to describe a similar phenomenon in German. The term aci describes a sentence structure that is the result of a clause alternation in which an originally nominative subject ends up as an accusative, while the verb is expressed as an infinitive.

[11.12] This aci is very widespread in Latin, but in German it is only attested with a few light-verb+infinitive diatheses that add a new subject (see Sec­tion 11.6), namely causative light verbs like schicken ‘to send’ (11.9 a) and perception light verbs like sehen ‘to see’ (11.9 b). As a cover term for all diatheses adding a new subject I have proposed the term novative (see Sec­tion 2.7.3.2). So, in the terminology as used in this book, an aci sentence structure is the result of a novative diathesis expressed with a light-verb+infinitive voice.

(11.9) a. Er kauft den Tisch.
Sie schickt ihn den Tisch kaufen.
b. Der Mann putzt den Tisch.
Sie sieht den Mann den Tisch putzen.

[11.13] Such diatheses regularly result in sentences with two separate noun phrases in the accusative, namely when an accusative argument was already present before the diathesis. Such double accusatives are highly unusual in German outside of these constructions (see Sec­tion 5.3.9).

[11.14] Although the surface structure of all these constructions in German is clearly monoclausal, underlyingly there might be differences (see Harbert 1977 for a discussion). For example, light verbs like schicken only allow for a monoclausal infinitive construction (11.10 a,b), while light verbs like sehen additionally allow for a biclausal dass alternative (11.10 c,d) .

(11.10) a. Sie schickt ihn den Tisch kaufen.
b. * Sie schickt, dass er einen Tisch kauft.
c. Sie sieht ihn den Tisch kaufen.
d. Sie sieht, dass er den Tisch kaufen.

[11.15] Speyer (2018) discusses the history of aci constructions in German, arguing that they are originally Germanic (and possibly even proto-Indo-European) and not calques from Latin.

11.2.4 IPP Ersatzin­fi­ni­tiv

[11.16] The ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv is a special syntactic phenomenon attested in West-Germanic languages (Schmid 2005; Schallert 2014). It concerns the participle of some of the light verbs that are used with infinitives, like können, sehen or lassen. For example, the verb sehen has a regular perfect with haben and a participle gesehen (11.11 a). However, when sehen is used as a light verb with an infinitive, then the perfect can alternatively consists of haben with an infinitive sehen (11.11 b). Because the infinitive is used instead of the expected participle, this phenomenon is known as an ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv or “infinitive instead of a participle” (Lat. infinitivus pro participium, ipp). Diachronically this is a relatively recent development, probably starting in the 14th/15th century (Jäger 2018; see also Coupé 2015: Ch. 7 for a detailed diachronic study of ipp in Dutch).

(11.11) a. Sie sieht, dass er den Tisch putzt.
Sie hat gesehen, dass er den Tisch putzt.
b. Sie sieht ihn den Tisch putzen.
Sie hat ihn den Tisch putzen gesehen.
Sie hat ihn den Tisch putzen sehen.

[11.17] Based on data from various West-Germanic languages and dialects, Schmid (2005: 32–33, 106) proposes a hierarchy of verb types that show this phenomenon (11.12). German fits nicely in this hierarchy (almost by definition, because German was used to propose the hierarchy in the first place). The German verbs inducing an ipp are causative lassen, modals dürfen/können/mögen/müssen/sollen/wollen and also brauchen, perception verbs hören, sehen and benefactive helfen.

(11.12) Implicational scale of ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv verbs
causatives < modals < perception verbs < benefactives < duratives < inchoatives < control verbs

[11.18] However, this hierarchy should be interpreted rather loosely. The designation “causative” on the hierarchy is a misnomer. The verb lassen also induces the ipp in its other uses, viz. possibility and permission (see the next Sec­tion 11.2.5). Conversely, other causative constructions do not induce an ipp, namely those with schicken (see Sec­tion 11.6.3) and machen (see Sec­tion 11.6.4). Likewise, while the perception verbs hören and sehen allow for an ipp, the syntactically similar perception verbs fühlen and spüren do not (see Sec­tion 11.6.6 ff.).

[11.19] Further, the ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv is not obligatory for benefactive helfen and neither for the perception verbs sehen and hören, but it is obligatory for modal verbs. This would actually nicely correspond to a connected region on the hierarchy, were it not for the verb lassen, which also allows for both infinitive and participle (11.13). However, according to Enzinger (2012: 34) the construction with the participle gelassen only allows for a permissive reading (11.13 b). If this is confirmed, then the hierarchy could be extended by adding “permissives” close to “benefactives” to again obtain a connected region on the hierarchy for optional ipp.

(11.13) a. Sie hat mich die Kleider waschen lassen.
(causative = Sie verursacht, dass ich die Kleider wasche.)
(permissive = Sie erlaubt, dass ich die Kleider wasche.)
b. Sie hat mich die Kleider waschen gelassen.
(only permissive = Sie hat erlaubt, dass ich die Kleider wasche.)

11.2.5 The many guises of lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv

[11.20] It has been widely observed that there is a large variety of uses of the lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv construction in German (e.g. Eisenberg 2006a: 369–371; Kotůlková 2010a; Pitteroff 2014). In this chapter I will distinguish six different diatheses that all use the lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv construction, as summarised in Table 11.1. These six constructions are clearly diachronically related, and also synchronically they are very similar. However, they cannot be reduced to a single (abstract) construction with transparent and productive derivations leading to these six different diatheses as distinguished here. I will succinctly summarise these different options here. For a detailed discussion, see the sections as indicated in the table. Note that there is an additional usage of lassen with a participle that is discussed in Sec­tion 10.4.11.

Table 11.1: Different diatheses with a lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv construction
Section Remapping German Name Reflexive Interpretation
11.5.1 [n | –] Möglichkeitsbewertung yes possibility
11.5.5 [na | pn] Permissivpassiv yes possibility/permission
11.5.7 [na | pn] Permissivkonversiv yes permission
11.9.1 [nd | an] Permissivinversiv yes permission
 
11.6.2 [–n | na] Permissivkausativ no causation/permission
11.6.1 [–na | npa] Passivkausativ no causation

[11.21] The six diatheses can be divided into two major groups depending on the use of the reflexive pronoun. The first four diatheses in Table 11.1 (with interpretation permission/possibility) obligatorily have a reflexive pronoun. The last two variants (with interpretation causation/permission) do not have a reflexive pronoun, although they can optionally have one. Basically, when the reflexive pronoun can be removed by a paraphrase, then the construction is of the latter causation/permission type. Note that the possibility of removal is often context-dependent, because exactly the same sentence can have differing structures (and correspondingly differing interpretations) depending on the context in which it occurs.

[11.22] Quickly summarised, there are three possibilities of removable reflexive pronouns. First, the reflexive can be a possessor dative, like mir in (11.14 a). In such sentences, the participant to which the reflexive pronoun refers is necessarily the possessor of another role, here of the accusative Haare ‘hair’. This can be easily tested as the reflexive pronoun can be paraphrased as a possessive pronoun meine (cf. Sec­tion 5.8.4). Second, the reflexive can be a beneficiary dative (11.14 b), which can easily be tested because the reflexive pronoun can be paraphrased by a für phrase (cf. Sec­tion 6.8.10)

(11.14) a. Ich lasse mir die Haare schneiden.
Ich lasse meine Haare schneiden.
b. Ich lasse mir eine Suppe kochen.
Ich lasse für mich eine Suppe kochen.

[11.23] Third, a reflexive pronoun, like sich in (11.15 a), can have self-inflicting reflexive reference replacing a noun phrase. To test for this option, it should be possible to replace the reflexive pronoun by another participant, like seine Katze ‘his cats’ (11.15 b). Further tests for such self-inflicting reflexive reference are illustrated in (11.15 c), viz. the possibility of (i) negation of the reflexive (nicht sich) and (ii) syntactic emphasis of the reflexive (nur sich selbst), see also Chapter 7, especially paragraph 7.66.

(11.15) a. Der König lässt sich durch die Stadt tragen.
b. Der König lässt seine Katze durch die Stadt tragen.
c. Der König lässt nicht sich, sondern seine Katze durch die Stadt tragen.
Der König lässt nur sich selbst durch die Stadt tragen.

[11.24] Returning to the classification of the lassen constructions in Table 11.1, the last two diatheses (i.e. those without obligatory reflexive pronouns and with causation/permission interpretation) are both promotions. They are novative diatheses that introduce a completely new role into the sentence as a nominative subject. In contrast, the first four diatheses in Table 11.1 (i.e. those with obligatory reflexive pronouns and permission/possibility interpretation) are all demotions. They are closely related, but can be differentiated by their specific remapping of roles.

[11.25] So, there are the two closely related lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv diatheses with promotion, which will be called Permissivkausativ and Passivkausativ. Although both are similar, there are various differences between these two causative diatheses. First, the erstwhile nominative is demoted to an accusative in the Permissivkausativ (11.16), while it is demoted to an optional von prepositional phrase in the Passivkausativ (11.17). Second, there are various verbs that allow for a Permissivkausativ but not for a Passivkausativ. For examples, the verb antworten ‘to answer’ (11.17 c,d) is not compatible with a Passivkausativ. Finally, the Permissivkausativ can both have a causative (11.16 a) and a permissive (11.16 b) reading, while the Passivkausativ cannot have a permissive interpretation, only the causative interpretation is possible (11.17 b).

(11.16) permissivkausativ
a. Die Schüler schreiben einen Test.
Der Lehrer lässt die Schüler einen Test schreiben.
(= Der Lehrer sorgt dafür, dass die Schüler einen Test schreiben.)
b. Die Schüler gehen nach Hause.
Der Lehrer lässt die Schüler nach Hause gehen.
(= Der Lehrer erlaubt, dass die Schüler nach Hause gehen.)
(11.17) passivkausativ
a. Der Schüler putzt den Tisch.
b. Der Lehrer lässt den Tisch (von dem Schüler) putzen.
(= Der Lehrer verursacht, dass der Tisch geputzt wird.)
(≠ Der Lehrer erlaubt, dass der Tische geputzt wird.)
c. Der Lehrer antwortet dem Schüler.
d. * Der Vater lässt dem Schüler von dem Lehrer antworten.

[11.26] Next are the four closely related lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv diatheses with demotion. First, the Permissivpassiv is attested with transitive verbs, like besteigen ‘to climb’ (11.18 a) or kämmen ‘to comb’ (11.18 b). The accusative (den Berg, seine Kinder) is promoted to nominative subject and the erstwhile subject (die Besucher, der Vater) is demoted to an optional von prepositional phrase. A reflexive pronoun is obligatory present and cannot be replaced, negated nor focussed. When the new nominative subject is inanimate, the diathesis has an epistemic meaning expressing the possibility of the action, viz. ‘it is possible’ (11.18 a). In contrast, when the new subject is animate, then typically a permissive interpretation ‘it is allowed’ is preferred (11.18 b), though a possibility-reading is also viable.

(11.18) permissivpassiv
a. Die Besucher besteigt den Berg.
Der Berg lässt sich (von Besuchern) besteigen.
(= Es ist möglich, den Berg zu besteigen.)
b. Der Vater kämmt seine Kinder.
Die Kinder lassen sich (vom Vater) kämmen.
(= Sie erlauben, dass sie gekämmt werden.)

[11.27] Second, the Permissivkonversiv is attested with verbs that describe the evocation of a state-of-mind, like empören ‘fill with outrage’ (11.19 a) or belustigen ‘to amuse’ (11.19 b). The animate accusative is promoted to nominative (with an obligatory reflexive pronoun) and the original subject is demoted to a governed von prepositional phrase. The governed status of this phrase can be shown by the possible davon, dass paraphrase (11.19 c). Some of these verbs, like empören (11.19 a) prefer a negation in this diathesis. Other, like belustigen (11.19 b) prefer not to have a negation.

(11.19) permissivkonversiv
a. Dieser Witz empört mich.
Ich lasse mich nicht von diesem Witz empören.
b. Die Burschen belustigen mich.
Man […] läßt sich von den Burschen belustigen. dwds: Kisch, Egon Erwin: Der rasende Reporter, Berlin: Aufbau-Taschenbuch-Verl. 1925, S. 7.
c. Ich lasse mich davon belustigen, dass die Burschen singen.

[11.28] Third, the Permissivinversiv occurs with verbs that take a nominative and a dative argument. It typically applies to verbs with which the dative is animate, like gefallen ‘to like’ (11.20). This dative is promoted to nominative subject (with an obligatory dative reflexive pronoun) and the erstwhile nominative is demoted to accusative. Just like with the previous Permissivkonversiv, this diathesis also has verbs that prefer a negation, like gefallen ‘to like’ (11.20 a) and verbs that do not, like schmecken ‘to taste’ (11.20 b).

(11.20) permissivinversiv
a. Dein Ton gefällt mir nicht.
Ich lasse mir deinen Ton nicht gefallen.
b. Das Bärenfleisch schmeckt ihm.
Er lässt sich das Bärenfleisch schmecken. dwds: Die Zeit, 22.11.1985, Nr. 48.

[11.29] Finally, with agentive intransitive verbs like wandern ‘to hike’ (11.22 a), the lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv construction leads to a special diathesis, called Möglichkeitsbewertung here. The nominative subject is removed and an evaluative adverbial is necessary, like gut ‘well’ (11.21 a). Although the nominative is removed, this construction often occurs without a valency-simulating pronoun es. Verbs with a governed preposition, like warten auf ‘to wait for’ (11.22 b) are slightly different because when the governed preposition is retained, then (i) the valency simulating es is impossible and (ii) no evaluative adverbial is necessary (see Sec­tion 11.5.2).

(11.21) möglichkeitsbewertung
a. Die Familie wandert im Wald.
Im Wald lässt (es) sich gut wandern.
b. Der Kunde wartet auf ein Tattoo.
Auf ein Tattoo lässt sich warten. Attested online at https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/id_89453948/corona-lockerungen-die-haeme-ueber-die-friseuroeffnungen-ist-entlarvend-.html, accessed 15 September 2021.

11.3 Deponent verbs

[11.30] There do not appear to be any infinitives that do not also occur as a finite verb. A possible phenomenon to investigate further in this context are noun+verb compounds that do not have finite forms, like bauchreden, bausparen, ehebrechen or wettlaufen. Although the second part of these compounds are verbs that clearly can be finite (reden, sparen, brechen, laufen), the whole compound cannot be used as a finite verb. However, the question is, whether these lexemes should be classified as verbs in the first place. They only occur as an infinitive, so they are more like nouns. However, they can occur in light-verb+infinitive constructions as discussed in this chapter.

11.4 Alternations without diathesis

11.4.1 sein+In­fi­ni­tiv Absentive

[11.31] The absentive is a construction that expresses that the subject participant is currently not present because of an activity that is being pursued. The grammatical concept was originally proposed by de Groot (2000). For German, this phenomenon is widely discussed in the literature (cf. Vogel 2007: 269ff.; Abraham 2008; König 2009).

[11.32] For example, an activity like schwimmen ‘to swim’ can be used in the infinitive with the light verb sein to indicate absence because of the swimming (11.22 a). This construction is typically used with intransitive verbs, though there does not seem to be a strict prohibition of more complex activities with more arguments (11.22 b). This construction does not induce an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.22 c).

(11.22) a. Ich schwimme.
Ich bin schwimmen.
b. Ich bringe dem Nachbarn den Teller zurück.
Ich bin nur mal kurz dem Nachbarn den Teller zurückbringen.
c. Ich bin dem Nachbarn den Teller zurückbringen gewesen. (*sein)

[11.33] The absentive can only be used with verbs that clearly include agency, so typical patientive verbs like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ do not allow for this construction (cf. Sec­tion 10.4.2). In contrast, a verb like schlafen ‘to sleep’ does allow for an absentive construction, though it needs a suitable context (11.23 b). However, not all verbs with a haben perfect (often analysed as “agentive”, see Sec­tion 10.4.1) allow for an absentive, for example sitzen ‘to sit’ does not allow for it (11.23 c).

(11.23) a. * Ich bin einschlafen.
b. Ich bin dann mal schlafen!
c. * Ich bin auf den Stuhl sitzen.

Attested verbs

11.4.2 gehen/fahren+In­fi­ni­tiv Abitive

[11.34] Parallel to the sein+In­fi­ni­tiv absentive, the light verbs gehen ‘to go’ and fahren ‘to drive’ can also be used to indicate (intended) absence because of an activity (11.24 a). In accordance to their lexical meaning, these two light verbs place a focus on the movement away, leading to the absence. I propose the term abitive (from Lat. abire ‘to depart, to go away’) for this construction. This term explicitly evokes a relation to the ablative, which is a nominal category that expresses a motion away from something. The verbal abitive construction does not induce an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.24 c).

(11.24) a. Er besucht seinen Freund.
Er geht/fährt seinen Freund besuchen.
b. * Er geht einschlafen.
c. Er ist seinen Freund besuchen gegangen/gefahren. (*gehen/fahren)

Attested verbs

[11.35] Probably exactly the same verbs as can be used with sein+In­fi­ni­tiv absentive can also be used with gehen/fahren+In­fi­ni­tiv, so they will not be repeated here (see Sec­tion 11.4.1).

11.4.3 kommen+In­fi­ni­tiv Aditive

[11.36] Contrasting to the gehen/fahren+In­fi­ni­tiv abitive there is also a kommen+In­fi­ni­tiv construction to express a movement towards a location where an activity takes place (11.25 a). I propose the term aditive (from Lat. adire ‘to approach’) for this verbal category. The parallel nominal case is called allative, which also includes the prefix ad-, though with internal sandhi. This verbal aditive construction does not induce an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.25 b).

(11.25) a. Er kommt hier immer die Zeitung lesen.
b. Er ist hier immer die Zeitung lesen gekommen. (*kommen)

Attested verbs

11.4.4 bleiben+In­fi­ni­tiv Continuative

[11.37] The construction bleiben+In­fi­ni­tiv (cf. Eisenberg 2006a: 351; Engel 1996: 476) is typically used with position verbs like sitzen ‘to sit’ or liegen ‘to lie’ (11.26 a). This construction with bleiben indicates that the position is being maintained. Transitive verbs also appear to be possible, but examples are difficult to find (11.26 b), see also further examples below. Note that the combination of bleiben with an infinitive of a position verb is often considered to be a single word in German orthography (11.26 c). This construction does not induce an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.26 c).

(11.26) a. Nora bleibt morgens immer ewig liegen. Schlücker (2007): 142
b. ? Er bleibt ihr Briefe schicken.
c. Nora ist morgens immer liegengeblieben. (*liegenbleiben)

Attested verbs

Further examples

11.4.5 haben+In­fi­ni­tiv Fortunative

[11.38] The construction haben+In­fi­ni­tiv describes a situation in which the subject is in a fortunate situation to do something, so I propose to call this construction fortunative (from Lat. fortunatus ‘blessed, lucky’). This construction obligatorily needs an adverb, most frequently leicht ‘easy’ (11.27 a) or gut ‘well’ (11.27 b). Only incidentally other adverbs are attested, like klug ‘clever’ (11.27 c). The main verb seems to be restricted to intransitives, most frequent are reden ‘to talk’ and lachen ‘to laugh’. Utterance verbs appear to be particularly common in this construction. The only examples with transitive verbs involve incorporated-like objects, which makes such constructions arguably intransitive (11.27 d).

[11.39] This construction with haben is closely related to similar constructions with an obligatory adverbial evaluation, like with the light verbs sein (see Sec­tion 11.5.3]) and lassen (see Sec­tion 3.3.4). A major difference is that haben only occurs with positive adverbials, while sein and lassen also allow the negative counterparts.

(11.27) a. Er hat leicht reden.
Nike hatte leicht protzen. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 13.07.1998.
b. Er hat gut lachen.
Der Kanzler hat gut schimpfen. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 14.12.2002.
c. Du hast klug reden. dwds: Neutsch, Erik: Spur der Steine, Halle: Mitteldeutscher Verl. 1964 S.7.
d. Wer im Rohr sitzt, hat gut Pfeifen schneiden. dwds: Wander, Karl Friedrich Wilhelm (Hrsg.): Deutsches Sprichwörter-Lexikon. Bd. 3. Leipzig, 1873.

Further examples

11.4.6 tun+In­fi­ni­tiv Progressive/Verb focus

[11.40] The tun+In­fi­ni­tiv construction (Schwarz 2004) is considered substandard and frowned upon in written German (11.28 a). However, it is widespread in German dialects and also frequent in the spoken standard language (Erb 2001: Ch. 5). The acceptability is strongly improved for many German speakers with fronting of the infinitive (11.28 b), putting focus on the verb meaning and losing any aspectual implication (Schwarz 2004: 15–18). This second usage is more akin to English do-support than to a progressive aspect.

(11.28) a. ? Ich tu dir das Buch schenken.
b. Schenken tu ich dir das Buch.

Attested verbs

11.4.7 Modal light verbs

[11.41] The traditional modal verbs dürfen/können/mögen/müssen/sollen/wollen and the modal-like light verbs werden and brauchen are frequently used in constructions with infinitives. There do not seem to be any restrictions on which verbs can occur as infinitives in such constructions. This is noteworthy because all other constructions as discussed in this book have restrictions on the verbs that can be used with them (cf. Sec­tion 1.3.4).

[11.42] The modal verbs dürfen/können/mögen/möchten/müssen/sollen/wollen are extensively discussed in the German grammatical literature and will therefore not discussed in any detail here (e.g. see Duden-Grammatik 2009: 556ff.). These modal verbs induce an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.29).

(11.29) a. Er will das Haus bauen.
b. Er hat das Haus bauen wollen (*gewollt).

[11.43] An interesting supplementary effect that these modal verbs have on diathesis (first observed by Leirbukt 2000) concerns the interpretation of the haben+Partizip construction. This haben+Partizip construction has two different interpretations (11.30 a), either Perfekt (see Sec­tion 10.4) or Pertinenzpassiv (see Sec­tion 10.5.22). In most uses, the Perfekt interpretation is the preferred reading. However, with an additional modal light verb the Pertinenzpassiv interpretation is strongly preferred (11.30 b).

(11.30) a. Er hat sein Auto repariert.
(Perfekt = Er reparierte sein Auto selbst.)
(Pertinenzpassiv = Irgendjemand hat das Auto für ihn repariert.)
b. Er will sein Auto repariert haben.
(Pertinenzpassiv = Er will, dass irgendjemand das Auto für ihn repariert.)

11.4.8 brauchen+In­fi­ni­tiv Negative obligation

[11.44] The light verb brauchen ‘to need’ is typically used with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv together with a negation or a modal particle like nur or bloß (11.31 a), see Sec­tion 12.4.6. However, it also occurs (with the same negative polarity) without the particle zu (11.31 b). Without zu it seems to be more typically used in sentences without objects. Whether there is any semantic difference between the usage with or without zu needs more in-depth investigation. When it is used without zu it seems only logical to include brauchen in the set of modal verbs (cf. Duden-Grammatik 2009: 556). The light verb brauchen is also similar to the modal verbs in that it induces an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.31 c).

(11.31) a. Du brauchst nur noch zu unterschreiben.
b. Du brauchst nur noch unterschreiben.
c. Du hättest doch nur noch unterschreiben brauchen!

11.4.9 werden+In­fi­ni­tiv Future/presumption

[11.45] The light verb werden is traditionally classified as a temporal auxiliary used for future reference, but it is actually only very rarely used as a marker of temporal future. The Präsens is mostly used with future time reference in German (11.32 a). It is probably better to consider the werden+In­fi­ni­tiv construction together with the other modal verbs because its usage typically includes a modal implicature of an expectation/presumption (on behalf of the speaker) that the event will take place (11.32 b). There is a long discussion about the merits of this classification of werden as a modal verb in the German grammatical tradition (e.g. Fabricius-Hansen 1986: 141ff.), even with suggestions of evidential usage (Diewald & Smirnova 2010: 170). Crucially, the werden+In­fi­ni­tiv can also be used with past-time reference like damals (11.32 c).

(11.32) a. Der Feind greift morgen vielleicht an.
b. Der Feind wird morgen vielleicht angreifen.
c. Seine Mutter wird sich damals gefreut haben. Duden-Grammatik (2009): 211

[11.46] It is undecidable whether the werden+In­fi­ni­tiv construction induces an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv or not, because constructions that would trigger such an ipp do not exist. A werden+In­fi­ni­tiv (11.33 a) is incompatible with a stacked participle construction, like a sein perfect (11.33 b), a werden passive (11.33 c), or a gehören passive (11.33 d).

(11.33) a. Die Biene wird mich stechen.
(= werden+In­fi­ni­tiv)
b. * Die Biene ist mich stechen geworden/werden.
(= stack of werden+In­fi­ni­tiv +> sein+Partizip Perfekt)
c. * Ich werde (von der Biene) stechen geworden/werden.
(= stack of werden+In­fi­ni­tiv +> werden+Partizip Vorgangspassiv) Note that the reversed stack is perfectly possible, viz. Ich werde (von der Biene) gestochen werden, which is a stack of werden+Partizip Vorgangspassiv +> werden+Infinitiv Futur. However, this stack does not help decide whether an ipp occurs with the werden future.
d. * Ich gehöre stechen geworden/werden.
(= stack of werden+In­fi­ni­tiv +> gehören+Partizip Normpassiv)

11.4.10 lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv Reflexive intransitive

[11.47] The construction lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv is attested in many different variants, for a summary see Sec­tion 11.2.5. There is a special situation in which this construction can be used with intransitive verbs without diathesis. This is a highly restricted usage that only occurs with intransitive verbs that describe both (i) an action that can be performed by an agent and (ii) an event that occurs by natural force, like fallen ‘to fall’ (11.34).

(11.34) a. Er fällt.
b. Er lässt sich fallen.

[11.48] This construction (11.35) is completely transparent as a stack of a lassen causative (Sec­tion 11.6.2) and a self-inflicting reflexive (Sec­tion 7.4.5). So, this epithesis is not an alternation in its own right and thus does not deserve to have its own section in this book. Notwithstanding, I have added this section to document the very small and semantically interesting class of intransitive verbs that allow for this stack.

(11.35) Er fällt.
+> Permissivkausativ = Ich lasse ihn fallen.
+> Selbstbezogenes Reflexiv = Er lässt sich fallen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[11.49] The verb gehen ‘to walk’ has become lexicalised in this construction as sich gehen lassen meaning ‘to lose one’s control’ (11.36).

(11.36) a. Er geht nach Hause.
b. Er lässt sich gehen.

11.4.11 lernen+In­fi­ni­tiv Assistive

[11.50] The verb lernen ‘to learn’ can both occur in a construction with an infinitive (11.37 a) and with zu plus infinitive (11.37 b), see also Sec­tion 12.2.2. There is an obvious parallel to the verbs lehren ‘to teach’ (Sec­tion 11.6.12) and helfen ‘to help’ (Sec­tion 11.6.13), both of which add a new participant (the “teacher” and the “helper”, respectively). The verb lernen does not add a new participant, although there is a strong implication of an unspoken teacher (11.37 b), except in case of natural developmental processes (11.37 a).

(11.37) a. Das Baby läuft.
Das Baby lernt laufen.
b. Ich schreibe meiner Oma monatlich einen Brief.
Ich lerne meiner Oma monatlich einen Brief (zu) schreiben.

11.4.12 legen+In­fi­ni­tiv

[11.51] The light verb legen with infinitive only appears to be used in a single expression with the main verb schlafen ‘to sleep’ (11.38). This construction obligatorily needs a reflexive pronoun.

(11.38) Er legt sich schlafen.

11.5 Diatheses with subject demotion

11.5.1 sbj › ø : [ N | – ] lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv Reflexive impersonal+evaluative

[11.52] When used with intransitive verbs like arbeiten ‘to work’ (11.39 a), the construction lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv leads to an impersonal construction removing the nominative subject. This construction obligatorily includes a reflexive pronoun and an adverbial that expresses an evaluation, like gut ‘well’ (11.39 b). The expected valency-simulating pronoun es is typically present, but it seems possible to leave it out. The conditioning of the presence or absence of es needs more investigation (cf. Kunze 1996: 649). Besides the obvious evaluation as given by the adverb, this diatheses adds an epistemic notion of possibility to the meaning of the verb. I propose to call this diathesis möglichkeitsbewertung in German. There is a clear parallel to the impersonal construction without lassen in (11.39 c), see Sec­tion 9.5.1. This lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis invokes an ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.39 d).

(11.39) a. Ich arbeite zuhause.
b. Zuhause lässt (es) sich gut arbeiten.
c. Zuhause arbeitet es sich gut.
d. Früher hat es sich hier immer gut arbeiten lassen. (*gelassen)

[11.53] The attested adverbials are both positive (gut, leicht, frei) and negative (schlecht, schwer). It is possible to find examples without an adverbial, but these always have a strong evaluative conversational implicature (cf. Sec­tion 9.3.1 for verbs with a similar effect). For example, in the examples in (11.40) the implication is that the life or dreams are good.

(11.40) a. Hier lässt es sich leben. dwds: Die Zeit, 05.01.2012, Nr. 02.
b. Hier lässt es sich träumen! dwds: Die Zeit, 12.12.2013, Nr. 50.

[11.54] This diathesis complex lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv+Adverb can structurally be analysed as a stack of two constructions (see Sec­tion 2.5 for the notion of a stack). It appears to combine an unmarked impersonal reflexive diathesis (11.41 a), see Sec­tion 9.5.1, with a causative lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis (11.41 b), see Sec­tion 11.6.2. However, the productive combination of these two diatheses does not result in the lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv+Adverb construction (11.41 c). For that reason, I consider this combination to be a separate grammaticalised diathesis, i.e. a fixed stack.

(11.41) a. Zuhause arbeitet es sich gut.
b. Irgendjemand lässt mich zuhause arbeiten.
c. Zuhause lässt es sich gut arbeiten.

[11.55] This diathesis is not possible with many patientive intransitive verbs like platzen ‘to burst’ (11.42 a,b) or bluten ‘to bleed’ (11.42 c,d). However, note that this group of patientive intransitives is a different group of patientive intransitives than those that take a sein+Partizip perfect (cf. Sec­tion 10.4.2).

(11.42) a. Der Ballon platzt.
Der Ballon ist geplatzt.
b. * Zuhause lässt es sich gut platzen.
c. Der Patient blutet.
Der Patient hat geblutet.
d. * Hier lässt es sich schwer bluten.

Attested verbs

Further examples

11.5.2 sbj › ø : [ NP | –P ] lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv Reflexive impersonal+preposition

[11.56] Intransitive verbs with a governed prepositional phrases, like zweifeln ‘to doubt’ (11.43 a), show an impersonal lassen+Reflexiv diathesis similar to the previous one. When the governed prepositional phrase is expressed (below with the preposition an), then there are various syntactic difference to real intransitives. First, the adverbial evaluation does not appear to be necessary anymore. Second, the status of the valency-simulating es is unclear in such examples, though my impression is that with governed prepositional phrases the pronoun es is left out by default (11.43 b). Whether there really is a difference in the status of es depending on the presence of governed prepositional phrases needs more research.

(11.43) a. Ich zweifele an der Ernsthaftigkeit der Aussage.
b. An der Ernsthaftigkeit der Aussage lässt ?(es) sich zweifeln.

[11.57] This diathesis appears to be possible with almost all intransitive verbs with a governed preposition. I have only been able to find a few exceptions, like stinken nach ‘to stink of something’ (11.44).

(11.44) a. Der Müll stinkt nach Fisch.
b. * Nach Fisch lässt (es) sich stinken.

Attested verbs

Further examples

11.5.3 sbj › ø : [ N | – ] sein+Infinitiv Impersonal+evaluative

[11.58] As attested in the famous German saying Im Dunkeln ist gut munkeln, this diathesis is rather formulaic, but astonishingly widespread and productive. It consists of the verb sein with an infinitive and an evaluative adverb. Only the adverbs gut, schlecht, leicht and schwer appear to be possible. I propose to use the German name zustandsbewertung for this diathesis.

[11.59] This diathesis is frequently attested with an additional location phrase (11.45 a). However, other adverbial phrases are also attested (11.45 b). The verbs used in this diathesis are typically agentive, though incidental examples with patientive verbs are also attested, like with einschlafen (11.45 c), see also the further examples below.

(11.45) a. Auf der Terrasse des Kulm ist gut verweilen. dwds: Die Zeit, 13.12.1996, Nr. 51.
b. Mit einem neutralen Deutschland ist schwer leben. dwds: Die Zeit, 12.05.1989, Nr. 20.
c. Mit Vorhängen ist gut einschlafen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

11.5.4 sbj › adj : [ N | p ] heißen+In­fi­ni­tiv Modal subject demotion

[11.60] The light verb heißen with an infinitive appears in various different constructions. One of them is the widespread desubjective usage with intransitive verbs, like with warten ‘to wait’ (11.46 a). The original subject is demoted, but can optionally be retained as a für prepositional phrase. As there is no new subject introduced, an obligatory valency-simulating pronoun es is introduced. In German I propose to use the term aufforderungsdesubjektiv for this diathesis.

[11.61] Transitive verbs can be used in this construction, but only when the object does not have an article (11.46 b). Such objects can be interpreted as incorporated objects, and there is a recurrent debate in German orthography whether such objects should be written separated by a space or not. Semantically, this heißen+In­fi­ni­tiv construction is very close to the gelten+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (see Sec­tion 12.5.5). Both express a kind of externally induced necessity (i.e. a modal müssen).

(11.46) a. Alles andere wartet.
Für alles andere heißt es warten. dwds: Die Zeit, 17.04.2017, Nr. 13.
b. Und dann heißt es Daumen drücken. dwds: Die Zeit, 03.08.2017, Nr. 29.

[11.62] It is debatable whether this construction is coherent or not. When heißen is interpreted as a modal predicate expressing obligation, then it is clearly coherent (11.47 a). However, there is another interpretation of heißen as a lexical predicate with the meaning ‘to be named, to denote’ (see also paragraph 11.9). In that interpretation it is mostly written with a colon, and that construction is not coherent (11.47 b).

(11.47) a. (Es ist bekannt, dass) es dann Daumen drücken heißt.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) es dann heißt: Daumen drücken.

[11.63] Exactly the same construction heißen+In­fi­ni­tiv can be also be used as a causative, although this usage is slightly old-fashioned (see Sec­tion 11.6.5). Sometimes both diatheses are possible, like with niederknien ‘to kneel down’ (11.48 a). Counterintuitively, the effect is that heißen+In­fi­ni­tiv can induce both a causative subject promotion (11.48 b) and a modal subject demotion (11.48 c).

(11.48) a. Er kniete nieder.
b. Der Henker hieß ihn niederknien.
c. Vor dem Henker hieß es für ihn niederknien.

Attested verbs

11.5.5 obj › sbj › adj : [ NA | pN ] lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv Reflexive passive

[11.64] With most transitive verbs the light verb lassen with a reflexive pronoun and an infinitive results in a passive diathesis with an epistemic interpretation that something is possible, like with schließen ‘to close’ (11.49). The original subject can be retained as an optional prepositional phrase with von. This diathesis invokes an ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.49 c).

(11.49) a. Ich schließe den Schrank.
b. Der Schrank lässt sich (von mir) schließen.
(= Es ist möglich, dass ich den Schrank schließe.)
c. Gestern hat sich der Schrank noch schließen lassen. (*gelassen)

[11.65] There is a different interpretation available with verbs like kämmen ‘to comb’ (11.50 a). The lassen passive (11.50 b) here typically has a deontic interpretation that something is permitted (11.50 c). This different interpretation seems to correlate strongly with the animacy of the new subject. In this example, the new subject (Kinder ‘children’) is animate, and then a permission interpretation is preferred. However, the possibility interpretation is still available, though dispreferred (11.50 d).

(11.50) a. Der Vater kämmt die Kinder.
b. Die Kinder lassen sich kämmen.
c. (= Die Kinder erlauben, dass sie gekämmt werden.)
d. (= Es ist möglich die Kinder zu kämmen.)

[11.66] The dual interpretation of this passive fits in right in the middle between others diatheses with the same lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv construction. To the one side, with intransitive verbs this construction leads to a complete drop of the subject. In a sense, this absence can be interpreted as the extreme form of being inanimate. Consequently, only the epistemic interpretation (“possibility”) is available (see Sec­tion 11.5.1). To the other side, verbs that give rise to a conversive diathesis (Sec­tion 11.5.7) or an inversive diathesis (Sec­tion 11.9.1) all have an animate new subject. Consequently, these diatheses have a deontic interpretation (“permission”).

[11.67] Just as discussed previously with intransitives (see Sec­tion 11.5.1), the lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv diathesis might appear to be a transparent combination of two separate diatheses, namely a Passivkausativ with lassen, see Sec­tion 11.6.1 and a reflexive anticausative, see Sec­tion 7.5.2. Depending on the order of application, stacking these two diathesis leads to different results. The first option (11.51 a) is very similar to the intended result (11.51 c), but the implied agent is wrong. The second option (11.51 b) leads to a completely different construction. So, the fixed combination lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv is arguably a new construction, called Permissivpassiv here.

(11.51) a. Der Bauer schließt den Schrank.
+> Passivkausativ = Ich lasse den Schrank schließen.
+> Reflexiv Antikausativ = Der Schrank lässt sich (von mir) schließen.
b. Der Bauer schließt den Schrank.
+> Reflexiv Antikausativ = Der Schrank schließt sich.
+> Passivkausativ = Ich lasse den Schrank sich schließen.
c. Der Schrank lässt sich (vom Bauer) schließen.

[11.68] It is possible to find ambiguous constructions like (11.52 a), see also Kunze (1996: 650ff.). In this example, the transparent combination of a lassen causative with a self-inflicting reflexive leads to the causative interpretation as in (11.52 b), while the Permissivpassiv as discussed in this section leads either to a deontic interpretation (‘permission’, viz. dürfen) as in (11.52 c) or an epistemic interpretation (‘possibility’, viz. können) as in (11.52 d).

(11.52) a. Der König lässt sich tragen.
b. (= Der König sorgt dafür, dass er selbst getragen wird.)
c. (= Der König erlaubt, dass jemand ihn trägt.)
d. (= Es ist möglich, den König zu tragen.)

[11.69] Any additional arguments can be retained in this diathesis. For example, an additional dative argument of a ditransitive verb like zuschreiben ‘to attribute’ (11.53 a) simply remains a dative after a Permissivpassiv (11.53 b). In contrast, the causative+reflexive combination leads to a completely different result with such ditransitive verbs (11.53 c). This is noteworthy, because this causative+reflexive stack results in exactly the same surface structure as the Permissivpassiv with the transitive examples above in (11.52). Not so with ditransitives like with zuschreiben (11.53 a). The Permissivpassiv (11.53 b) promotes the accusative to subject (die Texte ‘the texts’) and leaves the dative alone (dem Autor ‘the author’). In contrast, the causative+reflexive combination (11.53 c) results in a promotion of the dative to subject and leaves the accusative alone (see Sec­tion 11.6.1). Connected to this structural difference is a semantic difference. With the Permissivpassiv the new sentence has an inanimate subject (11.53 b), so the only available interpretation is epistemic (“possibility”). In contrast, with the causative+reflexive diathesis the new sentence describes causation (11.53 c).

(11.53) a. Ich schreibe dem unbekannten Autor die Texte zu.
b. Die Texte lassen sich dem unbekannten Autor zuschreiben.
(= Es ist möglich, ihm die Texte zuzuschreiben.)
c. Der unbekannte Author lässt sich die Texte zuschreiben.
(= Er sorgt dafür, dass die Texte ihm zugeschrieben werden.)

[11.70] A few verbs, like übersehen ‘to overlook’ (11.54 a) or erläutern ‘to elucidate’ (11.54 b), only seem to allow for this diathesis with an obligatory evaluative adverbial like leicht ‘easy’ or schwer ‘difficult’. This is reminiscent of the same construction with intransitives (see Sec­tion 11.5.1). More research is needed to establish what kind of transitive verbs necessarily need such an additional adverbial, if it is at all really obligatory.

(11.54) a. Der Dozent übersieht den Rechtschreibfehler.
Solch ein Rechtschreibfehler lässt sich leicht (vom Dozenten) übersehen.
b. Der Dozent erläutert den Begriff.
Der Begriff lässt sich nur schwer (vom Dozenten) erläutern.

Attested verbs

Further examples

11.5.6 obj › sbj › adj : [ ND | pN ] lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv Dative reflexive passive

[11.71] A small group of verbs, like helfen ‘to help’ (11.55 a) and gratulieren ‘to congratulate’ (11.55 b) show a dative reflexive passive with a permissive interpretation. Crucially, in this diathesis the original dative is turned into a nominative subject while the old subject is demoted to a von prepositional phrase. The obligatory reflexive pronoun is in the dative (11.55 b). This diathesis obligatory has an ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.55 c).

(11.55) a. Sie hilft ihm.
Er lässt sich (von ihr) helfen.
(= Er erlaubt, dass sie ihm hilft.)
b. Sie gratuliert mir.
Ich lasse mir (von ihr) gratulieren. (= Ich erlaube, dass sie mir gratuliert.)
c. Sie hat sich gratulieren lassen. (*gelassen)

[11.72] There seem to be only very few verbs with a dative (but not accusative) that allow for this passive diathesis. Various other verbs with a dative show a reflexive inversive diathesis, to be discussed separately (see Sec­tion 11.9.1).

Attested verbs

Further examples

11.5.7 obj › sbj › pbj : [ NA | PN ] lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv Reflexive conversive

[11.73] For some transitive verbs the lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv diathesis has a slightly different structure and interpretation from the previously described passives (see Sec­tion 11.5.5). For example, this diathesis with empören ‘to appall’ (11.56 a,b) only has a permissive interpretation (‘allowing something to happen’) (11.56 c). The epistemic interpretation (‘it is possible that something happens’) is not available (11.56 d). This restriction is consistent with the fact that the new subject in this diathesis is always human. This usage of lassen necessarily needs an ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.56 e).

(11.56) a. Der Witz empört ihn.
b. Er lässt sich nicht von diesem Witz empören.
c. (= Er erlaubt nicht, dass er von diesem Witz empört wird.)
d. (≠ Es ist nicht möglich, dass er von diesem Witz empört wird.)
e. Er hat sich nicht empören lassen. (*gelassen)

[11.74] This diathesis is attested for a subset of those verbs that allow for a reflexive conversive (see Sec­tion 7.5.6). For example, empören allows a reflexive conversive with retention of the original subject as an über governed prepositional phrase (11.57 a). In contrast, the governed preposition in the lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv diathesis is always von (11.57 b). Because of the conversive syntax and the permissiv semantics I propose to call the diathesis permissivkonversiv in German.

(11.57) a. Er empört sich über den Witz.
Er empört sich darüber, dass der Witz rassistisch ist.
b. Er lässt sich nicht von dem Witz empören.
Er lässt sich nicht davon empören, dass der Witz rassistisch ist.

[11.75] This diathesis can be analysed as a transparent combination of a Passivkausativ (Sec­tion 11.6.1) and a Reflexiv Anticausativ (Sec­tion 7.5.2) as shown in (11.58). However, the intermediate step in this derivation is ungrammatical.

(11.58) Der Witz empört ihn.
+> Passivkausativ = *Etwas lässt ihn (von dem Witz) empören.
+> Reflexiv Antikausativ = Er lässt sich (von dem Witz) empören.

[11.76] Verbs like empören ‘to appall’ that describe negative emotions strongly prefer an additional negation in the lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv diathesis (11.59 a). Reversely, verbs describing positive emotions like begeistern ‘to enthuse’ typically do not use a negation with this diathesis (11.59 b).

(11.59) a. ? Ich lasse mich von diesem Witz empören.
b. Ich lasse mich von diesem Witz begeistern.

Attested verbs

Further examples

11.6 Diatheses with promotion to subject

11.6.1 ø › sbj › adj : [ –NA | NpA ] lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv Passive causative

[11.77] The lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv causative diathesis can be used with almost all German verbs, as discussed in the next Sec­tion 11.6.2. In that diathesis, the original nominative subject is demoted to an accusative (11.60 a). However, there also exists a variant of that causative, which will be discussed in this section. In this variant, the original nominative is expressed with a von prepositional phrase (11.60 b), or it can even be dropped altogether (11.60 c). This results in an embedded “passive” reading with an unknown agent (cf. Enzinger 2012: 26). The resulting construction obligatorily takes an ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.60 d).

(11.60) a. Der Mitarbeiter wäscht die Teller.
Sie lässt den Mitarbeiter die Teller waschen.
b. Sie lässt die Teller von dem Mitarbeiter waschen.
c. Sie lässt die Teller waschen.
d. Sie hat die Teller waschen lassen. (*gelassen)

[11.78] These two variants of the causative are of course closely related. However, there are important differences between them. To improve the clarity of the analysis, the current von-variant is given a separate name here. The demotion of the original subject to an optional von phrase is reminiscent of a passive, and for this reason I propose to call this diathesis Passivkausativ. This following arguments justify the distinction between this Passivkausativ and the other causative construction (called Permissivkausativ, see Sec­tion 11.6.2).

[11.79] Expanding on the second characteristic, the Passivkausativ strictly has causative semantics. It can only be used to express that the new subject is causing something to happen (11.61 a). In contrast, the Permissivkausativ often allows for a different permissive interpretation (hence the name). Depending on the context it can be used either to express causation or permission (11.61 b).

(11.61) a. Sie lässt die Teller (von dem Mitarbeiter) waschen.
(= causation: Sie sorgt dafür, dass die Teller gewaschen werden.)
(≠ permission: Sie erlaubt, dass die Teller gewaschen werden.)
b. Sie lässt den Mitarbeiter die Teller waschen.
(= causation: Sie beauftragt ihn, die Teller zu waschen.)
(= permission: Sie erlaubt, dass er die Teller wäscht, obwohl andere Aufgaben warten.)

[11.80] Expanding on the third characteristic from above: The Passivkausativ seems to be restricted (or maybe even completely impossible) for verbs that do not have an accusative argument, like antworten ‘to answer’ (11.62 a). The Passivkausativ seems to be impossible (11.62 b), but the Permissivkausativ is unproblematic for such verbs (11.62 c).

(11.62) a. Der Lehrer antwortet dem Schüler.
b. * Der Dekan lässt dem Schüler vom Lehrer antworten.
c. Der Dekan lässt den Lehrer dem Schüler antworten.

[11.81] Intransitive verbs like einschlafen ‘to fall asleep’ (11.63 a) likewise do not take a Passivkausativ because the von construction is not possible with intransitives (11.63 b). Intransitives are thus analysed as having a Permissivkausativ (11.63 c). This analysis also nicely matches the semantic interpretation, because many intransitive verbs both allow for a causative and a permissive reading in lassen constructions (11.63 c).

(11.63) a. Das Baby schläft ein.
b. * Ich lasse vom Baby einschlafen.
c. Ich lasse das Baby einschlafen.
(= permission: Ich erlaube, dass das Baby einschläft, indem ich es in Ruhe lasse.)
(= causation: Ich sorge dafür, dass das Baby einschläft, indem ich es in den Schlaf wiege.)

[11.82] Further, as observed in the literature (Nedjalkov 1976: 7; Enzinger 2012: 27), the Passivkausativ is impossible with some verbs like ausziehen ‘to take off’ (11.64 a,b). The Permissivkausativ with a double accusative is no problem (11.64 c). This impossibility seems to be related to the availability of an endoreflexive diathesis (see Sec­tion 7.7.1), but that connection has to be investigated further. Note that with a different object (11.64 d) or with a subject reflexive (11.64 e) this construction is perfectly possible.

(11.64) a. Sein Sohn zieht die Jacke aus.
b. * Er lässt die (eigene) Jacke von seinem Sohn ausziehen.
c. Er lässt seinen Sohn die (eigene) Jacke ausziehen.
d. Er lässt das Baby von seinem Sohn ausziehen.
e. Er lässt sich von seinem Sohn ausziehen.

[11.83] So the Passivkausativ can only be applied to verbs that have an accusative argument. Any additional arguments are simply retained, like a ditransitive dative (11.65 a) or an obligatory location (11.65 b).

(11.65) a. Ich schicke dem Jubilar einen Blumenstrauß.
Sie lässt dem Jubilar einen Blumenstrauß schicken.
b. Ich spucke die Kerne in eine Schale.
Sie lässt die Kerne in eine Schale spucken.

[11.84] Expanding on the fourth characteristic from above: The Passivkausativ is often attested with reflexive pronouns. These are completely transparent self-inflicting reflexive pronouns that are added after the causative diathesis is applied. There are three different kinds of reflexive pronouns, exemplified here with the verb waschen ‘to wash’ (11.66 a).

[11.85] First, after the application of the Passivkausativ, the accusative (den Teller) can be replaced by a self-inflicting reflexive pronoun (11.66 b). This accusative pronoun (mich) is clearly a self-inflicting reflexive pronoun because it can be negated as nicht nur mich (11.66 c), and it can be syntactically stressed as nur mich selbst (11.66 d).

(11.66) a. Die Aushilfe wäscht den Teller.
Ich lasse den Teller (von der Aushilfe) waschen.
b. Ich lasse mich waschen.
c. Ich lasse nicht nur mich waschen.
d. Ich lasse nur mich selbst waschen.

[11.86] Second, a dative reflexive pronoun (mir) can occur (11.67 a), which can be a possessor-of-accusative dative (see Sec­tion 5.8.4), that can be paraphrased with a possessive pronoun meine Teller (11.67 b). Third, this dative reflexive pronoun can also be a beneficiary dative (see Sec­tion 6.8.10), that can be paraphrased as für mich (11.67 c).

(11.67) a. Ich lasse mir die Teller waschen.
b. (= Ich lasse meine Teller waschen.)
c. (= Ich lasse die Teller für mich waschen.)

[11.87] With an additional dative argument of a ditransitive verb, like verbieten ‘to forbid’, the self-inflicting reflexive is typically applied to this dative (11.68 a). With possessor-of-location datives (see Sec­tion 6.8.12), any reflexive dative is the possessor of this location (11.68 b).

(11.68) a. Mein Vater verbietet mir das Rauchen.
Meine Mutter lässt mir das Rauchen nicht (von meinem Vater) verbieten.
Ich lasse mir das Rauchen nicht (von meinem Vater) verbieten.
b. Der Künstler sticht ein Tattoo in ihren Arm.
Ich lasse (von dem Künstler) ein Tattoo in ihren Arm stechen.
Ich lasse ihr ein Tattoo in den Arm stechen.
Ich lasse mir ein Tattoo in den Arm stechen.

[11.88] These options might appear obviously different, but in practice it is often quite confusing to determine what is going on in a specific sentence. There are two reasons for this confusion. First, the dative and accusative reflexive pronoun are identical in the third person (sich). Second, there are also various grammaticalised combinations of lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv with a reflexive pronoun, which have clearly different meanings but often look quite similar (see Sec­tion 11.2.5 for a survey). To illustrate such possible confusion, I have collected some very similar constructions below in (11.69), which turn out to be all semantically and structurally different. The proposed analyses are listed in Table 11.2.

(11.69) a. Der König lässt sich selbst kämmen.
(= Er sorgt dafür, dass jemand gekämmt wird, nämlich er selber.)
b. Der König lässt sich widerwillig kämmen.
(= Er erlaubt, dass er gekämmt wird.)
c. Der König lässt sich einfach kämmen.
(= Es ist möglich, den König zu kämmen.)
d. Der König lässt sich die Haare kämmen.
(= Er sorgt dafür, dass seine eigenen Haare gekämmt werden.)
e. Der König lässt sich die Haare seines Hundes kämmen.
(= Er sorgt selbstsüchtig dafür, dass andere Haare gekämmt werden.)
f. Der König lässt sich den Kuchen schmecken.
(= Der Kuchen schmeckt dem König.)
g. Der König lässt sich den Kuchen schenken.
(= Er sorgt dafür, dass jemand ihm einen Kuchen schenkt.)
h. Dem König lässt sich ein Kuchen schenken.
(= Ein Kuchen ist ein passendes Geschenk für den König.)
Table 11.2: Analysis of the sentences in (11.69)
Case of reflexive Analysis of reflexive constructions with a lassen diathesis in (11.69) cf. Section
a. accusative Causative + self‑reflexive of an accusative argument 7.4.5
b. accusative Reflexive passive with a permission interpretation 11.5.5
c. accusative Reflexive passive with a possibility interpretation 11.5.5
d. dative Causative + self-reflexive of a possessor dative 5.8.4
e. dative Causative + self-reflexive of a beneficiary dative 6.8.10
f. dative Reflexive inversive of a verb with a dative (schmecken) 11.9.1
g. dative Causative + self‑reflexive of a dative argument 7.4.8
h. accusative Reflexive passive of a verb with a recipient (schenken) 11.5.5

11.6.2 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv Permissive causative

[11.89] Although the lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv is widely acknowledged in German grammar as a causative, the actual semantics are more variable than that. Basically there seem to be two major interpretations, a causative and a permissive (11.70 b). Consequently, I propose to call this diathesis Permissivkausativ. Enzinger (2012: 6–7) calls the permissive reading Kontinuativ as this interpretation typically expresses that a situation is allowed to persist or continue. This diathesis typically invokes the ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.70 c). However, the use of participle gelassen is possible (11.70 d), but seems to be restricted to the permissive interpretation (Enzinger 2012: 34).

(11.70) a. Ich wasche die Kleider.
b. Sie lässt mich die Kleider waschen.
(= causation: Sie verursacht, dass ich die Kleider wasche.)
(= permission: Sie erlaubt, dass ich die Kleider wasche.)
c. Sie hat mich die Kleider waschen lassen.
d. Sie hat mich die Kleider waschen gelassen.
(= permission: Sie hat erlaubt, dass ich die Kleider wasche.)

[11.90] In almost all sentences both the causative and the permissive interpretation of the Permissivkausativ seem to be possible. Only the context seems to determine which interpretation is intended. In isolation, only very few verbs prefer one or the other interpretation. For example, schauen ‘to watch’ (11.71 a) only allows for a permissive reading, while sehen ‘to see’ (11.71 b) only allows for a causative interpretation. More research is needed to establish what kind of verbs likewise restrict the interpretation of the Permissivkausativ.

(11.71) a. Meine Tochter schaut eine grausame Fernsehserie.
Ich lasse meine Tochter die grausame Fernsehserie schauen.
(= permission: Ich erlaube, dass sie die Fernsehserie schaut.)
(≠ causation: Ich zeige ihr die Fernsehserie.)
b. Meine Tochter sieht die grausame Fernsehserie.
Ich lasse meine Tochter die grausame Fernsehserie sehen.
(≠ permission: Ich erlaube, dass sie die Fernsehserie schaut.)
(= causation: Ich zeige ihr die Fernsehserie.)

[11.91] This diathesis can be applied to verbs of all argument structures. There is always a new nominative introduced, and the old nominative is demoted to an accusative. Other arguments are simply retained. If there is already an accusative present (11.72), then the resulting construction simply has two accusative constituents. Such double accusatives are unusual in German because most role-remappings lead to a chain of remappings to not end up with identically marked constituents (see Sec­tion 2.6 on the notion of a “chain”). Additionally, any datives (11.72 a) or prepositional phrases (11.72 b) are simply left untouched by this diathesis.

(11.72) a. Ich schreibe meiner Oma einen Brief.
Meine Mutter lässt mich meiner Oma einen Brief schreiben.
b. Der Vater ärgert sich über die vielen Staus.
Die Nachrichten lassen meinen Vater sich über die vielen Staus ärgern.

[11.92] There are some verbs that do not allow for this diathesis (cf. Nedjalkov 1976: 17), like gefallen ‘to like’ (11.73 a,b). Such incompatible verbs probably all have a non-agent as nominative subject. However, the restrictions to the applicability of the Permissivkausativ need more in-depth investigation.

(11.73) a. Der Schlitten gefällt dem Jungen.
b. * Der Verkäufer lässt den Schlitten dem Jungen gefallen.

[11.93] This causative construction cannot be combined with any kind of reflexive pronouns, with only very few exceptions to this generalisation. These restrictions basically appear to be semantic in nature, as mostly it does not make sense to explicitly cause oneself to do something. Other paraphrases seem more natural for such intended meanings, like sich zwingen (11.74 a). In some examples an intended reflexive is preferably expressed with a Passivkausativ (Sec­tion 11.6.1), using a von phrase instead of an accusative (11.74 b). In exceptional occasions a reflexive possessor dative is possible, but I only know of a single suitable example, namely with the verb wachsen ‘to grow’ when related to the growing of hair (11.74 c). Note that such reflexive possessor datives are very common with the Passivkausativ (Sec­tion 11.6.1), but not with the current Permissivkausativ. Finally, there is a very small group of intransitives that allows for a combination of lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv with a self-inflicting reflexive, like treiben ‘to flow’ (11.74 d). This special class of verbs is discussed separately in Sec­tion 11.4.10.

(11.74) a. * Ich lasse mich die Kleider waschen.
(= Ich zwinge mich die Kleider zu waschen.)
b. * Die Kinder lassen den Vater sich kämmen.
(= Die Kinder lassen sich vom Vater kämmen.)
c. Ich lasse mir den Bart wachsen.
d. Ich lasse mich treiben.

Attested verbs

11.6.3 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] schicken+In­fi­ni­tiv Causative

[11.94] The verb schicken allows for a construction with an infinitive (11.75). This diathesis does not express pure causation, but more of a directive to somebody to do something. For that reason I propose to call this diathesis direktivkausativ in German. This diathesis does not invoke the ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.75 c).

(11.75) a. Er schläft.
b. Ich schicke ihn schlafen.
c. Ich habe ihn schlafen geschickt. (*schicken)

[11.95] The meaning of the light verb schicken in this diathesis is rather close to the meaning of the full verb schicken ‘to send’ (11.76 a). The diathesis with infinitive seems to be restricted to agentive intransitives (11.76 b,c).

(11.76) a. Ich schicke ihn nach Hause.
b. * Er schickte mich einschlafen.
c. * Er schickte mich fallen.

[11.96] There is a frequent sentence structure of schicken with the infinitive of the transitive verb holen ‘to fetch something’. There do not appear to be many transitive examples.

(11.77) a. Ich hole Bier.
b. Er schickt mich Bier holen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

11.6.4 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] machen+In­fi­ni­tiv Causative

[11.97] The verb machen can be used with an infinitive to express a causative meaning. This typically is found with intransitives, like lachen ‘to laugh’ (11.78 a), though incidental transitives are also attested, like vergessen ‘to forget’ (11.78 b). Although this construction might look like an English calque (cf. ‘he makes me laugh’), it is already attested in early German examples (11.78 c), so it seems to be an old Germanic construction. Semantically it is unclear to me what exactly drives the usage of this causative construction. There appears to be less causative force implied, so I propose to call this diathesis aufforderungskausativ in German. This diathesis does not invoke the ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.78 d).

(11.78) a. Ich lache.
Der Clown macht mich lachen.
b. Ich vergesse die Verabredung.
Der Stress macht mich die Verabredung vergessen.
c. Das Pulver von eines Schwanen Beiner auf eines Kopf gestreuet soll alsbald die Haar ausfallen machen. dwds: Zeiller, Martin: Centvria III. Variarvm Quæstionvm. Bd. 3. Ulm, 1659.
d. Der Clown hat mich lachen gemacht (*machen).

Attested verbs

Further examples

11.6.5 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] heißen+In­fi­ni­tiv Causative

[11.98] The verb heißen can also be used with an infinitive to express a causative meaning (cf. Engel 1996: 489), though this is rather old-fashioned (11.79 a,b). This diathesis does not invoke the ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.79 c). Note that there is a different, apparently completely independent, desubjective usage of heißen+In­fi­ni­tiv (see Sec­tion 11.5.4).

(11.79) a. Er kniete nieder.
b. Der Henker hieß ihn niederknien.
c. Der Henker hat ihn niederknien geheißen (*heißen).

Further examples

11.6.6 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] sehen+In­fi­ni­tiv Experiencer

[11.99] The following perception verbs (Lat. verba sentiendi, German Wahrnehmungsverben) are regularly discussed as a special class in the German grammatical literature: sehen ‘to see’, hören ‘to hear’ and fühlen/spüren ‘to feel’ (e.g. Eisenberg 2006a: 266; Kotůlková 2010b; Enzinger 2012: 23; Fuß, Konopka & Wöllstein 2017: 235–243; Konopka & Hansen-Morath 2021). These verbs are special because they can occur both in a biclausal construction with a finite dass complement clause and in a monoclausal construction with an infinitive. This class of verbs is not completely homogeneous because only sehen and hören can optionally occur with an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv. These two verbs are also by far the most frequent in actual usage (Konopka & Hansen-Morath 2021). I propose to also include the verbs riechen ‘to smell’ and finden ‘to find’ (but in this construction it means ‘to detect’) in this class of verbs, although their use in infinitive constructions is much more restricted. When used in a coherent construction with an infinitive, I propose the German name perzeptiv for such constructions.

[11.100] The verb sehen ‘to see’ can both be used with a finite dass complement clause (11.80 a) and with an infinitive construction (11.80 b). This infinitive construction optionally allows for an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.80 c,d).

(11.80) a. Ich sehe, dass du dem Jungen ein Buch gibst.
b. Ich sehe dich dem Jungen ein Buch geben.
c. Ich habe dich dem Jungen das Buch geben sehen/gesehen.
d. Die Mutter war sehr ängstlich und hat ständig ihre Kinder unter einem Auto liegen sehen. In: Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache: Wörterbuch zur Verbvalenz. Grammatisches Informationssystem grammis. https://grammis.ids-mannheim.de/verbs/view/400881/14, accessed 22 July 2021.
Bei ihrer Flucht habe sie auf den Hoteltreppen viele Leichen liegen gesehen. dwds: Die Zeit, 27.11.2008, Nr. 48.

11.6.7 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] hören+In­fi­ni­tiv Experiencer

[11.101] The verb hören ‘to hear’ can both be used with a dass complement clause (11.81 a) and with an infinitive construction (11.81 b). This infinitive construction optionally allows for an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.81 c,d).

(11.81) a. Ich höre, dass du das Lied singst.
b. Ich höre dich das Lied singen.
c. Ich habe dich das Lied singen hören/gehört.
d. Während meiner Recherche habe ich Ulrike nicht singen hören. dwds: Die Zeit, 18.01.2018, Nr. 01.
Dort hat mich ein Erzieher auf dem Flur singen gehört. dwds: Die Zeit, 15.09.2016 (online).

11.6.8 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] fühlen+In­fi­ni­tiv Experiencer

[11.102] The verb fühlen ‘to feel’ can both be used with a dass complement clause (11.82 a) and with an infinitive construction (11.82 b). This infinitive construction does not allow for an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.82 c,d).

(11.82) a. Er fühlt, dass die Ameisen über seinen Arm laufen.
b. Er fühlt die Ameisen über seinen Arm laufen.
c. Er hat die Ameisen über seinen Arm laufen gefühlt (*fühlen).
d. Auf so anrührende Weise wie in Asmara haben wir uns selten unterhalten gefühlt. dwds: Die Zeit, 16.12.2010, Nr. 51.

11.6.9 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] spüren+In­fi­ni­tiv Experiencer

[11.103] The verb spüren ‘to feel’ can both be used with a dass complement clause (11.83 a) and with an infinitive construction (11.83 b). This infinitive construction does not allow for an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.83 c,d).

(11.83) a. Er spürt, dass die Ameisen über seinen Arm laufen.
b. Er spürt die Ameisen über seinen Arm laufen.
c. Er hat die Ameisen über seinen Arm laufen gespürt (*spüren).
d. Und Pfauder habe sein Herz bis zum Hals hoch klopfen gespürt. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 30.11.1996.

11.6.10 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] riechen+In­fi­ni­tiv Experiencer

[11.104] The verb riechen ‘to smell’ can be used with a dass complement clause (11.84 a) and in very few cases it is also attested with an infinitive construction (11.84 b). This infinitive construction does not allow for an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.84 c,d).

(11.84) a. Er riecht, dass seine Mutter Milchreis kocht.
b. Er riecht seine Mutter Milchreis kochen.
c. Er hat seine Mutter Milchreis kochen gerochen (*riechen).
d. Er schlug sich querfeldein, nahm meilenweite Umwege in Kauf, wenn er eine noch Stunden entfernte Schwadron Reiter auf sich zukommen roch. dwds: Süskind, Patrick: Das Parfum, Zürich: Diogenes 1985, S. 4.

Further examples

11.6.11 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] finden+In­fi­ni­tiv Experiencer

[11.105] The verb finden (literally meaning ‘to find’, but in this construction the meaning is closer to feststellen ‘to detect’) cannot be used with a dass complement clause (11.85 a). However, it is attested with an infinitive, similar to the previous verba sentiendi (11.85 b). This infinitive construction typically occurs with position verbs like stehen, liegen, sitzen. This construction does not allow for an ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.85 c,d).

(11.85) a. Er stellte fest (*findet), dass sein Teller auf dem Tisch steht.
b. Er fand seinen Teller auf dem Tisch stehen.
c. Er hat seinen Teller auf dem Tisch stehen gefunden (*finden).
d. Er […] rauchte den Joint auf, den er dort liegen fand. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 02.10.1998.

Attested verbs

Further examples

11.6.12 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] lehren+In­fi­ni­tiv Assistive

[11.106] The verb lehren ‘to teach’ can be used as a light verb with infinitive. The construction induces a novative diathesis in which a new role (“the teacher”) is introduced as a nominative and the erstwhile nominative is demoted to accusative (11.86 a,b). Atypically for a light-verb construction, the meaning of the light verb lehren remains completely transparently related to the full verb with the meaning ‘to teach’. There is an alternative construction with zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (see Sec­tion 12.2.2) that appears to have a highly similar meaning. More research is needed to elucidate any difference between these two constructions (11.86 b,c). The lehren+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis does not invoke the ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.86 d).

(11.86) a. Der Junge schwimmt.
b. Die Mutter lehrt den Jungen schwimmen.
c. Die Mutter lehrt den Jungen zu schwimmen.
d. Die Mutter hat den Jungen schwimmen gelehrt.

[11.107] There does not seem to be any syntactic restriction on the main lexical verbs that can be used in this diathesis. Any verb can be used as long as the verb can sensibly be conceived as something that can be taught. Any other arguments of the lexical verb simply are retained, which regularly leads to double accusatives (11.87 a,b).

(11.87) a. Ich wasche mich.
b. Sie lehrt mich mich waschen.

11.6.13 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | ND ] helfen+In­fi­ni­tiv Assistive

[11.108] The verb helfen ‘to help’ can be used as a light verb with infinitive. The construction induces a novative diathesis in which a new role (“the helper”) is introduced as a nominative and the erstwhile nominative is demoted to dative (11.88 a,b). Atypically for a light-verb construction, the meaning of the light verb helfen remains completely transparently related to the full verb with the meaning ‘to help’. There is an alternative construction with zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (11.88 c), see Sec­tion 12.2.2, that appears to highly similar. More research is needed to elucidate any difference between these two constructions. The helfen+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis allows for the ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv, but it is not obligatory (11.88 d).

(11.88) a. Ich trage den Koffer.
b. Er hilft mir den Koffer tragen.
c. Er hilft mir den Koffer zu tragen.
d. Er hat mir den Koffer tragen geholfen.
Er hat mir den Koffer tragen helfen.

[11.109] Any lexical verb can be used in this construction as long as the verb can sensibly be conceived as something that can be helped with. Other arguments of the lexical verb are simply retained. However, the helfen+In­fi­ni­tiv construction seems to be dispreferred when the lexical verb has many arguments (11.89 a,b). It appears to be more typical of constructions with only a single lexical argument (11.89 c,d). Note that this construction is also typically used without the beneficiary of the helping being expressed, i.e. the agent of the lexical verb is dropped (11.89 d).

(11.89) a. Ich schreibe dir einen Brief.
b. Sie hilft mir dir einen Brief schreiben.
c. Sie hilft mir schreiben.
d. Sie hilft den Brief schreiben.

11.7 Diatheses with object demotion

[11.110] Not attested.

11.8 Diatheses with promotion to object

[11.111] Not attested.

11.9 Symmetrical diatheses

11.9.1 obj › sbj › obj : [ ND | AN ] lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv Dative reflexive inversive

[11.112] Most of the verbs with a dative (but no accusative) do not allow for a reflexive lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv construction. The few that do allow for such a construction, like einfallen ‘to occur to somebody’ (11.90), have an animate dative and they show a special diathesis. The dative turns into a nominative subject and the erstwhile nominative turns into an accusative. This diathesis needs an obligatory dative reflexive pronoun. The resulting construction has a permissive meaning and obligatorily needs an Ersatzin­fi­ni­tiv (11.90 b). This diathesis is not a stack of two separate diatheses. The combination of a lassen causative and a reflexive anticausative leads to a completely different structure (11.90 c). I propose the German name permissivinversiv for this diathesis.

(11.90) a. Ihm fällt etwas Neues ein.
b. Er lässt sich etwas Neues einfallen. (*eingefallen)
c. Ihm fällt etwas Neues ein.
+> Passivkausativ = ?Irgendjemand lässt ihm etwas Neues einfallen.
+> Reflexiv Antikausativ = ?Etwas Neues lässt sich ihm einfallen.

[11.113] Just like with the Permissivkonversiv (see Sec­tion 11.5.7) there seems to be a difference between verbs that typically take negation in this construction, like entgehen ‘to miss’ (11.91 b), and verbs that prefer no negation, like schmecken ‘to taste’ (11.91 a).

(11.91) a. Das Bärenfleisch schmeckt ihm.
Er lässt sich das Bärenfleisch schmecken. dwds: Die Zeit, 22.11.1985, Nr. 48.
b. Der Spaß entgeht mir.
Den Spaß lasse ich mir nicht entgehen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

11.9.2 obj › sbj › obj : [ NDL | ANL ] haben+In­fi­ni­tiv Possessor inversive

[11.114] The construction of a light verb haben with an infinitive (cf. Hole 2002: 183–185) is attested with various position verbs like hängen (11.92 a). These position verbs obligatorily need a location phrase (11.92 b). In this diathesis, the hanging object is expressed as an accusative, and the new nominative subject of the haben+In­fi­ni­tiv construction is necessarily the dative possessor of the location (11.92 c), see Sec­tion 6.8.12. By using this diathesis, the new nominative subject is presented as a curious mix of both being in control and being a helpless experiencer at the same time. In German I propose to use the name ortspertinenzinversiv for this diathesis. This diathesis does not invoke the ipp ErsatzIn­fi­ni­tiv (11.92 d).

(11.92) a. Er hat einen Tropfen an der Nase hängen.
b. * Er hat einen Tropfen hängen.
c. Ein Tropfen hängt an seiner Nase.
Ein Tropfen hängt ihm an der Nase.
d. Er hat einen Tropfen an der Nase hängen gehabt (*haben).

[11.115] The new nominative subject appears to have multiple possible paraphrases. It mostly is the possessor of the location, as in (11.92), but there are also examples in which it is the possessor of the original subject, as in (11.93). In such examples the new subject of the haben+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis is not related to a dative. It is not completely clear to me how to best approach such examples, but they seem to be related to the haben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis, as discussed below.

(11.93) Ich habe das Auto auf dem Parkplatz stehen.
(= Mein Auto steht auf dem Parkplatz.)
(≠ Das Auto steht auf meinen Parkplatz.)
(≠ Das Auto steht mir auf dem Parkplatz.)

[11.116] There is a curious parallel between this diathesis and the haben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis, see Sec­tion 13.9.1. Both use the light verb haben with an infinitive, they show a similar role-remapping, and semantically they are also highly similar. However, they are used with different verbs. Syntactically, the first difference is that the dative in the current haben+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis is the possessor of the locational object, here Nase ‘nose’ (11.94 a), while the dative in the haben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis is the possessor of the nominative subject, here Wohnung ‘house’ (11.94 b). The second difference is, of course, the extra am preposition. It is a tantalising thought that this am preposition is somehow related to the fact that there is no obligatory location present in that diathesis.

(11.94) a. Ein Tropfen hängt ihm an der (seiner) Nase.
Er hat einen Tropfen an seiner Nase hängen.
b. Die (seine) Wohnung brennt ihm.
Er hat seine Wohnung am brennen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

12 Light-verb alternations with zu‑Infinitiv

12.1 Introduction

[12.1] Besides diatheses with regular infinitives, as discussed in the previous chapter, there are also light-verb constructions with zu and an infinitive. The German particle zu is historically an allative ‘towards’ preposition related to English to. In the German orthography, the zu element is regularly separated from the infinitive by a space. However, morphologically the zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is clearly one word and should be considered a special non-finite form of the verb, alongside the participle and the infinitive (see Sec­tion 12.2.1).

[12.2] The zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv can be combined with various light verbs to form a monoclausal construction. This is widespread without diathesis, for example with light verbs pflegen (12.1 a), see Sec­tion 12.4.1, and haben (12.1 b), see Sec­tion 12.4.5. However, the main focus of this chapter is on light verbs that induce diathesis when used with the zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv, for example a passive with sein (12.1 c), see Sec­tion 12.5.8, and an anticausative with stehen (12.1 d), see Sec­tion 12.5.6.

(12.1) a. Sie pflegte laut zu lachen.
b. Die Schüler haben die Aufgaben zu lösen.
c. Hunde sind an der Leine zu führen.
d. Ein weiterer Beschäftigungsabbau steht zu befürchten.

[12.3] Following Bech (1955), constructions with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv are often designated as Zweiter Status in the German grammatical literature. However, this name is not very transparent nor particularly mnemonic, so I prefer to simply use the term zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction.

[12.4] One of the central issues with sentences that include a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is the question whether such sentences are biclausal or monoclausal. There is actually a grammaticalisation cline with (non-coherent) biclausal structures on the one side and (coherent) monoclausal structures on the other side (see Sec­tion 12.2.2). The major aim of this chapter is to list and discuss all grammaticalised coherent monoclausal zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv constructions of the German language, all diatheses as well as all epitheses. The biclausal constructions are deliberately excluded. There is a strong tendency for the monoclausal zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv constructions to express some kind of imperfective aspect and/or modality, as opposed to participle constructions (Chapter 10) that tend to express perfective meanings.

[12.5] The following eight diatheses with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv are attested regularly in German, so I propose a German name for them. Note that the light verbs sein and geben are both used in two different diatheses. Especially the two geben diatheses are remarkably different, both structurally and semantically.

12.2 Defining the zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv

12.2.1 Morphological structure

[12.6] The combination of zu with an infinitive is regularly written as two separate words in German orthography, like with zu kaufen ‘to buy’ in (12.2 a). However, the combination is written as one word when the verb has a separable preverb, like ein‑, to form einzukaufen ‘to shop’ (12.2 b). With such preverbs, zu is inserted between the preverb and the verbal stem.

(12.2) a. Du brauchst nichts zu kaufen.
b. Du brauchst nichts einzukaufen.

[12.7] From a purely grammatical perspective, zu is clearly bound morphology when used with an infinitive (cf. Duden-Grammatik 2009: 439; Haider 2010: 272–273), because (i) it is always unstressed and (ii) it is not separable from the infinitive, not even by preverbs like ein‑. The combination of zu plus infinitive is thus best considered to be a grammaticalised non-finite verb form of German, alongside the Partizip and the In­fi­ni­tiv. I propose to simply call it the zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv.

[12.8] Probably the only reason that simplex verbs still have a written space between zu and the infinitive is that homographs would be introduced when the two parts would be written without a space. For example, the zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv of the verb schließen ‘to close’ would be zuschlíeßen with unstressed zu and a main stress on schließ (12.3 a), while the regular In­fi­ni­tiv of the verb zuschließen ‘to lock’ would be zúschließen with stressed zu (12.3 b). Obviously, an alternative orthographic choice would be to indicate the primary stress in such (rare) cases of possible confusion (e.g. by a diacritic). Or even more stringently, ideally the usage of the space in (12.3) would be reversed, i.e. write the zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv without space and detach stressed preverbs with a space. However, the current usage is strongly entrenched in the German orthography and is unlikely to change. Yet, this should not distract from the fact that morphologically zu in a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (12.3 a) is clearly bound morphology, while the zu‑ preverb (12.3 b) has a much weaker morphological bond.

(12.3) a. Du brauchst die Tür nicht zu schließen.
b. Du musst die Tür nicht zuschließen.

12.2.2 Grammaticalisation

[12.9] The element zu in the zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is obviously related to the preposition zu, which has a bewildering number of different uses in German. For example, see the listing of the dwds at https://www.dwds.de/wb/zu. Diachronically, there has been a development from an originally allative meaning ‘towards’ via a purpose meaning ‘with the intention to’ to the usage of zu in complement clauses. This grammaticalisation pathway is widespread worldwide (Haspelmath 1989) and well described for Germanic languages (e.g. Smirnova 2016 for German; Los 2005 for English).

[12.10] This grammaticalisation pathway can be further extended as shown in (12.4). The verb lehren ‘to teach’ can actually be used in all three syntactic stages. In the first stage, the verb lehren is used with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv complement clause that is expressed after the main clause. Such constructions are non-coherent and thus consist of two clauses. In the second stage, the verb lehren can also be used with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv, but now this infinitive is incorporated into the main clause. Such constructions are coherent and thus consist of just a single clause. Finally, in the third stage, the verb lehren is used with a bare infinitive without zu. Such constructions are always monoclausal.

(12.4) Grammaticalisation pathway of infinitive constructions
Stage 1: zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv biclausal (Ich habe ihn [gelehrt], [zu tanzen].)
Stage 2: zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv monoclausal (Ich habe ihn [zu tanzen] [gelehrt].)
Stage 3: In­fi­ni­tiv monoclausal (Ich habe ihn [tanzen] [gelehrt].)

[12.11] As an illustration of these three different uses of the verb lehren, I have added a corpus example of each usage in (12.5), which show the various constructions in subordinate position to clarify the structural differences.

(12.5) a. Wahrscheinlich auch, weil ihn die Erfahrung [gelehrt hat], niemals nie [zu sagen]. dwds: Die Zeit, 28.07.2013 (online).
b. Unser Abgott Theodor Fontane dagegen, der uns so vieles in Stadt und Land [zu sehen] [gelehrt hat], scheint die Berliner Galerie kaum besucht zu haben. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 11.06.1998.
c. Was hast du den Indios für Possen angerichtet, daß sie dich so schön [tanzen] [gelehrt haben]? dwds: Perutz, Leo: Die dritte Kugel, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt 1988 [1915], S. 5.

[12.12] Constructions in the second stage of this grammaticalisation pathway are the focus of this chapter: monoclausal zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv constructions. This kind of construction is attested with various light verbs that are coherent when used with zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv, like haben (12.6). A simple test for coherence is to embed a sentence like (12.6 a) inside another main clause like es ist bekannt, dass ‘it is known that’ (see Sec­tion 1.3.1). Coherent monoclausal constructions, i.e. stage 2 in (12.4), can then be identified by the obligatory position of the finite verb (hat) at the end of the clause (12.6 b). A finite verb occurring before the zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is not possible in a monoclausal construction (12.6 c).

(12.6) a. Sie [hat] noch viele Jahre [zu leben].
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) sie noch viele Jahre [zu leben] [hat].
c. * (Es ist bekannt, dass) sie [hat] noch viele Jahre [zu leben].

[12.13] Because there is a grammaticalisation cline, there are various verbs that can be used in more than one of these three different stages, as summarised in (12.7). Most verbs with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv actually only allow for the first option: biclausal non-coherent complement constructions (12.7 a). These fall outside of the scope of this book. At the other extreme, some verbs only allow for monoclausal In­fi­ni­tiv construction (12.7 g). These were already discussed in the previous Chapter 11. The verbs that allow for both stage 2 and 3 with the same meaning (12.6 f) were also already included in the previous chapter and will not be discussed here again (heißen, helfen, lehren and lernen).

(12.7) Intermediate stages on the grammaticalisation pathway
a. Only stage 1 possible (only biclausal zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv): e.g. schwören ‘to vow’, fragen ‘to ask’
b. Both stage 1 and 2 possible with the same meaning (biclausal and monoclausal zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv): e.g. anfangen ‘to begin’, versuchen ‘to attempt’
c. Both stage 1 and 2 possible with different meanings (biclausal and monoclausal zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv): e.g. wissen ‘to know’ vs. ‘can’, drohen ‘to threaten’ vs. ‘there is evidence for it’
d. Only stage 2 possible (only monoclausal zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv): pflegen lit. ‘to nurse’ but here meaning ‘to do habitually’
e. Both stage 2 and 3 possible with different meanings (both monoclausal zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv and In­fi­ni­tiv), e.g. bekommen ‘covert experience’ vs. ‘recipient subject’
f. Both stage 2 and 3 possible with the same meaning (both monoclausal zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv and In­fi­ni­tiv): e.g. brauchen ‘to require, need’, helfen ‘to help’
g. Only stage 3 possible (only monoclausal In­fi­ni­tiv): e.g. müssen ‘must’, können ‘can’

[12.14] In between these extremes there are various further possibilities. Most prominently, there is the group of verbs that allow for both stage 1 and 2 without any obvious differences in meaning (12.7 b). These are widely discussed in the German grammatical literature under the heading modalitätsverben. Various lists can be found, for example in Wurmbrand (2003: 318–319) and Colomo (2010: 167–175), citing earlier literature. A short survey of various structural and semantic aspects of this group is presented in Rapp & Wöllstein (2013). From a quick search in the dwds corpus it appears that the the following verbs are the most interesting for further research. These verbs are frequently attested with both sentence structures, but without obvious differences in meaning between those structures: anfangen, aufhören, beabsichtigen, beginnen, erlauben, gedenken, glauben, heißen, helfen, hoffen, lehren, lernen, lieben, sich lohnen, machen, meinen, streben, trachten, sich trauen, vergessen, versuchen, vorgeben, wagen, wünschen. Examples with the verb wünschen ‘to wish’ are shown in (12.8). These verbs will not be further discussed in this chapter, but they deserve more research.

(12.8) a. Es gebe viele Stimmen in der CSU, die ihm gewünscht hätten, eine längere Auszeit zu nehmen. dwds: Die Zeit, 23.11.2011 (online).
b. Das war es was er zu hören gewünscht hatte. dwds: Fontane, Theodor: Wanderungen durch die Mark Brandenburg. Bd. 4: Spreeland. Berlin, 1882.

[12.15] All verbs in the remaining possibilities (12.8 c–e) have some special use with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv. The explicit claim is that this chapter presents a complete list of all such verbs. However, special care has to be taken with polysemies. Some of the verbs that are discussed in this chapter occur both in stage 1 and stage 2, but with clearly different meanings. For example, in its lexical meaning versprechen means ‘to promise’ and then it is not coherent (12.9 a). In contrast, in its evidential meaning versprechen means something like ‘there is evidence for it’ and then it is coherent (12.9 b). Although this correlation is not perfect, there seems to be a very strong tendency for the different meanings to also show different syntactic constructions (see Sec­tion 12.4.11).

(12.9) a. Er verspricht rechtzeitig nach Hause zu kommen.
(Es ist bekannt, dass) er verspricht rechtzeitig nach Hause zu kommen.
b. Der Film verspricht eine Sensation zu werden.
(Es ist bekannt, dass) der Film eine Sensation zu werden verspricht.

[12.16] There is some overlap between the constructions discussed in this chapter and the halbmodalverben as introduced by Eisenberg (e.g. 2006a: 362–365) and discussed in much detail in Colomo (2010: Ch. 6). However, that term is defined in a much more restricted way to include only pflegen, scheinen, drohen and versprechen. The focus of the present chapter is more widely expanded. Crucially, Eisenberg’s Halbmodale do not include the monoclausal zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv verbs with the most obvious modal meanings, viz. haben, brauchen, wissen and verstehen (see Sec­tion 12.4.3 ff.).

12.3 Deponent verbs

[12.17] This is not attested. Note that theoretically such verbs might occur in German, but as far as I am aware there do not exist any examples. The necessary observation would be a lexical verb that can occur in a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction (12.10 a), but cannot be used as a finite verb (12.10 b). The verb überzeugen in (12.10) is thus not an example of this hypothetical phenomenon, as the second sentence then should have been ungrammatical.

(12.10) a. Der Lehrer weiß seine SchülerInnen zu überzeugen.
b. Der Lehrer überzeugt seine SchülerInnen.

12.4 Alternations without diathesis

12.4.1 pflegen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Habitual

[12.18] The lexical verb pflegen means ‘to nurse, to maintain’. However, in combination with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv the verb pflegen is one of the clearest examples of a construction that is always coherent, while at the same time it has a completely different meaning from its other uses. The pflegen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv expresses a habitual aspect, meaning approximately something like ‘to usually do something’ (12.11 a,b). Examples proving coherence are shown in (12.11 c,d).

[12.19] Colomo (2010: 246–256) argues that the real semantic content of pflegen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is not the habitual aspect, but that it is more closely related to modal meanings of other zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv constructions. However, that analysis needs a lot of semantic trickery, and I do not see what is gained from it. I propose to simply consider the pflegen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv a habituativ in German.

(12.11) a. Sie lacht laut.
b. Sie pflegte laut zu lachen.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) sie laut zu lachen pflegte.
d. * (Es ist bekannt, dass) sie pflegte laut zu lachen.

12.4.2 belieben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Habitual

[12.20] The verb belieben can be used with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv, but only in rather archaic and mostly ironic usage. When interpreted literally, such structures convey a habitual action by the subject. However, interpreted ironically it normally means that the speaker disagrees with the action (12.12 a). This even leads to contexts in which the construction is used to express ‘you should reconsider your actions’ (12.12 b).

(12.12) a. Der Herr belieben zu scherzen.
b. Schmoller beliebe zu überlegen, dass er in diesem Satze seine Meinung plötzlich ändert. dwds: Menger, Carl: Die Irrthümer des Historismus in der deutschen Nationalökonomie. Wien, 1884.

12.4.3 wissen/verstehen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Ability

[12.21] The construction wissen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is only mentioned in passing in the German grammatical literature (e.g. Engel 1996: 483; Holl 2010: 10; Duden-Grammatik 2009: 426). This omission is all the more striking as it is widely acknowledged that the inflection of wissen shows various similarities to the Modalverben (Duden-Grammatik 2009: 458–459, 481–482). Actually, it is quite obvious that the wissen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction has a modal meaning expressing capability, i.e. ‘to be able to’ (12.13 a). In German I propose to call this diathesis abilitiv. This construction is obligatorily coherent (12.13 b,c).

(12.13) a. Der Lehrer weiß die Schüler zu begeistern.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) der Lehrer die SchülerInnen zu begeistern weiß.
c. * (Es ist bekannt, dass) der Lehrer weiß die SchülerInnen zu begeistern.

[12.22] Even less mentioned is verstehen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (cf. Engel 1996: 483), which likewise has a modal meaning of ‘to be able to’ (12.14 a). This construction is also obligatorily coherent (12.14 b,c), but it appears to be less frequent than wissen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv above.

(12.14) a. Er versteht zu siegen.
b. Er hat zu siegen verstanden. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 04.10.2000.
c. * Er hat verstanden zu siegen.

Further examples

12.4.4 vermögen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Negative ability

[12.23] The construction vermögen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is an expression from a more formal register meaning ‘to be capable of something (with effort)’ (cf. Engel 1996: 482). It is typically used with negation (12.15 a) and it is obligatorily coherent (12.15 b). Incidental cases without negation are also attested (12.15 c).

(12.15) a. Wie lange genau, vermag er nicht zu sagen. dwds: Die Zeit, 23.06.2015, Nr. 25.
b. Wie lange genau, hat er nicht zu sagen vermocht.
c. Bisher habe die Industrie es vermocht, Rohstoffe immer noch effizienter und noch billiger zu fördern. dwds: Die Zeit, 26.03.2015, Nr. 13.

12.4.5 haben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Obligation

[12.24] The haben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is extensively discussed in Holl (2010). It has a clear modal meaning of obligation, i.e. ‘must’ (12.16 a). There is a direct parallel to the English to have to construction. In German I propose to call this diathesis obligativ. This construction is obligatorily coherent (12.16 b).

(12.16) a. Die Schüler lösen die Aufgaben.
Die Schüler haben die Aufgaben zu lösen.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) die Schüler die Aufgaben zu lösen haben.

[12.25] The examples in (12.17) suggest that this construction sometimes means ‘can’ instead of ‘must’. It is unclear to me how widespread this usage is. It might be connected to the occurrence of the particle noch, but that needs a more in-depth investigation.

(12.17) a. Er hat noch ein Jahr zu leben.
b. Die Bürger haben nur noch indirekt etwas zu sagen. dwds: Die Zeit, 16.04.2015, Nr. 16.

Further examples

12.4.6 brauchen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Negative obligation

[12.26] The verb brauchen ‘to need’ is similar to its English counterpart in many ways. As a lexical verb it expresses a necessity for something (12.18 a). It can also be combined with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv, though in German this construction has negative polarity, i.e. it obligatorily needs either a modal particle nur or bloß (12.18 b) or a negative element (12.18 c). It is typically combined with one of the following negative elements: nicht, nichts, wenig, kein, niemand, nie, kaum, ohne dass. Just like with English to need there is a tendency for the meaning of negated nicht brauchen to shift from expressing a non-necessity to a non-obligation (12.18 c).

(12.18) a. Ich brauche ein Handtuch.
b. Du brauchst nur zu rufen.
c. Niemand braucht es zu wissen.

[12.27] In colloquial usage brauchen can also be used without zu (12.19 a), bordering on being a proper Modalverb (see Sec­tion 11.4.8). The brauchen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is obligatorily coherent (12.19 b).

(12.19) a. Er braucht seine Kleider nicht selber (zu) waschen.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) er seine Kleider nicht selber zu waschen braucht.

12.4.7 gehören+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Obligation

[12.28] The construction gehören+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv expressed an obligation (12.20). It can be attested sporadically in older German texts with a modal meaning of ‘to ought to do something’ (Lasch 2018: 177–181). This construction disappears from the DWDS corpus around 1800. The example below is from a 19th century collection of proverbs, which typically retain extinct grammatical constructions. The few attested examples indicate that it was a coherent construction.

(12.20) Den Kauffleuthen vnd Bawren gehört zu trawen vnd glauben zu halten mit dem grossen hauffen. dwds: Wander, Karl Friedrich Wilhelm (Hrsg.): Deutsches Sprichwörter-Lexikon. Bd. 2. Leipzig, 1870.

12.4.8 suchen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Conative

[12.29] The verb suchen ‘to search’ has a special usage with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv expressing the meaning ‘to attempt to do something’ (12.21 a). In this usage, the meaning of suchen is very close to the meaning of versuchen ‘to try’. It seems to be restricted to a high-education written register in German. Crucially, in this meaning the verb suchen is a light verb because the construction suchen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is obligatorily coherent (12.21 b,c). Note that the semantically similar lexical verb versuchen is not obligatorily coherent.

[12.30] There is an old tradition in Latin grammar to describe one of the possible meanings of the Latin present tense as a “conative present” (from Lat. conor ‘to try’) when it should be translated as an attempted action. Thus, it seems fitting to call the suchen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis a conative.

(12.21) a. Skrupulös, vorsichtig und diszipliniert sucht Lindner deren Fehler zu vermeiden. dwds: Die Zeit, 27.11.2017, Nr. 48.
b. Mit ihrem Namen ist ein blutiges Ereignis verbunden, das sie erfolglos zu verhindern gesucht hatte. dwds: Die Zeit, 08.05.2003, Nr. 20.
c. * … ein Ereignis, … das sie erfolglos gesucht hatte zu verhindern.

12.4.9 denken+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Cogitative

[12.31] In most contexts, the verb denken means ‘to think, to believe’. In this meaning, a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is not coherent (12.22 a,b). In contrast, with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv in a coherent construction, the verb denken means ‘to plan, to intend’ (12.22 c,d). This usage of denken is arguably somewhat special, either old-fashioned or simply slightly poetic. I propose to call this coherent monoclausal construction a cogitative (from Lat. cogitare ‘to plan, to intend’).

(12.22) a. Er denkt, mich überraschen zu können.
(Es ist bekannt, dass) er denkt, mich überraschen zu können.
b. * (Es ist bekannt, dass) er mich überraschen zu können denkt.
c. Ich denke ihn zu überraschen.
(Es ist bekannt, dass) ich ihn zu überraschen denke.
d. ? (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich denke, ihn zu überraschen.

Further examples

12.4.10 scheinen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Inferential evidence

[12.32] The coherent construction scheinen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (12.23) is similar to the English to seem to construction. Because of this similarity, there has been a long tradition of applying a subject-raising analysis to this construction in German (see Olsen 1981: 134–146 for a summary and refutation). However, the raising analysis is not used anymore, at least since Olsen (see also Pafel 1989; Diewald & Smirnova 2010: 177–191 for later analyses). Diewald & Smirnova (2010: 182) analyse scheinen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv as an inferential evidential in which the speaker expresses some confidence in the claimed event based on deduction from available knowledge. So, this construction is an inferential evidential. As a German name I propose imperfektinferenz in opposition to the Perfektinferenz when used with a participle (see Sec­tion 10.4.14).

(12.23) a. Er scheint ihm ein Buch zu geben.
b. Ich habe gesehen, wie er ihm ein Buch zu geben scheint.
c. * Ich habe gesehen, wie er scheint ihm ein Buch zu geben.

[12.33] A special characteristic of this construction is that an additional dative experiencer can sometimes be added (12.24 a). Very sparingly erscheinen instead of scheinen is used with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (12.24 b). The light verb erscheinen is much more commonly attested with a participle (see Sec­tion 10.4.14).

(12.24) a. Das Kind scheint mir zu schlafen.
b. Viele von ihnen hatten während des Vorwahlkampfs Hillary Clinton unterstützt, weil ihnen die Vorstellung eines schwarzen Präsidenten einfach zu kühn, zu vermessen erschien. dwds: Die Zeit, 06.11.2008, Nr. 46.

12.4.11 drohen/versprechen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Direct evidence

[12.34] A detailed discussion of drohen and versprechen is presented by Diewald & Smirnova (2010: 191–217). Basically, when used with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv, both verbs can either have a speech-act usage (12.25), meaning ‘to threaten’ and ‘to promise’, respectively, or they can have a grammaticalised light-verb usage with an evidential meaning (12.26). There is a very strong tendency that the speech-act usage is syntactically non-coherent, while evidential usage is coherent (Reis 2005: 136–140).

(12.25) Speech-act usage (non-coherent)
a. Er hatte dem Konzern gedroht, Lebensmittel zu vergiften. dwds: Die Zeit, 14.10.2015 (online).
b. Er hat versprochen, Marihuana zu legalisieren. dwds: Die Zeit, 05.05.2016 (online).
(12.26) Evidential usage (coherent)
a. Das führt zu einem Problem, das Johanna Knüppel in den Wahnsinn zu treiben droht. dwds: Die Zeit, 08.12.2017, Nr. 51.
b. Die Pfänder hinter den Papieren waren Immobilien, deren Wert ständig weiter zu steigen versprach. dwds: Die Zeit, 15.08.2017 (online).

[12.35] Diewald & Smirnova (2010: 191–217) analyse the coherent light-verb usage of drohen and versprechen as marking a direct evidential, i.e. the speaker of the utterance has first-hand evidence for the proposition (12.27). There are various differences between drohen and versprechen. First, drohen is very frequent in its evidential coherent reading (80% of all occurrences), while versprechen (10% of all occurrences) is not (corpus counts from Diewald & Smirnova 2010: 214). Second, drohen can be used with animate/human subjects, while versprechen is restricted to inanimate subjects. Third, drohen does not have strong restrictions as to which verbs can be used as infinitive. The verbs are typically non-agentive but possibly intentional (Diewald & Smirnova 2010: 197–199). In contrast, versprechen only allows for a restricted set of verbs that do not express agency (Diewald & Smirnova 2010: 212). Finally, drohen implies a negative evaluation from the speaker’s point of view, while versprechen implies a positive evaluation. Because of this evaluation I propose to use the German name bewertungsevidenz for this construction.

(12.27) Evidential interpretation of light-verb usage
a. drohen: “The speaker has (had) perceptual access to certain pieces of information which s/he interprets as pointing towards the described event (which is evaluated negatively from the speaker’s point of view).” (Diewald & Smirnova 2010: 195)
b. versprechen: “The speaker has perceptual access to certain pieces of information which s/he interprets as pointing towards the described event (which is evaluated positively from the speaker’s point of view).” (Diewald & Smirnova 2010: 209)

Attested verbs

12.4.12 kommen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Covertly caused state

[12.36] The verb kommen ‘to come’ can be used with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv of some intransitive verbs to express a state that is reached (12.28). See also Lesart 44 von kommen in the Wörterbuch zur Verbvalenz, available online at https://grammis.ids-mannheim.de/verbs/view/400724/44, accessed 3 November 2021. This construction conveys that there is some unexpressed force or agent that has caused the state to be reached, so I propose to call this construction a covertly caused state (and in German verborgenes zustandskausativ). The meaning can be described as ‘something happened, which led to the subject being in a specific state’. A parallel construction is frequently attested with nouns, like Sie kam zu Reichtum/Ehren (cf. Sec­tion 13.2.4).

(12.28) a. Plötzlich ist er neben ihr zu liegen gekommen. dwds: Die Zeit, 07.08.1992, Nr. 33.
b. Jetzt ist sie hier im Torf auch zu blühen gekommen. Attested online at https://www.orchideenkultur.net/index.php?topic=23522.0, accessed 27 September 2021.

[12.37] This construction appears to be restricted to intransitive verbs. It might seem as if transitive verbs also can occur in this constructions, like with helfen in (12.29 a). However, such examples are always examples of the literal kommen, i.e. the subject is intentionally moving towards some place to perform an action. Such constructions are not coherent, and the zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv seems to be an abbreviated version of an adverbial um zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv subordinated clause (12.29 b).

(12.29) a. Sie kamen ihm zu helfen.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) Sie gekommen sind (um) ihm zu helfen.
c. Wir dürfen nicht zulassen, dass die Stationierung von Truppen zum Surrogat für Politik wird und dass Truppen, die in der Absicht zu helfen gekommen sind, im Laufe der Zeit als Eindringlinge und Besatzer wahrgenommen werden. Attested online at >https://docplayer.org/40817735-Clausewitz-gesellschaft-e-v-jahrbuch-eine-zusammenfassung-von-beitraegen-aus-der-arbeit-der-gesellschaft-2006.html>, accessed 3 November 2021.

Attested verbs

Further examples

12.4.13 bekommen/kriegen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Covertly caused experience

[12.38] Jäger (2013) presents a detailed examination of the bekommen/kriegen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction (12.30). She concludes that the subject of such sentences is typically an experiencer (Jäger 2013: 235). The centrality of the experiencer role is reminiscent of the bekommen/kriegen/erhalten+Partizip dative passive diathesis, in which the recipient is promoted to subject (see Sec­tion 10.5.21). However, both structurally and semantically these two constructions are clearly different.

(12.30) Ich habe auch sonst mancherlei zu sehen bekommen, was anderer Augen versagt bleibt. Cited in Jäger (2013: 11), orignially from dwds: Janitschek, Maria (1902): Die neue Eva, Leipzig: Seemann, S. 36138.

[12.39] Jäger performed a corpus investigation and found that 77% of all examples used a verb of sensation (Jäger 2013: 83), like spüren ‘to feel’ (12.31 a). The second largest group with about 16% were verbs of consumption (Jäger 2013: 161), like essen ‘to eat’ (12.31 b). Various agentive verbs make up a third group of about 6% (Jäger 2013: 201), like packen ‘to grasp’ (12.31 c).

[12.40] Similar to the previous kommen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction (see Sec­tion 12.4.12), there is always some unexpressed force or agent at work that causes the subject to experience something, even with verbs that do not describe an experience, e.g. (12.31 c). So I propose to call this construction a covertly caused experience (and in German verborgenes rezipientenkausativ).

(12.31) a. Das hat auch Wiesbaden zu spüren bekommen. dwds: Die Zeit, 13.03.1958, Nr. 11.
b. Den Tag über bekommen sie nichts Warmes zu essen. dwds: Frisch, Karl von: Erinnerungen eines Biologen, Berlin: Springer 1957, S. 7.
c. Die Nacht war dunkel, und ich bekam nachher den Jammerkerl zu packen. dwds: Scheerbart, Paul: Immer mutig! In: Deutsche Literatur von Lessing bis Kafka, Berlin: Directmedia Publ. 2000 [1902], S. 144560.

Attested verbs

12.5 Diatheses with subject demotion

12.5.1 sbj › ø : [ N | – ] sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Impersonal

[12.41] The sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is typically used with transitive verbs as a passive with modal meaning expressing obligation or possibility (see Sec­tion 12.5.8). With intransitive verbs such a passive would lead to an impersonal construction, but this seems to be very rare (contrary to the claim in Holl 2010: 18). The example given by Holl is doubtful (12.32 a). A better example is anhalten (12.32 b). In both examples the removed subject is not replaced by a valency-simulating pronoun es.

(12.32) a. Ab 22 Uhr ist zu schlafen. Holl (2010): 18
b. Zum Schutz von ein- und aussteigenden Fahrgästen ist langsam zu fahren und nötigenfalls anzuhalten. dwds: o. A.: Verkehrskunde für die Führerscheinklassen 1-3–4, Remagen: Verkehrs-Verl. 1965, S. 109.

Attested verbs

12.5.2 sbj › ø : [ NP | –P ] sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Impersonal+preposition

[12.42] It is slightly more common to find impersonal sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv constructions with governed prepositions, though this usage is still very rare (12.33). Note that the original nominative subject cannot be retained in another form, and it is not replaced by a valency-simulating pronoun es. Because of the parallel to the Modalpassiv (see Sec­tion 12.5.8) I will call this diathesis unpersönlicher modalpassiv, although the name “passive” is actually not fitting in this case. Just as with the Modalpassiv, this construction can have either a deontic müssen interpretation (12.33 a) or a dynamic können meaning (12.33 b), the latter typically with negation.

(12.33) a. Auf Ernst war wie immer lange zu warten. Holl (2010): 18
b. Mit ihm ist nicht zu spaßen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

12.5.3 sbj › ø : [ ND | –D ] sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Impersonal+dative

[12.43] Similar to the previous section, impersonal sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is possible with some verbs taking a dative object, though this usage is exceedingly rare (12.34). Just like in the previous section, the original nominative subject cannot be retained and, while removed, it is not replaced by a valency-simulating pronoun es. Also this construction can have either a deontic müssen interpretation (12.34 a) or a dynamic können meaning (12.34 b), the latter typically with negation.

(12.34) a. Und den Orchestermusikern ist zu gratulieren. dwds: Die Zeit, 21.12.1990, Nr. 52.
b. Auch ihm war nicht zu trauen. dwds: Die Zeit, 15.09.2005, Nr. 38.

Attested verbs

Further examples

12.5.4 sbj › adj : [ NA | pA ] geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Subject demotion

[12.44] Transitive verbs can be used in a geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction, demoting the nominative subject (cf. Engel 1996: 488). The removed nominative subject is replaced by a valency-simulating pronoun es, so the finite verb is always in the third person singular, resulting in fixed expressions es gibt or es hat gegeben. The original nominative subject can be retained by a für prepositional phrase (12.35 b). This construction is obligatorily coherent (12.35 c).

(12.35) a. Seine Fans kaufen ein Gesamtpaket.
b. Stattdessen gibt es für seine Fans ein Gesamtpaket zu kaufen. dwds: Die Zeit, 11.12.2013 (online).
c. Stattdessen hat es für seine Fans ein Gesamtpaket zu kaufen gegeben.

[12.45] Semantically, this construction expresses an option that is available to the original subject. Structurally, the subject is demoted (or even unexpressed). Because of these two characteristics I propose the somewhat cumbersome German designation möglichkeitsdesubjektiv. Note that the same geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is also used for a semantically and structurally quite different causative construction, namely the Möglichkeitskausativ (see Sec­tion 12.6.1).

[12.46] This construction is commonly used with an quantified adverb like viel/genug/reichlich/nichts (12.36 b) instead of an nominal accusative object (12.36 c). Also, geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is typically used without the retained subject in a für phrase (12.37 a). Without a retained subject, the expression of a full nominal accusative is more widespread (12.37 b).

(12.36) a. Die Reisenden entdecken das Land.
b. Es gibt für Reisende noch viel zu entdecken.
c. * Es gibt für Reisende das Land zu entdecken.
(12.37) a. Es gibt reichlich zu trinken.
Gestern hat es reichlich zu trinken gegeben.
b. Ich gewinnen einen Preis.
Es gibt einen Preis zu gewinnen.

Further examples

12.5.5 sbj › adj : [ NA | pA ] gelten+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Subject demotion

[12.47] The verb gelten can be used with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv by demoting the original subject to an (optional) für prepositional phrase (12.38 a). As there is no replacement for the subject of the sentence, a valency-simulating pronoun es is introduced. This results in a fixed expression es gilt (cf. Engel 1996: 488–489). This construction expresses a necessity, close to a modal ‘must’, and is mainly used in a formal written register. In contrast to the previous Möglichkeitsdesubjektiv (see Sec­tion 12.5.4) I propose to call this diathesis notwendigkeitsdesubjektiv in German.

[12.48] The gelten+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is typically coherent, viz. the finite verb gilt appears at the end of a subordinate clause (12.38 a). However, it is possible to find non-coherent examples (12.38 b), indicating that this construction is not completely grammaticalised into a monoclausal construction. The coherent usage appears to be the more widespread, though.

(12.38) a. Lanz verteidigt den Sieg.
Jetzt gilt es für Lanz den Sieg zu verteidigen. dwds: Die Zeit, 02.11.2012 (online).
b. Das alles ist die Aufgabe, die es zu lösen gilt. dwds: Die Zeit, 05.07.2017, Nr. 28.
c. Das ist eine Tradition, die es gilt zu erinnern und zu erhalten. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 09.11.1996.

Further examples

12.5.6 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] stehen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Anticausative

[12.49] The construction stehen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is used as an anticausative, expressing the expectation that the original accusative will come to pass. For that reason I propose to call this diathesis erwartungsantikausativ in German.

[12.50] Examples with an explicit accusative noun phrase as in (12.39 a) are actually rare. Typically, this diathesis is found with cognitive predicates expressing an expectation (Engel 1996: 481; Holl 2010: 10, fn. 4), like befürchten ‘to fear’, with a dass complement clause (12.39 b). Functionally, this complement clause has the same status as an accusative object, which becomes the subject after the application of the stehen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis.

[12.51] Complement clauses typically move towards the end of the sentence in German, and then the first position of the sentence has to be filled. A position-simulating pronoun es is frequently used, resulting in a widespread collocation es steht zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (12.39 b). However, this pronoun es is removed when the first position of the sentence is filled otherwise, so this es has a completely different status compared to the obligatory valency-simulating es of es gibt zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (Sec­tion 12.5.4) and es gilt zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (Sec­tion 12.5.5).

(12.39) a. Ich befürchte einen weiteren Beschäftigungsabbau.
Ein weiterer Beschäftigungsabbau steht zu befürchten. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 15.01.1999.
b. Jemand befürchtet, dass ihr Nachfolger das anders handhaben wird.
Es steht zu befürchten, dass ihr Nachfolger das anders handhaben wird. dwds: Die Zeit, 12.05.2016 (online).
c. So steht zu befürchten, dass sich die innenpolitischen Gräben noch vertiefen. dwds: Die Zeit, 07.05.2015, Nr. 19.

[12.52] Except for the verbs of expectation, there are two incidental, but quite frequent, verbs that can be used in this construction, namely lesen ‘to read’ (12.40 a) and verkaufen ‘to sell’ (12.40 b). Semantically, these do not seem to express any notion of expectation. Crucially, the stehen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is coherent with these two verbs (12.40 c,d).

(12.40) a. Es stand zu lesen, dass die Mannschaft gegen den Trainer spielen würde. dwds: Die Zeit, 03.09.2012 (online).
b. Luxuriöse Villa auf der Insel Brač steht zu verkaufen. Attested online at https://www.croatia-property.net/de/property/luxuriose-villa-auf-der-insel-brac-zu-verkaufen-1991/, accessed 8 November 2021.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) es hier zu lesen steht.
d. (Es ist bekannt, dass) das Haus zu verkaufen steht.

Attested verbs

12.5.7 obj › sbj › ø : [ NA | –N ] gehen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Negative anticausative

[12.53] The gehen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv anticausative (12.41 a) seems to be typical for an informal register. Most examples include a negation, and only very few examples without negation are attested (12.41 b,c). The construction expresses that something is impossible (or, without negation, possible). In German I propose to use the name unmöglichkeitsantikausativ for this diathesis.

(12.41) a. Ich lösche die Datei.
Die Datei geht nicht zu löschen.
b. Die temporäre Datei geht zu löschen, aber nicht die exe. Attested online at https://administrator.de/forum/windows-7-probleme-nach-laufwerksbuchstaben-zuweisung-von-wechseldatentraegern-112602.html, accessed 8 November 2021.
c. Das Radio geht zu reparieren. Helbig & Buscha (2001): 166

[12.54] There is a special idiomatic construction verb, was zu verb ging (12.42) that includes the gehen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction. There does not seem to be any obvious semantic relation to the monoclausal construction as illustrated above.

(12.42) a. Die Sozialdemokraten haben […] verhindert, was nur zu verhindern ging. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 23.09.2000.
b. Die […] Hochschulen haben versucht zu retten, was zu retten ging. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 17.05.2000.
c. Was zu privatisieren ging, ist privatisiert. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 14.07.2003.

Attested verbs

Further examples

12.5.8 obj › sbj › adj : [ NA | pN ] sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Modal passive

[12.55] When used with transitive verbs, the sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is a passive diathesis with a modal meaning, which I propose to call modalpassiv in German. A passive is defined here as a promotion of the accusative object to nominative subject and the demotion (and possibly complete deletion) of the original subject. Authors that argue against a passive status for this construction simply use other criteria for what counts as “passive” (cf. Holl 2010: 19).

[12.56] Depending on the context, various modal interpretations are possible for the sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction, as illustrated in (12.43). These examples show a müssen interpretation in (12.43 a), a dürfen interpretation in (12.43 b), a können interpretation in (12.43 c) and a nicht brauchen interpretation in (12.43 d). The müssen and können interpretations appear to be the most frequent.

(12.43) a. Ich führe einen Hund an der Leine.
Hunde sind (von ihren Besitzern) an der Leine zu führen.
b. Ich öffne das Fenster.
Das Fenster ist (nur von bestimmte Personen) zu öffnen.
c. Du löst die Aufgabe.
Die Aufgabe ist (für dich) leicht zu lösen.
d. Ich erwarte Hagel.
Hagel ist nicht zu erwarten.

[12.57] There are various syntactic differences between the major müssen and können interpretations (Holl 2010: 18–21). First, with the müssen interpretation (12.43 a) it is possible to retain the original agent with a von prepositional phrase, but this is very uncommon. In contrast, the für agent retention (12.43 c) is only possible with the können interpretation. Second, a können interpretation can be forced by adding adverbials (including negation) like einfach ‘easily’ (12.44 a) or schön ‘beautifully’ (12.44 b).

(12.44) a. Das Pult ist zu bedienen.
Das Pult ist einfach zu bedienen.
b. Der Weg ist zu gehen.
Der Weg ist schön zu gehen.

[12.58] Verbs without an accusative argument can be used in the sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction to form an impersonal passive, though this is rare (see Sec­tion 12.5.1 and subsequent sections). In contrast, most verbs with an accusative argument allow for this diathesis, but not all of them do. Holl (2010: 19) argues that there is a difference between the verbs that allow for a sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv passive and those verbs that allow for a werden+Partizip passive (cf. Sec­tion 10.5.15), as exemplified with bekommen ‘to get’ (12.45). There are indeed a few more verbs that can be used with sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv but not with werden+Partizip (e.g. entwickeln, erhalten, kriegen, messen, rechnen), but overall there actually appears to be quite a good match between the applicability of both passives.

(12.45) a. * Die Bücher werden am Schalter im Lesesaal bekommen.
b. Die Bücher sind am Schalter im Lesesaal zu bekommen.

Attested verbs

[12.59] The following verbs with accusative arguments do not allow for a sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv passive. There is strong overlap with the verbs that do not allow for a werden+Partizip passive (cf. Sec­tion 10.5.15).

Further examples

Notes

[12.60] The verb kennen ‘to be acquainted with’ used to be possible in this construction. The most recent example that I have been able to find is from Hugo von Hofmannsthal (12.46).

(12.46) Sie ist schwer zu kennen. dwds: Hofmannsthal, Hugo von: Der Schwierige. In: Deutsche Literatur von Lessing bis Kafka, Berlin: Directmedia Publ. 2000 [1917], S. 92458.

12.6 Diatheses with promotion to subject

12.6.1 ø › sbj › obj : [ –NA | NDA ] geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Novative

[12.61] The geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction has two rather different uses. It can be used with subject demotion and a modal meaning (see Sec­tion 12.5.4) or with subject promotion and a causative/permissive meaning (this section). With subject promotion it is widely used with verbs of cognition that take an embedded clause, like bedenken ‘to consider’ (12.47 a). Embedded in the geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction, this results in a novative construction with a meaning ‘to offer to consider’ (12.47 b). Such constructions are coherent (12.47 c,d). I propose to call this diathesis möglichkeitskausativ in German.

(12.47) a. Ich bedenke, dass es schon spät ist.
b. Er gibt mir zu bedenken, dass es schon spät ist.
c. Er hat mir zu bedenken gegeben, dass es schon spät ist.
d. * Er hat mir gegeben zu bedenken, dass es schon spät ist.

[12.62] This novative construction is also widely attested with other verbs, e.g. trinken ‘to drink’ (12.48). With those verbs, the meaning of the geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis is very close to lexical geben ‘to give’. For example geben zu trinken often simply means ‘hand over some drink to be consumed’ (12.48 a). However, it can also mean ‘cause food to be consumed’, typically in the context of little children (12.48 b). Whatever the exact meaning, this construction is always coherent, as can be seen from the position of the verb geben in the examples below.

(12.48) a. Soldaten hätten ihnen zu essen und zu trinken gegeben. dwds: Die Zeit, 12.05.2015 (online).
b. Als Großmütter ihren Enkeln mit der Flasche ungesüßte Schokolade zu trinken gaben. dwds: Die Zeit, 07.03.2013, Nr. 11.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[12.63] The verb leben ‘to live’ is used in this construction with a slightly different meaning. As illustrated in (12.49 a) it does not mean ‘to cause to live’ but ‘to predict to remain alive’. The geben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction with the verb denken ‘to think’ is typically stacked inside a modal sollen/müssen+In­fi­ni­tiv (12.49 b) or a perfect haben+Partizip (12.49 c).

(12.49) a. Der Arzt gab mir noch drei Wochen zu leben.
b. Sollte das nicht den Pazifisten zu denken geben?
c. Hoffentlich hat die Sendung auch Lehrern zu denken gegeben.

12.7 Diatheses with object demotion

[12.64] Not attested.

12.8 Diatheses with promotion to object

[12.65] Not attested.

12.9 Symmetrical diatheses

12.9.1 obj › sbj › obj : [ NA | DN ] bleiben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv Inversive

[12.66] The bleiben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis shows many intricate details that are in need of a much deeper investigation than I can offer here. I have only been able to find a few short discussions of this construction in the literature, none of which go into much detail (Höhle 1978: 48–50; Engel 1996: 478–479; Colomo 2010: 196–197).

[12.67] Basically, this diathesis is an passive-like construction, with the accusative being promoted to nominative subject. However, different from a passive, the original subject can be retained as a dative (12.50 a). For that reason this diathesis is classified as an inversive. Because the demotion (nominative to dative) is “larger” than the promotion (accusative to nominative), this diathesis can be considered a “demoted” inversive. Just like all diatheses, this construction is coherent (12.50 b).

[12.68] Semantically, this diathesis expresses that (some part of) the grammatical patient is still left over to be applied to the verb, so there is something still to be considered. For this reason I propose to use the German name restinversiv for this diathesis.

(12.50) a. Der Inspektor klärt den Fall.
Dem Inspektor bleibt nur noch der letzte Fall zu klären.
b. Ich habe gehört, dass dem Inspektor nur noch der letzte Fall zu klären bleibt.

[12.69] The retention of the subject as a dative is rare in real usage (12.51 a-c). However, a frequent phenomenon with the bleiben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis is that a quantified adverb is used instead of a nominal object, for example viel, genügend, wenig, nichts anderes (12.52). In such examples, the retention of the subject as a dative is widespread (12.52 b). All such constructions are clearly coherent (12.52 c).

(12.51) a. Jetzt bleibt nur noch, diesen Entwurf zu diskutieren.
[…] weil jetzt nur noch dieser Entwurf zu diskutieren bleibt. Höhle (1978): 49
b. Der Wahlleiter klärt den Wahltermin.
Vorher jedoch bleibt der Wahltermin zu klären. dwds: Die Zeit, 30.10.1987, Nr. 45.
c. Ich berücksichtige den Glücksanspruch der Mutter.
Aber ebenso bleibt der Glücksanspruch der Mutter auch zu berücksichtigen. dwds: Die Zeit, 02.10.1970, Nr. 40.
(12.52) a. Ich entdecke hier viel.
b. Hier bleibt mir noch viel zu entdecken. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 09.03.2003.
c. (Es ist bekannt, dass) mir hier noch viel zu entdecken bleibt.

[12.70] The bleiben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv is commonly used with verbs that take a complement clause, like abwarten ‘to wait and see’ (12.53 a). This construction is also coherent, because the order in the subordinate clause is abzuwarten bleibt and not bleibt abzuwarten (12.53 b). The original ob complement clause, now twice embedded, remains extraposed at the end of the sentence. Retention of the original subject as dative seems impossible with such complement-taking verbs.

(12.53) a. Ich warte ab, ob Paul wirklich kommt.
Es bleibt abzuwarten, ob Paul wirklich kommt. Holl (2010): 10
b. Wir müssen Geduld haben, weil abzuwarten bleibt, ob Paul wirklich kommt.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[12.71] The situation with verbs that take a dative argument, like danken ‘to thank’ or antworten ‘to answer’, needs more investigation. The bleiben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction seems to result in sentences with a double dative (12.54 b). However, this construction does not appear to be coherent (12.54 c,d).

(12.54) a. Ich danke dem Veranstalter für diese Ausstellung.
b. Mir bleibt, dem Veranstalter zu danken für diese Ausstellung. dwds: Die Zeit, 02.05.1969, Nr. 18.
c. Ich bin fast fertig, weil mir nur noch bleibt, dem Veranstalter zu danken.
d. ? Ich bin fast fertig, weil mir nur noch dem Veranstalter du danken bleibt.

[12.72] There is yet another construction with bleiben and a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv, shown in (12.55), that needs more investigation. Basically, the zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv clauses seem to be subordinate to the nouns Ratschlag ‘advice’ (12.55 a) and Anspruch ‘aspiration’ (12.55 b). However, a better analysis is probably to consider these nouns as hidden predicates, approximately the same as Ratschlag geben ‘to give advice’ (12.55 c) and Anspruch haben ‘to have an aspiration’ (12.55 d). Then the bleiben+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is a regular anticausative here. However, note that this construction does not appear to be coherent.

(12.55) a. Es bleibt der Ratschlag, Objekte gut zu prüfen. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 24.12.2004.
b. Es bleibt der Anspruch, die Region zu befrieden. dwds: Die Zeit, 15.10.1998, Nr. 43.
c. Jemand gab den Ratschlag, die Objekte gut zu prüfen.
d. Jemand hat den Anspruch, die Region zu befrieden.

13 Light-verb alternations with Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv

13.1 Introduction

[13.1] This final chapter investigates a class of constructions that consist of a light verb with a preposition, an article and an infinitive, like the sein+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv progressive (13.1 a), see Sec­tion 13.4.1, or the haben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv inversive (13.1 b), see Sec­tion 13.9.1. German has various such grammaticalised monoclausal constructions, which are superficially similar, but syntactically clearly different from clauses with ordinary prepositional phrases. The grammaticalised combination of a preposition, an article and an infinitive will be called a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv and it is proposed here as a fourth non-finite verbform alongside Partizip, In­fi­ni­tiv and zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv.

(13.1) a. Ich bin am Arbeiten.
b. Der Jongleur hat unzählige Teller am Drehen.

[13.2] Such grammaticalised constructions appear to be relatively new to the German language. There is some historical research on the sein+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv progressive, and a few tentative examples have been observed as early as the 16th century (Gárgyán 2010: 124–132). However, the progressive only becomes regularly attested in the 19th century. The other constructions discussed in this chapter have not yet been properly diachronically investigated, but my impression is that they are all relatively recent developments. Accordingly, these constructions are often considered colloquial and are regularly avoided in formal written language.

[13.3] In German orthography, when an infinitive is used as a noun (as most clearly indicated by a preceding article) than the rules dictate that it should be written with a capital letter. Consequently, I have written all infinitives with capitals in this chapter. However, there is quite a bit of uncertainty about this in daily orthographic practice. For example, both capitalised and non-capitalised forms of the am progressive are frequently attested in contemporary German (Gárgyán 2010: 67–68, 73–74). Using lowercase actually makes sense, given that the infinitive in a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv is a grammaticalised non-finite verbform.

[13.4] The morphosyntactic characteristics of the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv are discussed in detail in Sec­tion 13.2.1. In identifying a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv, care has to be taken to distinguish it from other highly similar constructions. First, a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv is a monoclausal construction, which makes it different from other highly similar, but underlyingly biclausal subordinate structures, like with träumen von ‘to dream of’ in (13.2 a), see Sec­tion 13.2.2. Second, the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv is different from adverbial phrases with infinitives, like goal-oriented zum Schwimmen ‘with the intent to swim’ in (13.2 b), see Sec­tion 13.2.3.

(13.2) a. Sie träumt vom Schwimmen.
b. Er läuft zum Schwimmen durch die halbe Stadt.

[13.5] The result of this strict demarcation is that only very few clearly grammaticalised constructions with a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv can be identified. The handful of epitheses and the three diatheses that are presented in this chapter are all constructed with just a few light verbs, namely haben, sein, bleiben, gehen, fahren, kommen and halten. I propose the following German names for the three diatheses:

13.2 Defining the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv

13.2.1 Grammatical structure

[13.6] The Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv is a grammaticalised construction that will be distinguished from the superficially identical “regular” combination of a preposition with an article and an infinitive. This distinction is rather subtle and there is quite some individual variation, indicating that the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv is still in its early stages of grammaticalisation. I will first discuss the general characteristics of regular preposition+article+infinitive combinations, only to subsequently argue that the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv (13.3 a) is different, see Sec­tion 13.2.1. Various highly similar structures will be distinguished from the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv in the ensuing sections, namely (i) governed prepositional subordination (13.3 b), see Sec­tion 13.2.2, (ii) adverbial modification (13.3 c), see Sec­tion 13.2.3 and (iii) the Funktions­verb­gefüge (13.3 d), see Sec­tion 13.2.4.

(13.3) a. Der Vater kommt gerade vom Einkaufen.
(‘vom Einkaufen’ = Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv, Sec­tion 13.2.1)
b. Der Husten kommt sicher vom Rauchen.
(‘vom Rauchen’ = prepositional subordination, Sec­tion 13.2.2)
c. Der Senior kommt täglich zum Schwimmen.
(‘zum Schwimmen’ = adverbial modification, Sec­tion 13.2.3)
d. Das Prinzip kommt bald zur Anwendung.
(‘zur Anwendung’ = Funktions­verb­gefüge, Sec­tion 13.2.4)

[13.7] The central part of a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv is the infinitive verbform. An infinitive is basically a noun derived from a verb (see Sec­tion 11.2.2). As a noun, an infinitive can regularly be preceded by an article, forming a noun phrase, like das Schreiben ‘the writing’ (13.4 a). And as a noun phrase, it can be preceded by a preposition to form a prepositional phrase durch das Schreiben ‘by writing’ (13.4 b). The infinitive can also have additional attributive modifiers, e.g. adjectives like schnell ‘fast’ (13.4 c), modifying prepositional phrases like im Dunkeln ‘in the dark’ (13.4 d) or modifying genitive phrases like eines Tagebuchs ‘of a diary’ (13.4 e). Syntactically, the position of the preposition+article+infinitive phrase in the sentence is flexible. Specifically, it does not have to occur immediately before the finite verb at the end of a subordinate clause (13.4 f). Finally, under some morphophonological circumstances the preposition and article fuse together, leading to contractions like beim, from bei+dem (13.4 g). All these possibilities show that the infinitive operates exactly like a regular noun inside a prepositional phrase.

(13.4) a. [Das Schreiben]NP fällt ihm schwer.
b. [Durch das Schreiben]PP ist er berühmt geworden.
c. [Durch das schnelle Schreiben]PP ist er müde geworden.
d. [Durch das Schreiben im Dunkeln]PP ist er blind geworden.
e. [Durch das Schreiben eines Tagebuchs]PP hat er viel gelernt.
f. (Es ist bekannt, dass) er sich [durch das Schreiben]PP von seinen Dämonen befreit hat.
g. [Beim Schreiben]PP ist er eingeschlafen.

[13.8] Different from (13.4), some preposition+article+infinitive combinations have special characteristics indicating that they are grammaticalised into bound morphology, namely the preposition and article are (i) fused, (ii) unstressed and (iii) inseparable, and the whole phrase (iv) cannot be modified and (v) is positionally fixed. I will call such grammaticalised combinations präpositions­infinitiv. They behave syntactically like a non-finite verbform, on a par with the Partizip, In­fi­ni­tiv and zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv. For example, they regularly occur in the so-called “right sentence bracket” at the end of a clause, in which all German non-finite verbs are placed.

[13.9] By definition then, a combination of preposition+article+infinitive is a grammaticalised Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv when the following characteristics hold. These characteristics will be illustrated in more detail below.

  1. The preposition and the article are obligatorily fused.
  2. The fused preposition/article is always unstressed (e.g. contrastive focus is not possible).
  3. The fused preposition/article is inseparable into its component pieces.
  4. The infinitive does not allow for any attributive modifiers, such as pre-nominal adjectives, post-nominal genitives or prepositional phrases.
  5. In subordinate position, the preposition+article+infinitive combination is inseparable, placed immediately in front of the sentence-final finite verb.

[13.10] To illustrate these characteristics, I will contrast a location phrase am Tisch ‘at the table’ (13.5 a) with a grammaticalised phrase am Arbeiten ‘at work’ in the sein+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv progressive construction (13.5 b). Superficially, these two sentences look structurally similar. For example, both have a fused preposition+article am, from an+dem.

(13.5) a. Ich sitze am Tisch.
b. Ich bin am Arbeiten.

[13.11] However, there are many structural differences. First, the locational am can take contrastive stress (13.6 a), while the progressive am cannot (13.6 b). This difference arguably stems from the fact that the progressive am does not have any obvious alternatives. Note though that, contrary to this claim, a linguistically hyper-aware speaker could use a contrastive example as in (13.6 b), because there is indeed a slight difference between the am progressive (see Sec­tion 13.4.1) and the beim frequentative (see Sec­tion 13.4.4).

(13.6) a. Ich sitze ám Tisch, nicht áuf dem Tisch.
b. ? Ich bin ám Arbeiten, nicht béim Arbeiten.

[13.12] Next, in the locational usage the fused preposition+article combination can be separated into two words (13.7 a). This is not possible in the grammaticalised progressive construction (13.7 b), cf. Gárgyán (2010: 71).

(13.7) a. Ich sitze an dem Tisch.
b. * Ich bin an dem Arbeiten.

[13.13] Additionally, attributive adjectives are possible in the locational usage (13.9 a), but not in the progressive construction (13.9 b), cf. Gárgyán (2010: 69). Other modifiers, like genitives, relative clauses or prepositional clauses are likewise not well-formed in the grammaticalised progressive construction.

(13.8) a. Ich sitze am schönen Tisch.
b. * Ich bin am harten Arbeiten.

[13.14] Finally, the syntactic flexibility of a location phrase like am Tisch is much greater than the progressive am Arbeiten. This is most clearly illustrated by adding an adverb like gerne ‘gladly’ and then embedding the whole construction into a subordinate position. In the locational example, the adverb can occur both before and after the prepositional phrase (13.9). In contrast, the adverb can only occur before and not after the prepositional phrase in the progressive construction (13.10). Crucially, this shows that the phrase am Arbeiten cannot be separated from the finite verb bin in subordinate position. This kind of restriction is consistent with analysing am Arbeiten as an non-finite verb form. Gárgyán (2010: 35, 179–181) investigates the co-occurrence of adverbial prepositional phrases in progressive sentences. She finds various postposed examples, although they appear less frequent than preposed ones. Unfortunately, she did not explicitly investigate progressives in subordinate position. The few examples cited do not show anything intervening between the am phrase and the final sein in subordinate position.

(13.9) a. (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich gerne am Tische sitze.
b. (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich am Tisch gerne sitze.
(13.10) a. (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich gerne am Arbeiten bin.
b. * (Es ist bekannt, dass) ich am Arbeiten gerne bin.

13.2.2 Governed prepositional subordination

[13.15] Verbs with governed prepositions show many characteristics of a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv. However, they are classified here as a different kind of construction. By definition (see Sec­tion 6.2.1), governed prepositions allow for a biclausal subordinate paraphrase with da(r)+Präposition, dass, like with reden über ‘to talk about’ in (13.11 a). Alternatively, most such governed prepositions also allow for a similar construction with a subordinate zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (13.11 b). As a third alternative only the infinitive can be used, leading to a construction very close to a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv (13.11 c).

(13.11) a. Sein Vater redet darüber, dass Rauchen ungesund ist.
b. Sein Vater redet darüber, nicht mehr zu rauchen.
c. Sein Vater redet übers Rauchen.

[13.16] Such a “bare subordinate infinitive” is possible with almost all verbs that have a governed preposition. Below I have added some corpus examples for träumen von ‘to dream of’ (13.13 a), hindern an ‘to hinder’ (13.13 b) and klagen über ‘to lament’ (13.13 c). Frequent collocations with a similar structure are Freude haben an (13.12 d) and Spaß haben an (13.12 e).

(13.12) a. Ich träume vom Autofahren. dwds: Zeit Magazin, 16.05.2013, Nr. 21.
b. So werden die Cannabispflanzen am Blühen gehindert. dwds: Die Zeit, 18.06.2015, Nr. 25.
c. Übers Altwerden klagte er oft und verhöhnte alles, was kam, ihn zu ehren. dwds: Die Zeit, 12.07.1956, Nr. 28.
d. Ich habe Freude am Lesen.
e. Ich habe Spaß am Leben.

[13.17] Such prepositional phrases with bare subordinate infinitives, like with neigen zu ‘to tend to’ (13.13 a), show various similarities to a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv. For example, the preposition and the article cannot be separated into zu dem (13.13 b). Additionally, the prepositional phrase cannot be separated from a finite verb in subordinate sentence-final position, e.g. with an adverb like immer ‘always’ in between (13.13 c).

(13.13) a. Der RB-Fan neigt zum Klatschen. dwds: Die Zeit, 27.04.2014, Nr. 17.
b. * Der RB-Fan neigt zu dem Klatschen.
c. * (Es ist bekannt, dass) der RB-Fan zum Klatschen immer neigt.

[13.18] However, in contrast to a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv, modification of the infinitive is possible. This is illustrated here with genitives in prepositional constructions with bringen zu (13.14 a) and abhalten von (13.14 b). These genitives are actually retained arguments of the verbs in the infinitive. For example in (13.14 b), the phrase vom Besuchen des Spiels is derived from the clause sie besuchen das Spiel, in which Spiel ‘game’ is the object of besuchen ‘to visit’. Adjectival modification is illustrated with governed prepositions of the verbs profitieren von (13.14 c) and einladen zu (13.14 d).

(13.14) a. Die Stadt […] versucht, ihn auf anderen Wegen [zum Aufgeben des Hofs] zu bringen. dwds: Die Zeit, 25.10.2017 (online).
b. Mit erhöhten Ticketpreisen sollten die Hooligans [vom Besuchen des Spiels] abgehalten werden. dwds: Die Zeit, 04.08.2013 (online).
c. Ebay profitiert [vom boomenden Einkaufen] im Internet. dwds: Die Zeit, 18.10.2012 (online).
d. Mehrere Bänke sollen [zum besinnlichen Sitzen] […] einladen. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 17.01.2003.

[13.19] Summarising, verbs with a governed preposition allow for a construction that is very close to the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv. However, governed prepositions with infinitives are transparently related to biclausal subordinate constructions and retain characteristics of biclausality. Still, governed prepositions seem to be a good starting point for future developments of new Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv constructions. For this to happen, however, a verb with a governed preposition has to establish a new (grammaticalised) meaning when used with a bare infinitive.

[13.20] A possible example in an early stage of a grammaticalisation is the verb denken. The verb denken has various slightly different meanings. Crucially in the current context, the combination denken an means ‘to remember, to not forget’ (13.15 a). This preposition an is a governed preposition and can be used with a subordinate daran, dass construction (13.15 b) or a daran+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction (13.15 c). A different meaning of denken ‘to plan, to consider’ is attested without an, but with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (13.15 d), see also Sec­tion 12.4.9. Contradictorily, denken+ans‑In­fi­ni­tiv has the meaning ‘to plan’ (13.15 e), i.e. it does not have the same meaning as denken an. The meaning of the denken+ans‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is thus separated from denken an and might be classified as a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv.

(13.15) a. Bitte denke an die Kinder!
b. Bitte denke daran, dass du die Kinder abholen sollst.
c. Bitte denke daran, die Kinder abzuholen.
d. Er denkt morgen zu verreisen.
e. Viele Junge denken ans Auswandern. dwds: Die Zeit, 04.03.2013, Nr. 10.

[13.21] Another candidate for grammaticalisation is the verb bringen. The verb bringen without zu means ‘to bring’ (13.16 a) and has a rather different meaning from bringen zu ‘to provoke, to cause’ with a governed preposition zu (13.16 b). This might be a first step in a development towards a new Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv construction. However, currently there is simply a bifurcation between the verb bringen and the verb bringen zu. Crucially, bringen zu allows for modification of the infinitive (13.16 c). However, a completely grammaticalised Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv is arguably not far off for this construction.

(13.16) a. Sie bringt mich nach Hause.
b. Sie bringt mich immer zum Weinen.
Sie bringt mich immer dazu, zu weinen.
c. […] wenn […] ein wilder Föhn […] die weichen Schneemassen […] zum schnellen Schmelzen bringt. dwds: Voß, Richard: Zwei Menschen, Stuttgart: Engelhorn 1911 [1949], S. 52.
Wer es zum aktiven Offizier gebracht hat […]. dwds: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 1995 [1945].
Er hätte vielleicht sogar auf diese Art seine Flucht zum guten Ende bringen können. dwds: Seghers, Anna: Das siebte Kreuz, Berlin: Aufbau-Taschenbuch-Verl. 2002 [1942], S. 207.

[13.22] An example of a light verb with a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv that has already become separated from its lexical meaning is kommen+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv ‘end of movement’ (13.17 a), see Sec­tion 13.4.7. This construction has a different meaning and structure from kommen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv ‘covertly caused state’ (13.17 b), see Sec­tion 12.4.12. Crucially, both are separate from the lexical meaning kommen zu ‘to get round to do something’ with a governed prepositional phrase (13.17 c), see Sec­tion 6.3.1. Lastly, all these constructions are different from the plain lexical meaning of kommen ‘to come, to arrive’ (13.17 d), illustrated here with an optional zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv as a goal-oriented adverbial modification (‘um zu’), see the next Sec­tion 13.2.3.

(13.17) a. Durch die Vollbremsung kam das Auto ruckhaft zum Stehen.
(= kommen+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv ‘end of movement’, Sec­tion 13.4.7)
b. Nach dem Umzug kam der Fernseher neben dem Esstisch zu stehen.
(= kommen+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv ‘covertly caused state’, Sec­tion 12.4.12)
c. Durch die Überlastung kam die Feuerwehr nicht zum Feuerlöschen.
(= kommen zu ‘to get round to do something’, Sec­tion 6.3.1)
d. Nach drei Stunden kam endlich die Feuerwehr zum Feuerlöschen.
(= kommen (um zu) ‘to come, to arrive (with a purpose)’, Sec­tion 13.2.3)

13.2.3 Adverbial modification

[13.23] Another phenomenon that looks like a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv, but has to be strictly separated from it, are prepositions with infinitives that function as adverbial modifiers in the sentence. These are constituents that consist of a preposition, an article and an infinitive, like zum Laufen, in which the preposition and the article are obligatorily fused. However, they have an adverbial status in the sentence. Because adverbials are syntactically optional, the easiest test for such adverbial usage is to simply leave them out. The resulting sentence should still be grammatical.

[13.24] There are a few common adverbial uses that can be identified by the possibility of a very specific paraphrase. First, teleological (“goal oriented”) zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv adverbials are especially common, like, zum Schwimmen in (13.18 a). Such adverbials can be paraphrased as ‘with the intent to’, or in German as um zu+In­fi­ni­tiv. A second frequently used adverbial phrase is the temporal beim‑In­fi­ni­tiv, meaning ‘while’ (13.18 b). In German such usage can be paraphrased by während+In­fi­ni­tiv. Other prepositions with infinitives are less frequent in adverbial function. Some incidental locational examples can also be found, like an allative (‘from’) vom‑In­fi­ni­tiv (13.18 c) or ablative (‘to’) zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv (13.18 d).

(13.18) a. Er ist [zum Schwimmen] durch die halbe Stadt gelaufen.
(= um zu schwimmen)
b. Er verletzt sich [beim Schälen einer Avocado].
(= während des Schälens)
c. Er nimmt den Zug [von dem täglichen Einkaufen] nach Hause.
(= vom Einkaufen kommend)
d. Er fährt mit dem Bus [zum Grillen an der Lahn].
(= zum Ort, wo gegrillt wird)

[13.25] These adverbials do not adhere to most of the characteristics of the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv, except for the fact that the preposition and article are typically fused. However, the preposition and article can optionally be separated (13.18 b), the whole phrase can move rather freely inside the sentence (13.18 a), and the infinitive can be modified by a genitive (13.18 b), an adjective (13.18 c), or a prepositional phrase (13.18 d).

13.2.4 The Funktions­verb­gefüge

[13.26] The analysis of the so-called Funktions­verb­gefüge has a fifty-years long history in German linguistics (cf. Heine 2020 for a survey). This term is used to refer to grammaticalised constructions that commonly consist of a light verb with a prepositional phrase, like zur Verfügung stehen ‘to be available’, in Zorn geraten ‘become enraged’ or in Zweifel ziehen ‘to cast doubt’ (Heine 2020: 17). Syntactically these phrases are strongly lexicalised and, as can be gleaned from the English translations, they are semantically on a par with individual verbs. They are widely discussed in the German literature and even the infamous Duden grammar includes an extensive eight-page discussion (Duden-Grammatik 2009: 418–425). A common distinction is made between basic noun-verb combinations under the heading Funktions­verb­gefüge mit akkusa­ti­visch angeschloss­enem Verbal­­sub­stan­tiv (Duden-Grammatik 2009: 419) and a combination of a verb with a prepositional phrase under the heading präpositional an­geschlossene Funktions­verben (Duden-Grammatik 2009: 422).

[13.27] There clearly is a lot of similarity between such a prepositional Funktions­verb­gefüge and the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv as discussed in this chapter. The Funktionsverben that are typically used in a Funktions­verb­gefüge show a lot of overlap with the light verbs that are discussed throughout this book. And indeed, the English term “light verb” has recently been used as a translation of the German term Funktionsverb (Fleischhauer & Gamerschlag 2019; Fleischhauer 2021; Fleischhauer & Hartmann 2021). However, a Funktions­verb­gefüge is obviously different in that it includes either (i) a noun (e.g. Zorn ‘anger’), or (ii) a noun derived from a verb with nominalising derivational morphology (e.g. Verfügung ‘disposal’ from verfügen ‘to have at one’s disposal’ + ‑ung), or (iii) a zero-derived noun (Zweifel ‘doubt’ from zweifeln ‘to doubt’). In contrast, the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv as discussed in this chapter employs infinitives.

[13.28] Of course, as explained above, an infinitive is also a nominalised verbform, which once more emphasises the strong affinity between the Funktions­verb­gefüge and the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv. However, the crucial syntactic difference between them is the same difference as discussed previously with prepositional subordination (see Sec­tion 13.2.2). The deverbal nouns of a Funktions­verb­gefüge can still be modified by retained arguments or modifiers, like genitives (13.19 a) or adjectives (13.19 b), which is impossible for a Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv.

(13.19) a. Ich stelle es zur Verfügung des Bundes.
Besondere Lufteinheiten müßten […] zur Verfügung des Völkerbundes gestellt werden. dwds: Archiv der Gegenwart, Bd. 2, 15.11.1932.
b. Ich ziehe es in ernste Zweifel.
Am wenigsten freilich Finnland, dessen Fortbestand als selbständiger Staat auch wohl in Rußland selbst nicht mehr in ernste Zweifel gezogen wird. dwds: Vossische Zeitung (Abend-Ausgabe), 11.03.1922.

13.3 Deponent verbs

[13.29] Not attested.

13.4 Alternations without diathesis

13.4.1 sein+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv Progressive

[13.30] The sein+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv progressive has already extensively been investigated (Krause 2002; Gárgyán 2010) and I will not repeat all results from those investigations here. This construction can be used with intransitive verbs to mark an ongoing activity (13.20 a). It is considered colloquial and frowned upon in formal writing, but it is in widespread use. Transitive verbs can only be used with incorporated objects without article (13.20 b), which are arguably intransitive (see Sec­tion 5.2.5). The variant with a separated object without article is only used in a small patch at the Dutch border of the German-speaking area (13.20 c). Verlaufsform mit ‘am’. In: Elspaß, Stephan & Robert Möller. 2003ff. Atlas zur deutschen Alltagssprache (AdA). Online at https://www.atlas-alltagssprache.de/r10-f10abcd, accessed 29 November 2021.

(13.20) a. Der Feind greift an.
Der Feind ist am Angreifen.
b. Der Millionär kauft Häuser.
Der Millionär ist am Häuserkaufen.
c. ? Der Millionär ist Häuser am Kaufen.

[13.31] It is important to realise that this section only deals with the sein+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction. There are various other grammaticalised progressive constructions that are similar, but should be kept distinct. The sein+im‑In­fi­ni­tiv is a progressive of change (see Sec­tion 13.4.2) and the bleiben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is a continuative progressive (see Sec­tion 13.4.3). In contrast, the sein+beim‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is not analysed as a progressive here, but as an absentive (see Sec­tion 13.4.4).

13.4.2 sein+im‑In­fi­ni­tiv Progressive change

[13.32] Gárgyán (2010: 42–43) only briefly mentions the sein+im‑In­fi­ni­tiv progressive as a variant of the am progressive. The im variant is frequently attested in the fixed expression im Kommen sein ‘to be approaching’ (13.21 a). From a quick search in the dwds corpus it is quite obvious that the sein+im‑In­fi­ni­tiv progressive has a straightforward semantic profile that is different from the sein+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv. The im‑In­fi­ni­tiv is used either for processes that are increasing, like wachsen ‘to grow’ (13.21 b) or for processes that are decreasing, like abklingen ‘to abate’ (13.21 b). Summarising, the sein+im‑In­fi­ni­tiv is a progressive with an additional connotation that something is changing. For that reason I propose to use the name mutativprogressiv in German.

(13.21) a. Aber der Frühling ist im Kommen. dwds: Langer Winter. Schneeschmelze | Texte, 2010-02-16.
b. Die Spaßgesellschaft ist im Wachsen. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 06.09.2001.
c. Die Schwellung ist im Abklingen. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 03.08.1995.

Attested verbs

Further examples

13.4.3 bleiben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv Progressive continuative

[13.33] Parallel to the sein progressive there is also a bleiben progressive, which combines the progressive aspect with an added continuative aspectual meaning. For that reason I propose to call this diathesis kontinuativprogressiv in German. The most frequent collocation is with the verb leben ‘to live’ (13.22 a), but many other agentive intransitive verbs can also be used in this construction. However, this construction appears to be less productive than the sein progressive.

(13.22) a. Also sind wenigstens die am Leben geblieben. dwds: Kant, nicht Keller. Oder?. Not quite like Beethoven, 2009-11-19.
b. Das Schiff muss immer schön am schwimmen bleiben. Attested online at https://freiamtplus.ch/blog-home-switcher/660-operette-mit-historischem-hintergrund.html, accessed 26 November 2021.

Attested verbs

Further examples

13.4.4 sein+beim‑In­fi­ni­tiv Recurrent absence

[13.34] The sein+beim‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction (13.23 a) seems to be very similar to the sein+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv progressive (e.g. they are deemed functionally indistinguishable in Gárgyán 2010: 41–42). However, that is the wrong comparison. The sein+beim‑In­fi­ni­tiv is actually functionally similar to the sein+Infinitiv absentive (13.23 b), see Sec­tion 11.4.1. The sein+beim‑In­fi­ni­tiv likewise signifies that the subject is not present (absentive), but it adds an extra aspectual dimension, namely that the activity is performed regularly or habitually. I will use the term “frequentative” for this aspect and propose to call this diathesis absentivfrequentativ in German.

(13.23) a. Ich bin beim Arbeiten.
b. Ich bin Arbeiten.

[13.35] This construction is normally used with agentive intransitive verbs. However, there are some special examples that show a curious role-reversal with transitive verbs. For example, the verb Haareschneiden ‘to cut hair’ (13.24 a) consists of a transitive verb schneiden ‘to cut’ with an incorporated object Haare ‘hair’. Incorporation is a widespread technique in German to reduce the valency of the verb (see Sec­tion 5.2.5). Crucially, the nominative of the sentence sie ‘she’ is the experiencer of the cutting (i.e. she is the cuttee), not the agent (i.e. she is not the cutter). So, there seems to be some kind of anticausative diathesis going on here. However, I will not analyse this sentence as an anticausative. As an alternative, I propose to interpret the infinitive Haareschneiden as a metonymic replacement for the location Friseur ‘barber’ (13.24 b). Whatever the eventual preferred analysis will be, this example is a fascinating structure that has to be investigated further.

(13.24) a. Sie war beim Haareschneiden. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 19.10.2001.
b. Sie war beim Friseur.

[13.36] Another detail that might lead to confusion is the construction dabei sein with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (13.25 a). Although bei might look like a governed preposition (see Sec­tion 13.2.2), there is a semantic mismatch. The subordinate dabei sein construction in (13.25 a) is a progressive, while the Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv in (13.25 b) is an absentive. The meanings of these two constructions appear to have been drifting apart. A possible analysis of (13.25 a) is to consider the verb dabeisein as a distinct verb with a directional preverbial dabei‑ (see Sec­tion 9.2.5).

(13.25) a. Ich bin dabei einzukaufen.
b. Ich bin beim Einkaufen.

[13.37] Finally note that a beim phrase can also be a temporal adverbial (see Sec­tion 13.2.3). In such usage there is no sein+beim‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction. This is the case in (13.26), for example. The main predicate (in the dass complement clause) is kein Hindernis sein ‘to be no obstacle’ and not beim Geldverdienen sein ‘to be making money’. Consequently, the beim phrase is only an adverbial modifier to the main predicate in this example.

(13.26) Immerhin kann man unterstellen, dass Latein-Lernen kein Hindernis ist beim Geldverdienen. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 05.01.2005.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Notes

[13.38] The two examples in (13.27) are further cases of the anticausative-like usage, as described above for the infinitive Haareschneiden.

(13.27) a. Sie war beim Fettabsaugen. dwds: Der Tagesspiegel, 14.11.2001.
b. Meine Diplomarbeit ist beim Binden. dwds: verwaltungmodern.de, 2007-04-10.

13.4.5 gehen/fahren+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv Recurrent movement to

[13.39] The gehen/fahren+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction basically expresses a movement towards a place at which the verb will be performed. It is typically used with agentive intransitive verbs like einkaufen ‘to shop’ (13.28 a) or schwimmen ‘to swim’ (13.28 b). There is a close connection to the gehen/fahren+In­fi­ni­tiv abitive construction, which also expresses a movement towards an activity (see Sec­tion 11.4.2). The current construction with the zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv adds a frequentative/habitual aspect to the activity, so I propose to use the name abitivfrequentativ in German. It is often attested with adverbs like regelmäßig to emphasise this aspectual notion.

(13.28) a. Ich fahre gleich zum Einkaufen.
b. Ich gehe regelmäßig zum Schwimmen.

[13.40] This construction is normally used with agentive intransitive verbs. However, there is a special variant with transitive verbs like massieren ‘to massage’ (13.29). Conspicuously, in the example below the subject ich is the massagee (i.e. the patient of the massage) not the masseuse. This suggests a kind of anticausative diathesis. I have not followed up on this idea because (i) this usage seems to be rare, and (ii) I think that the verb massieren can here be interpreted as metonymically replacing the place where the activity takes place (13.29 b). However, this construction needs more investigation (just like the similar examples in Sec­tion 13.4.4).

(13.29) a. Ah ja, und dann bin ich zum Massieren gegangen. dwds: Die Zeit, 17.06.1994, Nr. 25.
b. Ich bin zum Massagesalon gegangen.

[13.41] Care has to be taken not to confuse the current abitive-frequentative construction with a lexical usage of gehen/fahren. Especially when there is also a teleological zum adverbial (see Sec­tion 13.2.3), then such sentences look highly similar. For example, the sentences in (13.30) are almost identical to the examples in (13.28). Yet, the sentences in (13.30) are crucially different. The zum phrases in these sentences are adverbials that express the reason for the lexical gehen/fahren ‘to go/drive’. This interpretation can be tested by the possibility of an um+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv paraphrase. Because this is possible, these sentences are not examples of the gehen/fahren+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv abitive-frequentative.

(13.30) a. Ich fahre gleich zum Einkaufen in die Stadt.
(= Ich fahre in die Stadt um einzukaufen.)
b. Ich gehe regelmäßig zum Schwimmen ins Schwimmbad.
(= Ich gehe ins Schwimmbad um zu schwimmen.)

Attested verbs

Further examples

13.4.6 kommen+vom‑In­fi­ni­tiv Recurrent movement from

[13.42] The opposite of the previous gehen+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv (see Sec­tion 13.4.5) is the kommen+vom‑In­fi­ni­tiv expressing movement towards (13.31). There is a straightforward change in preposition, opposing gehen zum ‘to go to’ with kommen von ‘to come from’. There also exist a kommen+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction, which, however, has a completely different semantics (see Sec­tion 13.4.7 below).

[13.43] Just like the previous gehen+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv, the kommen+vom‑In­fi­ni­tiv has an additional frequentative/habitual aspect. This construction expresses that the movement is done regularly as a matter of habit. For that reason I propose to call this diathesis aditivfrequentativ in German. This construction stands in opposition to the kommen+Infinitiv aditive construction (without preposition von) that does not include this habitual aspect (see Sec­tion 11.4.3).

(13.31) a. Er kommt vom Einkaufen.
b. Das hat meine Mutter nämlich damals getan, wenn ich nachts um drei vom Tanzen kam. dwds: Die Zeit, 04.11.1999, Nr. 45.

[13.44] This construction is very close to an adverbial modification as discussed in Sec­tion 13.2.3. For example, compare the previous examples (13.31) with the adverbial examples below in (13.32). In the examples below the vom prepositional phrase is an optional adverbial modification that can be left out.

(13.32) a. Er nimmt den Zug (vom Einkaufen) nach Hause.
b. Ich laufe nachts (vom Tanzen) nach Hause.

Attested verbs

[13.45] Probably the same verbs as for the gehen+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv (see [sec:zuminfinitive-gehen]) can be used for the kommen+vom‑In­fi­ni­tiv. They will not be repeated here.

13.4.7 kommen+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv End of movement

[13.46] The kommen+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv has a very specific interpretation to indicate that a movement has reached an endpoint. For example kommen zum Stehen (13.33 a) means ‘to grind to a halt’. The same construction can also be used metaphorically for other activities that come to a standstill, like the Friedensverhandlungen ‘peace negotiations’ in (13.33 b). There only appear to be a handful of verbs that can be used in this construction and they all describe that a state is reached at the end of a movement. For want of a better term, I will use the German name bewegungsende for this construction.

(13.33) a. Das Auto kommt vor der Ampel zum Stehen.
b. Die Friedensverhandlungen im Jemen sind zum Erliegen gekommen. dwds: Die Zeit, 07.07.2017 (online).

[13.47] Besides this stative usage, there are a few other sentence patterns that look similar, but are actually distinct. First, there is a zum adverbial structure with a teleological, meaning ‘with the goal to’. This can be paraphrased in German with um zu (13.34 a). This is a widespread possibility for a zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv that is not specific for a combination with kommen (see Sec­tion 13.2.3). Second, there is an interpretation of kommen zu meaning ‘to get around to do something’ (13.34 b). In this usage, the preposition zu is a governed preposition and can be paraphrased in German with dazu+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (13.34 c). This is a lexically separate meaning of the verb kommen with a governed prepositional subordination (see Sec­tion 13.2.2). Third, there is a highly frequent fixed expression zum Tragen kommen ‘to bring to bear’ (13.34 d). Such lexicalised expressions are known in the German literature as Funktions­verb­gefüge (see Sec­tion 13.2.4). All these sentence patterns do not have to be distinguished from the stative kommen+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction illustrated above in (13.33).

(13.34) a. Kaum jemand sei zum Baden gekommen. dwds: Die Zeit, 18.05.2017, Nr. 21.
(= Kaum jemand kommt um zu baden.)
b. Ich bin in den letzten Tagen nicht zum Schreiben gekommen. dwds: Brief von Ernst G. an Irene G. vom 28.10.1939, Feldpost-Archive mkb-fp-0270.
(= Ich habe keine Zeit gehabt zum Schreiben.)
c. Ich bin nicht dazu gekommen, dir einen Brief zu schreiben.
d. Die Stärke des Gegners wäre nicht zum Tragen gekommen. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 18.08.2005.

Attested verbs

Further examples

13.5 Diatheses with subject demotion

13.5.1 pbj › sbj › ø : [ NP | –N ] sein+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv Emotional trigger subject

[13.48] The construction sein+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv drops the nominative subject and promotes a governed preposition to subject. Such a role-remapping is rather unusual in German. In another diathesis, the Kreationsubjektiv (see Sec­tion 6.5.7), it is a creation manufactured by the subject that is promoted to subject. In the present construction, it is the trigger of an emotional reaction that is promoted to subject. For that reason I propose to call this diathesis auslösersubjektiv in German.

[13.49] The sein+zum‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis appears only to apply to verbs of emotion, like heulen ‘to cry’ (13.35). This emotion is triggered by something which is expressed with an über governed prepositional phrase (13.35 a). Using this diathesis, the trigger is promoted to subject and the original subject is dropped and cannot be retained in any form (13.35 b). Typically this diathesis is used without explicitly expressing the trigger at all. As a result, the new sentence after the diathesis lacks a subject, and thus a valency-simulating pronoun es is commonly attested in this construction (13.35 c).

(13.35) a. Ich heule über den Schaden.
Ich heule darüber, dass der Schaden so groß ist.
b. Der Schaden ist zum Heulen.
c. Es ist zum Heulen.

Attested verbs

Further examples

13.6 Diatheses with promotion to subject

13.6.1 ø › sbj › obj : [ –N | NA ] halten+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv Continuative causative

[13.50] The halten+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is used with agentive intransitive verbs, most typically with laufen ‘to walk’ (13.36 a). However, the subject of the agentive intransitive has to be an inanimate entity for the diathesis to be possible. The halten+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis adds a new participant to the intransitive event that causes the process to continue. For this reason I propose to use the name fortsetzungskausativ in German.

[13.51] This construction is also frequently attested with verbs describing heat production, like kochen ‘to cook’ (13.36 b). However, these cooking verbs appear to be mostly used in a metaphorical sense. Surely, expression like halten am Kochen ‘to keep something cooking’ can be used in a literal sense in a conversation about cooking. However, such expressions are more frequently used in a metaphorical sense of ‘to keep the discussion alive’ (13.36 b).

(13.36) a. Der so erzeugte Druck hielt die Partnerschaft am Laufen. dwds: Berliner Zeitung, 28.05.1999.
b. Photos, Interviews und Indiskretionen halten den Topf am Kochen. dwds: Die Zeit, 20.01.1961, Nr. 04.

[13.52] There are also some examples with the light verb erhalten instead of halten (13.37), but there is no obvious difference in meaning. The verb erhalten most frequently occurs in the collocation with am Leben ‘alive’.

(13.37) a. Schwimmen kann der Rochen nur in einer Nährstofflösung, die die Herzmuskelzellen am Leben erhält. dwds: Die Zeit, 08.07.2016 (online).
b. Das Feuer, das den Geist der Liebe lebendig erhält, kann nur von oben her entzündet und am Brennen erhalten werden. dwds: Die Zeit, 02.08.1951, Nr. 31.

[13.53] The semantically opposite construction hindern am ‘to prevent’ is not (yet) grammaticalised. Although it is frequently used with am+In­fi­ni­tiv (13.38 a), it does not show the characteristics of a grammaticalised Präpositions­in­fi­ni­tiv (see Sec­tion 13.2.1). For example, it can be used with an adjectival modifier (13.38 b) and the preposition am can also be separated into an dem (13.38 c).

(13.38) a. Zwei Zeugen hätten die sechsköpfige Gruppe am Betreten gehindert. dwds: Die Zeit, 14.03.2014, Nr. 11.
b. Er hat die Pommern nicht nur am rechtzeitigen Entkommen gehindert […]. dwds: Die Zeit, 20.03.2014, Nr. 13.
c. […] haben sie ihn so lange an dem Ziel seines Lebens gehindert. dwds: Die Zeit, 27.04.1990, Nr. 18.

Attested verbs

Further examples

13.7 Diatheses with object demotion

[13.54] Not attested.

13.8 Diatheses with promotion to object

[13.55] Not attested.

13.9 Symmetrical diatheses

13.9.1 obj › sbj › obj : [ DN | NA ] haben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv Dative inversive

[13.56] The haben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction is a fascinating construction that needs much more research (cf. Businger 2011: 323–325). It is a colloquial construction that is virtually unattested in traditional corpora. However, in more informal usage online it is reasonably easy to find examples.

[13.57] The basic clause of this diathesis has an agentive intransitive verb, like brennen ‘to burn’ (13.39 a). This diathesis targets the (often implicit) possessor of the intransitive subject. Crucially for this diathesis to work, this possessor is some kind of experiencer of the event. Such experiencer possessives can alternatively be expressed as a dative (13.39 b), see Sec­tion 5.8.3. The haben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis now promoted this dative to subject and the old subject is demoted to accusative (13.39 c).

(13.39) a. Die Wohnung (des Studenten) brennt.
b. Dem Studenten brennt die Wohnung.
c. Der Student hat die Wohnung am Brennen.

[13.58] This means that the subject of a haben+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv construction (here Der Student ‘the student’) is always inherently the possessor of the object of this construction (here die Wohnung ‘the apartment’). I included the word pertinenz as part of the German name for all diatheses that include such an inherent possessor in the role-remapping. The current diathesis is thus called pertinenzinversiv. This diathesis is closely related to the Ortspertinenzinversiv, see Sec­tion 11.9.2. Both diatheses are semantically and structurally similar, though curiously the Ortspertinenzinversiv uses a haben+In­fi­ni­tiv construction without am.

Attested verbs

Further examples

Bibliography

Abraham, Werner. 2008. Absent arguments on the absentive: An exercise in silent syntax. Grammatical category or just pragmatic inference? Language Typology and Universals 61(4). 358–374. doi:10.1524/stuf.2008.0029.
Ágel, Vilmos. 2000. Valenztheorie. Tübingen: Narr.
Aichinger, Carl Friedrich. 1754. Versuch einer teutschen Sprachlehre, anfänglich nur zu eignem Gebrauche unternommen, endlich aber, um den Gelehrten zu fernerer Untersuchung Anlaß zu geben. Wien: Kraus. https://books.google.de/books?id=JzVGAAAAcAAJ.
Aichinger, Carl Friedrich. 1776. Anmerkung zum zwölften Stück des schwäbischen Magazin. Schwäbisches Magazin von gelehrten Sachen 627–629. https://books.google.de/books?id=bJIpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA627.
Bech, Gunnar. 1955. Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum. København: Munksgaard.
Becker, Karl Ferdinand. 1833. Leitfaden für den ersten Unterricht in der deutschen Sprachlehre. Frankfurt am Main: Hermannsche Buchhandlung. https://books.google.de/books?id=KlwSAAAAIAAJ.
Berik, Olga & Berit Gehrke. 2015. An introduction to the syntax and semantics of pseudo-incorporation. In Olga Berik & Berit Gehrke (eds.), The syntax and semantics of pseudo-incorporation (Syntax and Semantics 40), 1–43. Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004291089_002.
Booij, Geert & Ans van Kemenade. 2003. Preverbs: An introduction. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2003, 1–12. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://vdoc.pub/documents/yearbook-of-morphology-2003-58l4qmnkda90.
Broschart, Jürgen. 2000. The Tongan category of preverbials. In Petra M. Vogel & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Approaches to the typology of word classes (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 23), 351–370. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110806120.351.
Businger, Martin. 2011. ‘Haben’ als Vollverb: Eine dekompositionale Analyse (Linguistische Arbeiten 538). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110252644.
Carlberg, Björn. 1948. Subjektsvertauschung und Objektsvertauschung im Deutschen: Eine semasiologische Studie. Lund: Berlingska boktryckeriet. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:se:su:diva-74473.
Chang, Lingling. 2007. Resultative Prädikate und Verbpartikeln. Deutsch als Fremdsprache (2). 81–89. doi:10.37307/j.2198-2430.2007.02.04.
Colomo, Katarina. 2010. Modalität im Verbalkomplex: Halbmodalverben und Modalitätsverben im System statusregierender Verbklassen. Ruhr-Universität Bochum PhD thesis. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:294-35533.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coupé, Griet. 2015. Syntactic extension: The historical development of Dutch verb clusters. Radboud University Nijmegen PhD thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/141109.
Cysouw, Michael. 2014. Inducing semantic roles. In Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles, 23–68. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tsl.106.02cys.
Czicza, Dániel. 2014. Das es-Gesamtsystem im Neuhochdeutschen (Studia Linguistica Germanica 120). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110357561.
De Vaere, Hilde, Ludovic De Cuypere & Klaas Willems. 2018. Alternating constructions with ditransitive ‘geben’ in present-day German. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. doi:10.1515/cllt-2017-0072.
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 228). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110241037.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138. doi:10.2307/412519.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2014. Basic linguistic theory. Vol. 3: Further Grammatical Topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra A. Y. Aikhenvald. 2000. Introduction. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, 1–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511627750.002.
Duden-Grammatik. 2009. Die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch (Duden 4). 8. überarbeitete Auflage. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
Dux, Ryan. 2020. Frame-constructional verb classes: Change and theft verbs in English and German (Constructional Approaches to Language 28). Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/cal.28.
Eisenberg, Peter. 2006b. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik 1: Das Wort. 3rd edition. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Eisenberg, Peter. 2006a. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik 2: Der Satz. 3rd edition. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Engel, Ulrich. 1996. Deutsche Grammatik. (3. korrigierte Auflage). Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
Engel, Ulrich & Helmut Schumacher. 1978. Kleines Valenzlexikon deutscher Verben (Forschungsberichte des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 31). Tübingen: Narr.
Engelen, Bernhard. 1986. Einführung in die Syntax der deutschen Sprache. Vol. 2. Balemannsweiler: Pädagogische Verlag Burgbücherei Schneider.
Enzinger, Stefan. 2012. Kausative und perzeptive Infinitivkonstruktionen (Studia Grammatica 70). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. doi:10.1524/9783050062310.
Erb, Marie Christine. 2001. Finite auxiliaries in German. Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant PhD thesis. https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/finite-auxiliaries-in-german.
Eroms, Hans-Werner. 1980. Be-Verb und Präpositionalphrase: Ein Beitrag zur Grammatik der deutschen Verbalpräfixe (Monographien zur Sprachwissenschaft 9). Heidelberg: Winter.
Eroms, Hans-Werner. 2000. Syntax der deutschen Sprache (De Gruyter Studienbuch). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110808124.
Fabricius-Hansen, Christine. 1986. Tempus fugit: Über die Interpretation temporaler Strukturen im Deutschen (Sprache der Gegenwart 64). Düsseldorf: Schwann.
Fehrmann, Ingo. 2018. Kausative Konstruktionen mit dem Verb ’machen’ im Deutschen. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität PhD thesis. doi:10.18452/19403.
Felfe, Marc. 2012. Das System der Partikelverben mit ’an’: Eine konstruktionsgrammatische Untersuchung (Sprache und Wissen 12). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110289930.
Fischer, Hanna. 2020. Präteritumschwund im Deutschen: Dokumentation und Erklärung eines Verdrängungsprozesses (Studia Linguistica Germanica 132). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110563818.
Fleischhauer, Jens. 2018. Animacy and affectedness in Germanic languages. Open Linguistics 4(1). 566–588. doi:10.1515/opli-2018-0028.
Fleischhauer, Jens. 2021. Light verb constructions and their families: A corpus study on German stehen unter-LVCs. In Paul Cook, Jelena Mitrović, Carla Parra Escartín, Ashwini Vaidya, Petya Osenova, Shiva Taslimipoor & Carlos Ramisch (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th workshop on multiword expressions (MWE 2021), 63–69. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.18653/v1/2021.mwe-1.8.
Fleischhauer, Jens & Thomas Gamerschlag. 2019. Deriving the meaning of light verb constructions: A frame account of German stehen ‘stand’. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 7(1). 137–156. doi:10.1515/gcla-2019-0009.
Fleischhauer, Jens & Stefan Hartmann. 2021. The emergence of light verb constructions: A case study on German kommen ‘come’. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 9(1). 135–156. doi:10.1515/gcla-2021-0007.
Fuhrhop, Nanna. 2012. Zwischen Wort und Syntagma: Zur grammatischen Fundierung der Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung (Linguistische Arbeiten 513). Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783110936544.
Fuß, Eric, Marek Konopka & Angelika Wöllstein. 2017. Perspektiven auf syntaktische Variation. In Marek Konopka & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Grammatische Variation: Empirische Zugänge und theoretische Modellierung, 229–254. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110518214-014.
Gallmann, Peter. 1999. Wortbegriff und Nomen‐Verb‐Verbindungen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18(2). 269–304. doi:10.1515/zfsw.1999.18.2.269.
Gamerschlag, Thomas. 2014. Stative dimensional verbs in German. Studies in Language 38(2). 275–334. doi:10.1075/sl.38.2.02gam.
Gárgyán, Gabriella. 2010. Der am-Progressiv im heutigen Deutsch. Szeged: University of Szeged PhD thesis. doi:10.14232/phd.788.
Geist, Ljudmila & Daniel Hole. 2016. Theta-head binding in the German locative alternation. In Nadine Bade, Polina Berezovskaya & Anthea Schöller (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20, 270–287. University of Tübingen. doi:10.18148/sub/2016.v20i0.263.
Geniušė, Emma. 1987. The typology of reflexives (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 2). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110859119.
Gillmann, Melitta. 2016. Perfektkonstruktionen mit ‘haben’ und ‘sein’ (Studia Linguistica Germanica 128). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110492170.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grewendorf, Günther. 1989. Ergativity in German (Studies in Generative Grammar 35). Dordrecht: Foris. doi:10.1515/9783110859256.
Groot, Casper de. 2000. The absentive. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20-6), 693–722. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110197099.4.693.
Günther, Hartmut. 1987. Wortbildung, Syntax, be-Verben und das Lexikon. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 109. 179–201. doi:10.1515/bgsl.1987.1987.109.179.
Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German (Cambridge Syntax Guides). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511845314.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2005. Bescheuert und verlogen: (Schein)partizipien, Wortklassen, und das Lexikon. In Yvonne Thiesen (ed.), 10 Jahre Ulrike Mosel am SAVS: Beiträge ihrer Absolventen zum Dienstjubiläum (SAVS Arbeitsberichte 4), 107–128. Kiel: Seminar für Allgemeine und Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. https://www.isfas.uni-kiel.de/de/linguistik/forschung/uploads/arbeitsberichte-uploads/alte-berichte/10-jahre-mosel.
Harbert, Wayne. 1977. Clause union and German accusative plus infinitive constructions. In Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.), Grammatical relations (Syntax and Semantics 8), 121–150. New York: Academic Press.
Harris, Zellig S. 1957. Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure (Presidential address to the Linguistic Society of America 1955). Language 33(3). 283–340. doi:10.2307/411155.
Hartmann, Iren, Martin Haspelmath & Michael Cysouw. 2014. Identifying semantic role clusters and alignment types via microrole coexpression tendencies. Studies in Language 38(3). 463–484. doi:10.1075/sl.38.3.02har.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type (Arbeitspapier, Neue Folge 5). Köln: Institut für Linguistik. http://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-243207.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive: A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10(1/2). 287–310. doi:10.1515/flih.1989.10.1-2.287.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and transitivity (Studies in Language Companion Series), 87–120. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/slcs.23.05has.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1). 1–21. doi:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.280.
Haspelmath, Martin & Luisa Baumann. 2013. German valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency patterns. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://valpal.info/languages/german.
Haspelmath, Martin & Thomas Müller-Bardey. 2004. Valency change. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Morphology (HSK 17/2), 1130–1145. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110172782.2.14.1130.
Heine, Antje. 2020. Zwischen Grammatik und Lexikon. Ein forschungsgeschichtlicher Blick auf Funktionsverbgefüge. In Sabine Knop & Manon Hermann (eds.), Theoretische, didaktische und kontrastive Perspektiven, 15–38. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110697353-002.
Helbig, Gerhard. 1978. Zu den zustandsbezeichnenden Konstruktionen mit sein und haben im Deutschen. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 20. 37–46.
Helbig, Gerhard & Joachim Buscha. 2001. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. München: Langenscheidt.
Helbig, Gerhard & Wolfgang Schenkel. 1969. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. (7th edition 1983, prepared in digital form by De Gruyter 1991). Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783111561486.
Heringer, Hans-Jürgen. 1968. Präpositionale Ergänzungsbestimmungen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie 87. 426–457.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Eva Schulze-Berndt. 2005. Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: An introduction. In Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Eva Schulze-Berndt (eds.), Secondary predication and adverbial modification: The typology of depictives, 1–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hinze, Christian & Klaus-Michael Köpcke. 2007. Was wissen Grundschüler über die Verwendung der Perfektauxiliare haben und sein? In Klaus-Michael Köpcke & Arne Ziegler (eds.), Grammatik in der Universität und für die Schule (Germanistische Linguistik 277), 95–128. Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783110975918.
Höhle, Tilman N. 1978. Lexikalistische Syntax: Die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere Infinitkonstruktionen im Deutschen (Linguistische Arbeiten 67). Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783111345444.
Hole, Daniel. 2002. Er hat den Arm verbunden: Valenzreduktion und Argumentvermehrung im Haben-Konfigurativ. In Mitsunobu Yoshida (ed.), Grammatische Kategorien aus sprachhistorischer und typologischer Perspektive. Akten des 29. Linguisten-Seminars (Kyoto 2001), 167–186. München: Iudicium.
Hole, Daniel. 2014. Dativ, Bindung und Diathese (Studia Grammatica 78). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110347739.
Holl, Daniel. 2010. Modale Infinitive und dispositionelle Modalität im Deutschen (Studia Grammatica 71). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1524/9783050062341.
Hooste, Koen Van. 2018. Instruments and related concepts at the syntax-semantics interface (Dissertations in Language and Cognition 5). Düsseldorf University Press. doi:10.1515/9783110720365.
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(1). 251–299. doi:10.2307/413757.
Hundsnurscher, Franz. 1968. Das System der Partikelverben mit ‘aus’ in der Gegenwartssprache (Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 2). Göppingen: Kümmerle.
Imo, Wolfgang. 2018. Valence patterns, construction, and interaction: Constructs with the German verb erinnern (‘remember/remind’). In Hans C. Boas & Alexander Ziem (eds.), Constructional approaches to syntactic structures in German (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 322), 131–178. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110457155-004.
Jäger, Agnes. 2018. On the history of the IPP construction in German. In Agnes Jäger, Gisella Ferraresi & Helmut Weiß (eds.), Clause structure and word order in the history of German (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 28), 302–323. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198813545.003.0016.
Jäger, Anne. 2013. Der Status von bekommen + zu + Infinitiv zwischen Modalität und semantischer Perspektivierung (Theorie und Vermittlung der Sprache 56). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. doi:10.3726/978-3-653-03239-0.
Janic, Katarzyna. 2010. On the reflexive-antipassive polysemy: Typological convergence from unrelated languages. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 36(1). 158–173. doi:10.3765/bls.v36i1.3909.
Kamber, Alain. 2008. Funktionsgefüge - empirisch: Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zu den nominalen Prädikaten des Deutschen (Germanistische Linguistik 281). Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783484970311.
Keller, Frank & Antonella Sorace. 2003. Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: An experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics 39(1). 57–108. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4176789.
Kim, Gyung-Uk. 1983. Valenz und Wortbildung: Dargestellt am Beispiel der verbalen Präfixbildung mit be-, ent-, er-, miss-, ver-, zer-. Würzburg: Königshausen + Neumann.
Kiss, Tibor. 1995. Infinite Komplementation: Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum Infinitum (Linguistische Arbeiten 333). Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783110934670.
König, Svenja. 2009. Alle sind Deutschland ... außer Fritz Eckenga – der ist einkaufen! Der Absentiv in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. In Edeltraud Winkler (ed.), Konstruktionelle Varianz bei Verben (Online publizierte Arbeiten zur Linguistik 4/2009), 42–74. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:mh39-349.
Konopka, Marek & Sandra Hansen-Morath. 2021. AcI-Konstruktionen. Korpusgrammatik. Mannheim: Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache. doi:10.14618/korpusgrammatik.
Kotůlková, Veronika. 2010a. Die Vielfalt der lassen+Infinitiv-Konstruktion im Deutschen und wie das Tschechische damit zurechtkommt (DeuCze: Korpuslinguistik Deutsch-Tschechisch Kontrastiv 1). Würzburg: Universität Würzburg. doi:10.25972/OPUS-4217.
Kotůlková, Veronika. 2010b. Kontrastive Bemerkungen zu Konstruktionen mit Wahrnehmungsverben. Brünner Beiträge zur Germanistik und Nordistik 15(1-2). 21–35. http://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/114735.
Krämer, Sabine. 2004. Bleiben bleibt bleiben. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 23(2). 245–274. doi:10.1515/zfsw.2004.23.2.245.
Krause, Olaf. 2002. Progressiv im Deutschen: Eine empirische Untersuchung im Kontrast mit Niederländisch und Englisch (Linguistische Arbeiten 462). Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783110916454.
Kruisinga, Etsko. 1935. Einführung in die deutsche Syntax. Groningen: Noordhoff.
Kubczak, Jacqueline. 2014. Er kann Kanzler! Wir können billig!: Schwer zu fassende Neuerungen in der deutschen Sprache! AION. Annali di Università degli Studi di Napoli L’Orientale, Sezione Germanica. 24(1-2). 127–139. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:mh39-47260.
Kulikov, Leonid. 2011. Voice typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 368–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0019.
Kunze, Jürgen. 1996. Plain middles and lassen middles in German: Reflexive constructions and sentence perspective. Linguistics 34(3). 645–95. doi:10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.645.
Kunze, Jürgen. 1997. Typen der reflexiven Verbverwendung im Deutschen und ihre Herkunft. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 16(1/2). 83–180. doi:10.1515/zfsw.1997.16.1-2.83.
Kurogo, Yoko. 2016. Aspektuelle Interpretation von antikausativen Verben im Deutschen. Dokkyo Universität Germanistische Forschungsbeiträge (71). 25–40. http://id.nii.ac.jp/1140/00000972/.
Lasch, Alexander. 2016. Nonagentive Konstruktionen des Deutschen (Sprache und Wissen 25). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110495430.
Lasch, Alexander. 2018. Diese gehören kalt zu geben: Die Konstruktion gehören mit Qualitativ. Sprachwissenschaft 43(2). 159–185. https://sprw.winter-verlag.de/article/SPRW/2018/2/5.
Latzel, Sigbert. 1977a. Haben + Partizip und ähnliche Verbindungen. Deutsche Sprache 5(4). 289–312.
Latzel, Sigbert. 1977b. Die deutschen Tempora Perfekt und Präteritum: Eine Darstellung mit Bezug auf Erfordernisse des Faches Deutsch als Fremdsprache (Heutiges Deutsch Reihe III, Band 2). München: Hueber.
Leirbukt, Oddleif. 1981. ‘Passivähnliche’ Konstruktionen mit haben + Partizip im heutigen Deutsch. Deutsche Sprache 9. 119–146.
Leirbukt, Oddleif. 1997. Untersuchungen zum bekommen-Passiv im heutigen Deutsch (Germanistische Linguistik 177). Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783110928013.
Leirbukt, Oddleif. 2000. Passivähnliche Bildungen mit haben/wissen/sehen + Partizip II in modalen Kontexten. In Rolf Thieroff, Matthias Tamrat, Nanna Fuhrhop & Oliver Teuber (eds.), Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis, 97–110. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783110933932.97.
Lenz, Alexandra N. 2013. Vom kriegen und bekommen (Linguistik: Impulse & Tendenzen 53). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110314915.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lipka, Leonhard. 1972. Semantic structure and word-formation: Verb-particle constructions in contemporary English (International Library of General Linguistics 17). München: Fink. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-epub-5050-4.
Los, Bettelou. 2005. The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274765.001.0001.
Los, Bettelou, Corrien Blom, Geert Booij, Marion Elenbaas & Ans van Kemenade. 2016. Morphosyntactic change: A comparative study of particles and prefixes (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511998447.
Maienborn, Claudia. 2008. Das Zustandspassiv: Grammatische EinordnungBildungsbeschränkungInterpretationsspielraum. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 35(1-2). 83–114. doi:10.1515/ZGL.2007.005.
Malchukov, Andrej. 2015. Valency classes and alternations: Parameters of variation. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages (Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics), vol. 1, 73–130. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110338812-007.
Malchukov, Andrej & Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2015. Valency classes in the world’s languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110338812.
Marcotte, Ethan. 2010. Responsive web design. A List Apart 306. https://alistapart.com/article/responsive-web-design/.
McIntyre, Andrew. 2001. German double particles as preverbs: Morphology and conceptual semantics (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 61). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
McIntyre, Andrew. 2003. Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2003, 119–144. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-1513-7_6.
Mel’čuk, Igor. 1993. The inflectional category of voice: Towards a more rigorous definition. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and transitivity (Studies in Language Companion Series 23), 1–46. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/slcs.23.02mel.
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67(3). 510–546. doi:10.2307/415036.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1976. Kausativkonstruktionen (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 4). Tübingen: Narr.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1988. Resultative, passive, and perfect in German. In Vladimir P. NedjaÌlkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions (Typological Studies in Language 12), 411–432. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tsl.12.29ned.
Nichols, Johanna, David A. Peterson & Jonathan Barnes. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8(2). 149–211. doi:10.1515/lity.2004.005.
Nübling, Damaris, Antje Dammel, Janet Duke & Renata Szczepaniak. 2006. Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen: Eine Einführung in die Prinzipien des Sprachwandels. Tübingen: Narr.
Olsen, Susan. 1981. Problems of seem/scheinen constructions and their implications for the theory of predicate sentential complementation (Linguistische Arbeiten 96). Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783111655833.
Pafel, Jürgen. 1989. Scheinen + Infinitiv: Eine oberflächengrammatische Analyse. In Gabriel Falkenberg (ed.), Wissen, Wahrnehmen, Glauben: Epistemische Ausdrücke und propositionale Einstellungen (Linguistische Arbeiten 202), 123–172. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.18419/opus-8405.
Pape-Müller, Sabine. 1980. Textfunktionen des passivs (Germanistische Linguistik 29). Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783111370996.
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4. 157–189. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/73h0s91v.
Pfeiffer, Wolfgang. 1993. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. (Digitalised and revised version). Berlin: Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. https://www.dwds.de/wb/wb-etymwb.
Pitteroff, Marcel. 2014. Non-canonical lassen-middles. Universität Stuttgart PhD thesis. doi:10.18419/opus-5396.
Plank, Frans & Aditi Lahiri. 2015. Macroscopic and microscopic typology: Basic valence orientation, more pertinacious than meets the naked eye. Linguistic Typology 19(1). 1–54. doi:10.1515/lingty-2015-0001.
Polenz, Peter von. 1969. Der Pertinenzdativ und seine Satzbaupläne. In Ulrich Engel, Paul Grebe & Heinz Rupp (eds.), Festschrift für Hugo Moser zum 60. Geburtstag, 146–171. Düsseldorf: Schwann.
Primus, Beatrice. 2011. Das unpersönliche Passiv: Ein Fall für die Konstruktionsgrammatik? In Stefan Engelberg, Anke Holler & Kristel Proost (eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 2010), 285–314. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110262339.285.
Proost, Kristel. 2009. Warum man nach Schnäppchen jagen, aber nicht nach Klamotten bummeln kann: Die nach-Konstruktion zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. In Edeltraud Winkler (ed.), Konstruktionelle Varianz bei Verben (Online publizierte Arbeiten zur Linguistik 4/2009), 10–41. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:mh39-349.
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1988. Citation etiquette beyond thunderdome. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(4). 579–588. doi:10.1007/BF00134494.
Rapp, I. 1997. Partizipien und semantische Struktur: Zu passivischen Konstruktionen mit dem 3. Status (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 54). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Rapp, Irene. 1996. Zustand? Passiv? Überlegungen zum sogenannten Zustandspassiv. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 15(2). 231–265. doi:10.1515/zfsw.1996.15.2.231.
Rapp, Irene & Angelika Wöllstein. 2013. Satzwertige zu-Infinitivkonstruktionen. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen, 338–355. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110224832.338.
Reis, Marga. 1976. Zum grammatischen Status der Hilfsverben. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 98. 64–82. doi:10.1515/bgsl.1976.1976.98.64.
Reis, Marga. 2005. Zur Grammatik der sog. Halbmodale drohen/versprechen + Infinitiv. In Franz Josef D’Avis (ed.), Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Theorie (Göteborger Germanistische Forschungen 46). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. http://hdl.handle.net/10900/47028.
Rothstein, Björn. 2007a. Die Syntax von Fügungen des Typs kam gefahren. Deutsche Sprache 35(2). 159–172. doi:10.37307/j.1868-775X.2007.02.05.
Rothstein, Björn. 2007b. Einige Bemerkungen zum Partizip II in das Pferd hat die Fesseln bandagiert. In Ljudmila Geist & Björn Rothstein (eds.), Kopulaverben und Kopulasätze. Intersprachliche und intrasprachliche Aspekte (Linguistische Arbeiten 512), 285–298. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783110938838.285.
Rothstein, Björn. 2011. Zur temporalen Interpretation von Fügungen des Typs sie kamen gelaufen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 39(3). 356–376. doi:10.1515/zgl.2011.027.
Sapir, Edward. 1917. Review of C.C. Uhlenbeck: Het passieve karakter van het verbum transitivum of van het verbum actionis in talen van Noord-Amerika. International Journal of American Linguistics 1(1). 82–86. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1263405.
Sauerland, Uli. 1994. German diathesis and verb morphology. In Douglas A. Jones (ed.), Verb classes and alternations in Bangla, German, English, and Korean (AI Memo 1517), 50–68. Cambridge, MA: MIT. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/7197.
Schäfer, Florian. 2007. On the nature of anticausative morphology: External arguments in change-of-state contexts. Universität Stuttgart PhD thesis. doi:10.18419/opus-5245.
Schallert, Oliver. 2014. Zur Syntax der Ersatzinfinitivkonstruktion: Typologie und Variation (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 87). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Scheibl, György. 2006. Aktiv, Passiv und Antipassiv. Argumentale Reorganisation im Deutschen. Deutsche Sprache 34(4). 354–382. doi:10.37307/j.1868-775X.2006.04.05.
Schlücker, Barbara. 2007. Bleiben: Eine unterspezifizierte Kopula. In Ljudmila Geist & Björn Rothstein (eds.), Kopulaverben und Kopulasätze: Intersprachliche und intrasprachliche Aspekte (Linguistische Arbeiten 512), 141–164. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783110938838.141.
Schmid, Tanja. 2005. Infinitival syntax: Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy (Linguistics Today 79). Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/la.79.
Schumacher, Helmut (ed.). 1986. Verben in Feldern: Valenzwörterbuch zur Syntax und Semantik deutscher Verben (Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 1). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110861853.
Schwarz, Christian. 2004. Die tun-Periphrase im Deutschen. LMU München Master’s thesis. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-opus-17597.
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1973. On the semanto-syntactic configuration Possessor of an Act. In Braj B. Kachru (ed.), Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.
Silverstein, Michael. 1972. Chinook jargon: Language contact and the problem of multi-level generative systems, I. Language 48(2). 378–406. https://www.jstor.org/stable/412141.
Smirnova, Elena. 2016. Die Entwicklung des deutschen zu-Infinitivs: Eine Korpusstudie. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 138(4). 491–523. doi:10.1515/bgsl-2016-0039.
Speyer, Augustin. 2018. The ACI construction in the history of German. In Agnes Jäger, Gisella Ferraresi & Helmut Weiß (eds.), Clause structure and word order in the history of German (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 28), 324–347. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198813545.003.0017.
Stathi, Katerina. 2010. Is German gehören an auxiliary? The grammaticalization of the construction gehören + participle II. In Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (Studies in Language Companion Series 119), 323–342. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/slcs.119.17sta.
Steinbach, Markus. 1998. Middles in German. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität PhD thesis. doi:10.18452/14603.
Stiebels, Barbara. 1996. Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte: Zum semantischen Beitrag von verbalen Präfixen und Partikeln (Studia Grammatica 39). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. doi:10.1515/9783050072319.
Stopp, Frederick John. 1957. A manual of modern German. London: University Tutorial Press.
Storch, Günther. 1978. Semantische Untersuchungen zu den inchoativen Verben im Deutschen (Schriften zur Linguistik 9). Braunschweig: Vieweg. doi:10.1007/978-3-322-86211-2.
Stötzel, Georg. 1970. Ausdruckseite und Inhaltsseite der Sprache: Methodenkritische Studien am Beispiel der deutschen Reflexivverben (Linguistische Reihe 3). München: Hueber.
Strecker, Bruno. 2017. Behelfe ich mir oder mich? Kasus des Reflexivums bei behelfen. Grammatik in Fragen und Antworten. Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache. https://grammis.ids-mannheim.de/fragen/4248.
Strobel, Sven. 2008. Die Perfektauxiliarselektion des Deutschen: Ein lexikalistischer Ansatz ohne Unakkusativität. Universität Stuttgart PhD thesis. doi:10.18419/opus-5257.
Szatmári, Petra. 2002. Das gehört nicht vom Tisch gewischt…: Überlegungen zu einem modalen Passiv und dessen Einordnung ins Passiv-Feld. Jezikoslovlje 3(1-2). 171–192. https://hrcak.srce.hr/31351.
Thieroff, Rolf. 2007. Sein: Kopula, Passiv- und/oder Tempus-Auxiliar? In Ljudmila Geist & Björn Rothstein (eds.), Kopulaverben und Kopulasätze: Intersprachliche und intrasprachliche Aspekte (Linguistische Arbeiten 512), 165–180. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:10.1515/9783110938838.165.
Uhlig, Gustavus. 1883. Dionysii thracis ars grammatici (Grammatici Graeci). Vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner.
Van Valin, Robert Detrick Jr. 2004. Semantic macroroles in role and reference grammar. In Rolf Kailuweit & Martin Hummel (eds.), Semantische Rollen, 62–82. Tübingen: Narr.
Vogel, Petra M. 2007. Anna ist essen! Neue Überlegungen zum Absentiv. In Ljudmila Geist & Björn Rothstein (eds.), Kopulaverben und Kopulasätze: Intersprachliche und intrasprachliche Aspekte (Linguistische Arbeiten 512), 253–284. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110938838.253.
Weber, Heinrich. 2005. Strukurverben im Deutschen. In Danuta Stanulewicz, Roman Kalisz, Wilfried Kürschner & Cäcilia Klaus (eds.), De lingua et litteris: Studia in honorem Casimiri Andreae Sroka. Gdansk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego. http://hdl.handle.net/10900/46469.
Welke, Klaus. 2011. Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen: Eine Einführung (De Gruyter Studium). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110254198.
Wiemer, Björn & Vladimir P. Nedjalkov. 2007. Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in German. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Reciprocal constructions (Typological Studies in Language 71), 455–512. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tsl.71.17wie.
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The phonology of German (The Phonology of the World’s Languages). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wiskandt, Niklas. 2022. Paul ärgert sich, nervt sich aber nicht. Semantische Merkmale deutscher Objekt-Experiencer-Verben und ihr Einfluss auf Antikausativkonstruktionen. Germanistische Werkstatt 11. 245–259. doi:10.25167/pg.4685.
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1985. Über die Argumente des Verbs. Linguistische Berichte 97. 183–227.
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1987. An investigation of lexical composition: The case of German be- verbs. Linguistics 25(2). 283–331. doi:10.1515/ling.1987.25.2.283.
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1993. Diathesen. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (HSK 9/1), 730–747. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110095869.1.12.730.
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Argument extension by lexical adjunction. Journal of Semantics 14. 95–142. doi:10.1093/jos/14.2.95.
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2015. Valency-changing word-formation. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe (HSK 40/2), 1424–1466. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110246278-039.
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2003. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure (Studies in Generative Grammar 55). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110908329.
Ziegler, Arne. 2010. Er erwartet sich nur das Beste: Reflexivierungstendenz und Ausbau des Verbalparadigmas in der österreichischen Standardsprache. In Dagmar Bittner & Gaeta Livio (eds.), Kodierungstechniken im Wandel. Das Zusammenspiel von Analytik und Synthese im Gegenwartsdeutschen, 67–81. De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110228458.67.
Zifonun, Gisela. 2003. Grammatik des Deutschen im europäischen Vergleich: Das Pronomen. Teil II: Reflexiv- und Reziprokpronomen (Arbeitspapiere und Materialien zur deutschen Sprache 1/03). Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:mh39-15840.
Zúñiga, Fernando & Seppo Kittilä. 2019. Grammatical voice (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316671399.