Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-sd5qd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T10:58:00.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dative sickness: A phylogenetic analysis of argument structure evolution in Germanic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Michael Dunn ,
Tonya Kim Dewey ,
Carlee Arnett ,
Thórhallur Eythórsson  and
Jóhanna Barđdal
Michael Dunn*
Affiliation:
Uppsala University
Tonya Kim Dewey*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Carlee Arnett*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Thórhallur Eythórsson*
Affiliation:
University of Iceland
Jóhanna Barđdal*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
*
[michael.dunn@lingfil.uu.se]
[tonyakim.dewey-findell@nottingham.ac.uk]
[clarnett@ucdavis.edu]
[tolli@hi.is]
[johanna.barddal@ugent.be]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A major argument against the feasibility of reconstructing syntax for proto-stages is the widely discussed lack of directionality of syntactic change. In a recent typology of changes in argument structure constructions based on Germanic (Barödal 2015), several different, yet opposing, changes are reported. These include, among others, processes sometimes called dative sickness, nominative sickness, and accusative sickness. In order to tease apart the roles of the different processes, we have carried out a phylogenetic trait analysis on a predefined data set of twelve predicates found across the Germanic phyla using the MULTISTATE method. This is, as far as we are aware, the first application of the MULTISTATE method (Pagel et al. 2004) in historical syntax. The results clearly favor one of the models, the dative sickness model, over any other model, as this model is the only one that can accurately account for both the observed diversity of case frames and the independently proposed philological reconstructions. Methods of evolutionary trait analysis can be used to model evolutionary paths of argument structure constructions, and they provide the perfect testing ground for hypotheses arrived at through philological reconstruction, based on classical historical-comparative methods.

Keywords

syntactic reconstructionnoncanonical case-marked subjectsargument structurephylogenetic methodshistorical syntaxGermanic

Information

Type
Historical Syntax
Information
Language , Volume 93 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. e1 - e22
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, Cynthia L. 1986. Reconsidering the history of like. Journal of Linguistics 22. 375409. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700010847.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1976. The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 6. 1–21.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Quentin d., Meade, Andrew, Venditti, Chris, Greenhill, Simon J.; and Pagel, Mark. 2008. Languages evolve in punctuational bursts. Science 319 (5863). 588. DOI: 10.1126/science.1149683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbdal, Jóhanna. 1998. Argument structure, syntactic structure and morphological case of the impersonal construction in the history of Scandinavian. Scripta Islandica 49. 21–33.Google Scholar
Barbdal, Jóhanna. 2000. Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. North-Western European Language Evolution 37. 25–51. DOI: 10.1075/nowele.37.02bar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbdal, Jóhanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17. 39–106. DOI: 10.1515/COG.2006.002.Google Scholar
Barbdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2009. The development of case in Germanic. The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case, ed. by Barðdal, Jóhanna and Chelliah, Shobhana L., 123–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar approach. Lingua 121. 60–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2013. Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, ed. by Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, 438–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2015. Syntax and syntactic reconstruction. The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Bowern, Claire and Evans, Bethwyn, 343–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Arnett, Carlee, Carey, Stephen Mark, son, Thórhallur Eythórs-, Jenset, Gard B., Kroonen, Guus; and Oberlin, Adam. 2016. Dative subjects in Germanic: A computational analysis of lexical semantic verb classes across time and space. STUF: Language Typology and Universals 69. 49–84. DOI: 10.1515/stuf-2016-0003.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður, Danesi, Serena, Dewey, Tonya Kim, Eythórsson, Thórhallur, Fedriani, Chiara; and Smitherman, Thomas. 2013. The story of ‘woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 41. 321–77.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2003. The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39. 439–72. DOI: 10.1017/S002222670300207X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2012a. Reconstructing syntax: Construction grammar and the comparative method. Sign-based construction grammar, ed. by Boas, Hans C. and Sag, Ivan A., 257–308. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2012b. ‘Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies’: Reconstructing grammatical relations for ProtoGermanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110. 363–93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01318.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2017. How to identify cognates in syntax: Taking Watkins’ legacy one step further. Reconstructing syntax, ed. by Eugenio R. Lujan, Jóhanna Barðdal, and Spike Gildea. Leiden: Brill, to appear.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Eythórsson, Thórhallur; and Dewey, Tonya Kim. 2014. Alternating predicates in Icelandic and German: A sign-based construction grammar account. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 93. 50–101. Online: http://projekt.ht.lu.se/uploads/media/Johanna_01.pdf.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Kulikov, Leonid. 2009. Case in decline. The Oxford handbook of case, ed. by Malchukov, Andrej and Spencer, Andrew, 470–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Smitherman, Thomas. 2013. The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3. 28–67. DOI: 10.1163/22105832-13030101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smitherman, Thomas, Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður, Danesi, Serena, Jenset, Gard B.; and McGillivray, Barbara. 2012. Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36. 511–47. DOI: 10.1075/sl.36.3.03bar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Michael. 1986. Subject, nominative and oblique case in Faroese. Scripta Islandica 38. 3–35.Google Scholar
Benecke, Georg Friedrich, Müller, Wilhelm; and Zarncke, Friedrich. 1990. Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. 3 vols. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Bouckaert, Remco, Lemey, Philippe, Dunn, Michael, Greenhill, Simon J., Alekseyenko, Alexander V., Drummond, Alexei J., Gray, Russell D., Suchard, Marc A.; and Atkinson, Quentin D.. 2012. Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo- European language family. Science 337 (6097). 957–60. DOI: 10.1126/science.1219669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, Lyle, and Mithun, Marianne. 1980. The priorities and pitfalls of syntactic reconstruction. Folia Linguistica Historica 1. 19–40. DOI: 10.1515/flih.1980.1.1.19.Google Scholar
Currie, Thomas e., Greenhill, Simon J., Gray, Russell d., Hasegawa, T.; and Mace, Ruth. 2010. Rise and fall of political complexity in Island South-East Asia and the Pacific. Nature 467 (7317). 801–4. DOI: 10.1038/nature09461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vries, Jan. 1962. Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: Zweite verbesserte Auflage. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1991. Om genitivens utveckling i fornsvenskan [On the development of the genitive in Old Swedish]. Studier i svensk språkhistoria 2, ed. by Malmgren, S.-G. and Ralph, Bo, 12–30. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Dewey, Tonya Kim, and Carey, Stephen Mark. 2017. Accusative sickness? A brief epidemic in the history of German. Non-canonically case-marked subjects within and across languages and language families: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers, ed. by Barðdal, Jóhanna, Pat-El, Na'ama, and Carey, Stephen Mark. To appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1941. Sætningsbygningen i Skaanske Lov [Sentence structure in Scanian Law]. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Dunn, Michael. 2015. Language phylogenies. The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Bowern, Claire and Evans, Bethwyn, 343–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Greenhill, Simon J., Levinson, Stephen c.; and Gray, Russell d.. 2011. Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature 473 (7345). 79–82. DOI: 10.1038/nature09923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2010. Kasusbortfall og morfologisk teori [Case loss and morphological theory]. Studier i svenska språkets historia 11, ed. by Reinhammar, Maj, 9–31. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien for svensk folkkultur.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2000a. Dative vs. nominative: Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 8. 27–44. Online: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/arts/info/125154/leeds_working_papers_in_linguistics_and_phonetics/1939/volume_8_2000.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2000b. Fall á fallanda fæti? Um breytingar á frumlagsfalli í íslensku [Case a lost case? On changes in subject case in Icelandic]. Islenskt mál og al- menn málfrœði 22. 185–204.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2002. Changes in subject case-marking in Icelandic. Syntactic effects of morphological change, ed. by Lightfoot, David, 196–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eythorsson, Thórhallur, and Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2005. Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81 (4). 824–81. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2005.0173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur, and Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. Die Konstruktionsgrammatik und die komparative Methode. Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg, ed. by Krisch, Thomas and Lindner, Thomas, 148–56. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur, and Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2016. Syntactic reconstruction in Indo-European: The state of the art. Franz Bopp and his comparative grammar model (1816-2016), ed. by Gorrochategui, Joaquín, Castillero, Carlos García, and Vallejo, José M.. (Special monographic volume of Veleia 33.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2001. The notion of oblique subject and its status in the history of Icelandic. Grammatical relations in change, ed. by Faarlund, Jan Terje, 99–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Cecilia. 1997. Fornsvenska upplevarverb [Old Swedish experiencer verbs]. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Feist, Sigmund. 1909. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache mit Einschluß des sogenannten Krimgotischen. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, and van der Leek, Frederike C.. 1983. The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. Journal of Linguistics 19. 337–68. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700007775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. 2010. Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fortunato, Laura, Holden, Clare; and Mace, Ruth. 2006. From bridewealth to dowry? A Bayesian estimation of ancestral states of marriage transfers in Indo-European groups. Human Nature 17 (4). 355–76. DOI: 10.1007/s12110-006-1000-4.Google ScholarPubMed
Friðriksson, Finnur. 2008. Language change vs. stability in conservative language communities: A case study of Icelandic. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg dissertation.Google Scholar
Fulk, R. D. 2008. English as a Germanic language. Companion to the history of the English language, ed. by Momma, Haruko and Matto, Michael, 142–49. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1998. On reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Jacob, and Grimm, Wilhelm. 1854. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Online: http://woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB.Google Scholar
Halldorsson, Halldór. 1982. Um méranir: Drög að samtímalegri og sögulegri athugun [About dativizings: Preliminaries to a synchronic and diachronic investigation]. Ís- lenskt mál og almenn málfræði 4. 159–89.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice c., and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, Joachim Dieter. 1957. Studien zum Subjekt impersonal gebrauchter Verben im Althochdeutschen und Altniederdeutschen unter Berücksichtigung gotischer und altwestnordischer Zeugnisse. Göttingen: Georg-August Universität dissertation.Google Scholar
Holden, Clare Janaki, and Mace, Ruth. 2003. Spread of cattle led to the loss of matrilineal descent in Africa: A coevolutionary analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 270 (1532). 2425–33. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. 3. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes g., and Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2005. Variation in subject case marking in Insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28. 223–45. DOI: 10.1017/S0332586505001435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, Fiona M. 2011. A phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of Austronesian sibling terminologies. Human Biology 83. 297–321. DOI: 10.3378/027.083.0209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kikusawa, Ritsuko. 2003. The development of some Indonesian pronominal systems. Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13-17 August 2001, ed. by Blake, Barry J., Burridge, Kate, and Taylor, John, 237–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, Kristian E. 1996. Infinitival phrases in Old Norse: Aspects of their syntax and semantics. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 2002. Myths and the prehistory of grammars. Journal of Linguistics 38. 113–36. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226701001268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Axel M. 1912. Förskjutningar i förhållandet mellan grammatiskt och psykologiskt subjekt i svenskan [Shifts in the relationship between a grammatical and a psychological subject in Swedish]. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Matthews, Luke j., Tehrani, Jamie j., Jordan, Fiona m., Collard, Mark; and Nunn, Charles L.. 2011. Testing for divergent transmission histories among cultural characters: A study using Bayesian phylogenetic methods and Iranian tribal textile data. PLoS ONE 6:e14810. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miranda, Rocky. 1976. Comments on Jeffers. Current progress in historical linguistics: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Christie, William M. Jr., 12–14. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Nygaard, Marius. 1905. Norrøn syntax [Old Norse syntax]. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Organ, Chris L., Shedlock, Andrew m., Meade, Andrew, Pagel, Mark; and Edwards, Scott v.. 2007. Origin of avian genome size and structure in non-avian dinosaurs. Nature 446 (7132). 180–84. DOI: 10.1038/nature05621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pagel, Mark. 1994. Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: A general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 255 (1342). 37–45. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1994.0006.Google Scholar
Pagel, Mark. 1999. The maximum likelihood approach to reconstructing ancestral character states of discrete characters on phylogenies. Systematic Biology 48. 612–22. DOI: 10.1080/106351599260184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, Mark, Atkinson, Quentin D.; and Meade, Andrew. 2007. Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 449 (7163). 717–20. DOI: 10.1038/nature06176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pagel, Mark, and Meade, Andrew. 2006a. Bayesian analysis of correlated evolution of discrete characters by reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. American Naturalist 167. 808–25. DOI: 10.1086/503444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, Mark, and Meade, Andrew. 2006b. Estimating rates of lexical replacement on phylogenetic trees of languages. Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, ed. by Renfrew, Colin and Forster, Peter, 173–82. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Pagel, Mark, Meade, Andrew; and Barker, Daniel. 2004. Bayesian estimation of ancestral character states on phylogenies. Systematic Biology 53. 673–84. DOI: 10.1080/10635150490522232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, Hjalmar P. 2002. Quirky case in Faroese. Fróðskaparrit 50. 63–76.Google Scholar
Pires, Acrisio, and Thomason, Sarah G.. 2008. How much syntactic reconstruction is possible? Principles of syntactic reconstruction, ed. by Ferraresi, Gisela and Goldbach, Maria, 27–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Donald. 2006. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic: A linguistic history of English, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1983. Þágufallssýkin og fallakerfi íslensku [Dative sickness and the case system in Icelandic]. Skíma 16. 3–6.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1991. Quirky subjects in Old Icelandic. Papers from the Twelfth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. by Sigurðsson, Halldór Á., 369–78. Reykjavik: Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1995. Old Icelandic: A non-configurational language? North Western European Language Evolution 26. 3–29. DOI: 10.1075/nowele.26.01rog.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1996. Frumlag og fall að fornu [Subject and case in Old Icelandic]. Íslenskt mál ogalmenn málfræði 18. 37–69.Google Scholar
Salmons, Joseph. 2012. A history of German: What the past reveals about todays language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Lund: Lund University dissertation.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry. 1994. ‘Dative sickness’ in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12. 675–736. DOI: 10.1007/BF00992930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 2001. Why quirky case really isn't quirky (or how to treat dative sickness in Icelandic). Polysemy in cognitive linguistics, ed. by Cuyckens, Hubert and Zawada, Britta E., 115–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Svavarsdóttir, Ásta. 1982. ‘Þágufallssýki’ [‘Dative sickness’]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 4. 19–62.Google Scholar
Svavarsdóttir, Ásta, Pálsson, Gísli; and Þórlindsson, Þórólfur. 1984. Fall er fararheill: Um fallnotkun með ópersónulegum sögnum [Fall is a sign of luck: On case use with impersonal verbs]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 6. 33–55.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics.) New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Viðarsson, Heimir Freyr. 2009. Tilbrigði í fallmörkun aukafallsfrumlaga: Þágufallshneigð í forníslensku? [Variation in subject case marking: Dative sickness in Old Icelandic?]. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 31. 15–66.Google Scholar
von Seefranz-Montag, Adriane. 1983. Syntaktische Funktionen und Wortstellungsveränderung: Die Entwicklung ‘subjektloser’ Konstruktionen in einigen Sprachen. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2014. Syntactic reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, David. 2011. Reconstructing last week's weather: Syntactic reconstruction and Brythonic free relatives. Journal of Linguistics 47. 407–46. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226710000381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan; and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3.44183. DOI: 10.1007/BF00133285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar