|
This contribution offers a fine-grained analysis of German and Romanian ditransitive and prepositional transfer constructions. The transfer construction (TC) is shown to be realised in German by 26 argument structure patterns (ASPs), which are conceived of as form-meaning pairings which differ only minimally. The mainstream constructionist view of the different types of TCs being related by polysemy links is rejected, the ASPs being argued instead to be related by family relationships. All but six of the ASPs identified for German are shown to possess a Romanian counterpart. For some ditransitive structures, German is shown to possess two prepositional variants, one with an (‘at’) and one with zu (‘to’) or auf (‘on’), while Romanian has only one. Due to the lack of a Romanian counterpart for the German zu and auf variants, Romanian lacks some of the dative alternations found in German. However, Romanian as well as German permits the double object pattern to interact with take-verbs, verbs of removal and add-verbs, which do not allow the ditransitive construction in English. Since these verb classes also permit at least one prepositional pattern in both languages, Romanian and German show a larger number of dative alternation types than English. ; In diesem Beitrag werden deutsche und rumänische ditransitive und präpositionale Transfer-Konstruktionen feinkörnig analysiert. Es wird gezeigt, dass die Transfer-Konstruktion (TC) im Deutschen durch 26 Argumentstrukturmuster (ASPs: argument structure patterns), d.h. minimal unterschiedliche FormBedeutungspaare, realisiert ist. Die gängige konstruktionsgrammatische Auffassung, nach der die unterschiedlichen Typen von Transfer-Konstruktionen durch Polysemiebeziehungen miteinander verbunden sind, wird zugunsten eines Modells verworfen, das von Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen unterschiedlichen Transfer-Konstruktionen ausgeht. Alle bis auf sechs dieser ASP haben eine Entsprechung im Rumänischen. Während es im Deutschen in manchen Fällen zwei präpositionale ...
|
