Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T04:26:49.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Double accusatives in German: An application of CRMS-theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Peter Rolf Lutzeier
Peter Rolf Lutzeier
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenInstitut für deutsche PhilologieMunich, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article addresses a problem at the interface between morpho-syntax and semantics: How to treat “double-accusative” constructions in German. The solution is given in relational terms, which suits the framework of CRMS-theory*. With regard to the first type of “double accusative” constructions [sie lehrt ihn die deutsche sprache ‘she teaches him the German language’], the option of different case marking is explained by general principles of CRMS-theory. With regard to the second type [sie nennt ihn einen lügner ‘she calls him a liar’], the clue for its full understanding comes from the following observation: in addition to the accusative marking of both complements there is a strong semantic tie between the two. That is why traditional grammar rightly speaks of such forms as einen lügner as an “accusative of identification”. As this idea of identification is realized at the content level in my approach, I do not see any reason for establishing a special relation “predicative” for the second type.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 55 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1992

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

WORKS CITED

Abraham, W. 1985. “Einleitung.” Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. Ed. Abraham, W.. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Pp. 7–25.Google Scholar
Engel, U. 1988. Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
Grimm, J. and Grimm, W.. 1885. Deutsches Wörterbuch. 6. Bd.: L-M. Ed. Heyne, M.. Leipzig: S.Hirzel.Google Scholar
Heidolph, K.E. 1984. “Einfunktionale Wortgruppen.” Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. 2nd ed. Eds. Auto-renkollektiv unter Leitungvon Heidolph, K. E., Flämig, W. and Motsch, W.. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Pp. 185–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helbig, G. and Buscha, J. 1986. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. 9th ed.Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.S. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lühr, R. 1986. Neuhochdeutsch. Eine Einführung in die Sprachwissenschaft. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Lutzeier, P.R. 1981. Wort und Feld. Wortsemantische Fragestellungen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Wortfeldbegriffes. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Lutzeier, P.R. 1982. “The notion of lexical field and its application to English nouns of financial income.” Lingua 56:1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutzeier, P.R. 1988. “Syntaktisch-semantische Relationen: Ein Versuch fürs Deutsche.” Deutsche Sprache 16:131–143.Google Scholar
Lutzeier, P.R. 1991. Major pillars of German syntax. An introduction to CRMS-theoryz. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D.M. and Postal, P. M.. 1984. “Impersonal passives and some relational laws.” Studies in relational grammar 2. Eds. Perlmutter, D. M. and Rosen, C. G.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 126–170.Google Scholar
Plank, F. 1987. “Direkte indirekte Objekte, oder: Was uns lehren lehrt.” Leuvense Bijdragen 76:37–61.Google Scholar
Primus, B. 1987. Grammatische Hierarchien. Eine Beschreibung und Erklärung von Regularitäten des Deutschen ohne grammatische Relationen. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Reis, M. 1982. “Zum Subjektbegriff im Deutschen.” Satzglieder im Deutschen. Ed. Abraham, W.. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Pp. 171–210.Google Scholar
Shannon, T. F. 1987. “On some recent claims of relational grammar.” Berkeley linguistics society: Proceedings of the Thirteenth annual meeting, February 14–16, 1987: General session and parasession on grammar and cognition. Eds. Aske, J., Beery, N., Michaelis, L. and Filip, H.. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Pp. 247–262.Google Scholar
Sitta, H. 1984. “Der Satz.” Duden. Grammatik derdeutschen Gegenwartssprache. 4th ed. ed. Drosdowski, G.. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut. Pp. 559–729.Google Scholar
Wegener, H. 1986. “Gibt es im Deutschen ein indirektes Objekt?” Deutsche Sprache 14:12–22.Google Scholar