c02_structure.md

The structure of a diathesis {#sec:structure}

Analytical dimensions {#sec:intro-terminology}

The central concepts to analyse the structure of a diathesis are valency ([@sec:intro-valency]), voice ([@sec:intro-voice]) and diathetical operation ([@sec:intro-diathetical-operations]). These concepts will be discussed extensively in this chapter. Two new concepts are introduced as well, namely stacking ([@sec:intro-stacking]) and chaining ([@sec:intro-chaining]). Finally, I will present an extensive discussion about naming diatheses at the end of this chapter ([@sec:intro-naming]).

A diathesis (as defined in [@sec:intro-basic-definition]) 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 [-@zuniga2019: 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'.

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.

{#par:basicclause} 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 [-@sec:epithesis].

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 [-@sec:reflexive]) or by a light verb with a zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv (Chapter [-@sec:zuinfinitive]), 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 [@sec:intro-voice].

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 [-@zuniga2019: 3] use the term "transitivity" [following @hopper1980] 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.

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 [@next] 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.

::: ex a. Ich schmiere Salbe auf die Wunde. b. Ich beschmiere die Wunde mit Salbe. :::

Valency {#sec:intro-valency}

Utterance valency and lexical roles

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 [@next a]. However, the same verb can just as well be used as an intransitive [@next b,c], as a transitive with an accusative object [@next d], or even as a ditransitive with a dative and accusative object [@next e]. Note that the prepositional phrases in [@next 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 [@next e] then will be an example of the verb wehen with a valency of four.

::: ex 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. :::

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. @welke2011: 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 [@last] can simply be assigned an utterance valency from zero [@last a] to four [@last e] even though they all use the same lexeme wehen as their main verb.

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 [@last e], the following lexical roles of the German verb wehen 'to blow' can be established:

i. blower: the blowing air, Fahrtwind 'headwind'. ii. blowee: Object affected by the blowing air, Mütze 'cap'. iii. blowing location: Location affected by the blowing air, Kopf 'head'. iv. blowing location possessor: Possessor of the locational object, in [@last e] the dative mir 'my'. This role is necessarily the possessor of the location Kopf 'head' affected by the blowing.

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. [@par:basicclause]) 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' [@next] and essen 'to eat' [@nnext]. 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 [@nnext c], which is different from kochen [@next c]. In effect, these verbs have a different lexeme valency.

::: ex a. Der Chef kocht den Fond. b. Der Chef kocht immer noch. c. Der Fond kocht immer noch. :::

::: ex a. Der Chef isst den Fond. b. Der Chef isst immer noch. c. ^* Der Fond isst immer noch. :::

Arguments of utterance valency {#sec:intro-arguments-utterance-valency}

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 [@sec:case-delimiting-arguments]. Basically, case-marked arguments [@next a] can be questioned by the question pronouns wer or was, including their case forms wem, wen and wessen [@next b,c]. Further, case-marked arguments can be pronominalized by personal pronouns [@next d] or the indefinite pronouns (irgend)jemand or (irgend)etwas [@next e].

::: ex a. Der Löwe sieht einen Vogel. b. Wer sieht einen Vogel? c. Was sieht der Löwe? d. Er sieht ihn. e. Jemand sieht etwas. :::

Second, prepositional phrases [@next a] are arguments of an utterance when they can be paraphrased by a complement clause of the form da(r)+preposition, dass [@next b]. All details of the difficult question when to treat prepositional phrases as arguments in German are discussed in [@sec:prepositions-delimiting-governed-prepositional-phrases].

::: ex a. Der Weltreisende wartet auf einen Zug. b. Der Weltreisende wartet darauf, dass ein Zug kommt. :::

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' [@next a,b], see [@sec:prepositions-obligatory-local] and [-@sec:reflexive-obligatory-local].

::: ex a. Der Stuhl befindet sich im Wohnzimmer b. ^* Der Stuhl befindet sich. :::

More widespread are diatheses that introduce an obligatory local role, like with brechen 'to break' [@next], see [@sec:prepositions-partitive-free]. 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 [@next 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".

::: ex a. Ich breche ein Loch in den Felsen. b. ^* Ich breche ein Loch. c. Ich breche den Felsen. :::

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

::: ex 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. :::

es Arguments {#sec:intro-es}

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.

First, es can be used for anaphoric reference to neuter nouns, typically with gender agreement as shown in [@next]. There are many variants of such phoric usage, extensively discussed by Czicza [-@czicza2014: Ch. 2].

::: ex Das Mädchen weint.
Ich tröste es. :::

Second, another kind of referential es occurs with some non-finite complement clauses. By definition, a complement clause replaces an argument [@next a], but in some examples a pronoun es remains in place of the original argument, side by side with the complement clause [@next b]. This is known as a correlative es [@czicza2014: 79ff.].

::: ex a. Ich vergesse [meine Aufgaben].
Ich vergesse [schnell zu laufen]. b. Ich hasse [meine Aufgaben].
Ich hasse es [schnell zu laufen]. :::

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 [@next b]. This is known as a position-simulating es [@czicza2014: 115].

::: ex a. Ein Mädchen weint. b. Es weint ein Mädchen. :::

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 [@czicza2014: 115]. In the analysis of diatheses in this book, such valency-simulating es is alway explicitly noted.

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

::: ex a. Es stinkt hier sehr. b. Hier stinkt es sehr. :::

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 [@next], see Sections [-@sec:prepositions-nominative-demotion-dative-addition] and [-@sec:case-accusative-dative], respectively.

::: ex a. Heute ist mir kalt. b. Dem Arzt graut vor Blut. :::

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.

• [@next a] impersonal werden+Partizip, see [@sec:participles-werden-impersonal-passive]
• [@next b] impersonal lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv, see [@sec:infinitive-lassen-reflexive-intransitive]
• [@next c] impersonal sein+In­fi­ni­tiv, see [@sec:infinitive-sein-adverbial]
• [@next d] impersonal sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv, see [@sec:zuinfinitive-sein-impersonal]

::: ex 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. :::

There are also a few rare cases in which there is a valency-simulating es in what appears to be an accusative case [@next], see Sections [-@sec:prepositions-nominative-es-preposition] and [-@sec:adverbial-accusative-es], respectively. These constructions need a more in-depth investigation.

::: ex a. Ich belasse es bei einer Warnung. b. Ich meine es ernst. :::

Adjuncts

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 [@sec:prepositions-definition-non-governed]. 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.

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

::: ex 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. :::

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.

Voice {#sec:intro-voice}

The formal linguistic marking of a diathesis, for example by verbal morphology or auxiliaries, is called grammatical voice [following @zuniga2019: 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:

• zero-marked "covert" diatheses (Chapters [-@sec:case; -@sec:prepositions])
• diatheses expressed by reflexive pronouns (Chapter [-@sec:reflexive])
• diatheses expressed by preverbs, preverbials or adverbials (Chapters [-@sec:preverbs; -@sec:adverbial])
• diatheses expressed by light-verb constructions (Chapters [-@sec:participle; -@sec:infinitive; -@sec:zuinfinitive; -@sec:zuminfinitive])

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 [-@sec:case] I will discuss diatheses that only differ in the marking of case, for example unmarked anticausatives like [@next]. Chapter [-@sec:prepositions] deals with unmarked diatheses in which at least on of the alternants is a prepositional phrase, for example unmarked antipassives like [@nnext].

::: ex a. Er verbrennt den Tisch. b. Der Tisch verbrennt. :::

::: ex a. Ich schlürfe meinen Tee. b. Ich schlürfe an meinem Tee. :::

The contribution of reflexive pronouns for the marking of diathesis is discussed in Chapter [-@sec:reflexive]. A central claim in this chapter is that 'self-inflicting' reflexive reference [@next] 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 [@nnext]. 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.

::: ex a. Ich wasche das Auto. b. Ich wasche mich. :::

::: ex a. Ich fürchte den Tod. b. Ich fürchte mich vor den Tod. :::

In Chapter [-@sec:preverbs] 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 [@next]. 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).

::: ex a. Ich steige auf den Berg. b. Ich besteige den Berg. :::

Closely related to preverbs are resultative preverbials that induce diathesis, like the applicative with leer‑ in [@next]. There exist also diatheses induced by evaluative adverbials, like the reflexive anticausative with a manner specification gut in [@nnext]. 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 [-@sec:adverbial].

::: ex a. Ich habe in dem Teich gefischt. b. Ich habe den Teich leergefischt. :::

::: ex a. Ich fahre den Lastwagen. b. Der Lastwagen fährt sich gut. :::

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 [-@sec:participle] discusses light verb construction with participles, like the infamous werden+Partizip passive [@next].

::: ex a. Ich habe einen Brief geschrieben. b. Der Brief wurde geschrieben. :::

The next three chapters describe different combinations of light verbs with lexical verbs in the infinitive. Chapter [-@sec:infinitive] discusses light verbs with straight infinitives, like the lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv causative [@next].

::: ex a. Ich wasche meine Kleider. b. Sie lässt mich meine Kleider waschen. :::

Chapter [-@sec:zuinfinitive] investigates light verbs with zu plus an infinitive, like for example the sein+zu‑In­fi­ni­tiv passive [@next]. 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.

::: ex a. Ich führe einen Hund an der Leine. b. Ein Hund ist an der Leine zu führen. :::

Finally, Chapter [-@sec:zuminfinitive] looks at the combinations of prepositions, article and an infinitive, like the halten+am‑In­fi­ni­tiv causative [@nnext]. 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.

::: ex a. Das Feuer brennt. b. Der Wind hält das Feuer am Brennen. :::

Diathetical operations {#sec:intro-diathetical-operations}

Abbreviations used

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.

In the analysis of diathetical operations in this book I will use the following abbreviations, as summarised in [@fig:abbreviations]. 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 [@sec:intro-arguments-utterance-valency]) 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.

{#fig:abbreviations}

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 [@par:possraising]). Absence of a specific role will be indicated by a dash. Lower-cased 'a' and 'd' are only used in [@sec:reflexive-no-diathesis] 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'.

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 [@fig:abbreviations], 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.

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.

{#par:corecase} 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 ([@sec:intro-object-chains]), the antipassive hierarchy ([@sec:prepositions-demotion-of-object]) and the case-marking of the reflexive pronoun ([@sec:reflexive-deponent]). However, in the majority of diatheses all three cases seem to behave as a uniform group, so I did not consistently pursue this separation.

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.

Remapping of roles {#sec:intro-remapping}

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

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.

Level 2: remapping pattern. The role-remapping of each diathesis is analysed using the single-letter abbreviations (NADGPL pgad‑) from [@fig:abbreviations]. 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.

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.

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 [@fig:abbreviations]. 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.

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 [@next] 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 [@sec:intro-chaining] 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.

::: {#ex:macrorolehierarchy .ex} Macrorole Hierarchy

SBJ » OBJ » PBJ » ADJ » Ø :::

For example, the diathesis in [@next] is analysed as a remapping pattern [NA | ‑N], see [@sec:reflexive-anticausative]. 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. [@sec:case-haben-anticausative; @sec:adverbial-reflexive-transitive-anticausative; @sec:participles-geben-reflexive-anticausative]).

::: ex a. Ich schließe die Tür. b. Die Tür schließt sich. :::

Although there is a reflexive pronoun in [@last 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 [@last a], respectively. In [@last 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 [@last] as a marker of the diathesis itself (see Chapter [-@sec:reflexive] for an extensive discussion), so there is actually an overt direction in the markedness from unmarked [@last a] to reflexive-marked [@last 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].

The diathesis in [@last] is one of various examples of a local group that are all called "reflexive antipassive". Other diatheses in this group include examples like [@next] with an additional governed preposition, analysed here with the remapping pattern [NAP | ‑NP], see [@sec:reflexive-anticausative-governed-preposition]. 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).

::: ex a. Das Lied erinnert den Mann an den Krieg. b. Der Mann erinnert sich an den Krieg. :::

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.

So, in summary, the role-remapping of the diathesis [@last] is categorised as summarised below. This information also informs the place in the book where this diathesis will be discussed: Reflexive voice is Chapter [-@sec:reflexive], 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 [@sec:reflexive-anticausative-governed-preposition].

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

Stacking {#sec:intro-stacking}

Combining diatheses

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.

Stacked diatheses can lead to convoluted role-remappings. A beautiful example of such stacking of diatheses is given by Dixon [-@dixon2014: 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'.

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 [@sec:case-umlaut-causative]), which in turn can take a preverb to form be-legen 'to cover' (see [@sec:preverb-applicative-antipassive]). 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.

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 [@next 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 [@next a], the applicative preverb be‑ changes the prepositional phrase to an accusative [@next b], see [@sec:preverb-applicative]. Subsequently, the reflexive anticausative turns the accusative into a nominative and drops the nominative agent [@next c], see [@sec:reflexive-anticausative].

::: ex a. Der Lehrer antwortet auf deine Frage. b. Der Lehrer beantwortet deine Frage. c. Deine Frage beantwortet sich von selbst. :::

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 [@sec:intro-disjunct-diatheses]). 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.

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

::: ex a. Der Lehrer hat die Aufgabe lösen wollen.
b. Basic clause: Der Lehrer löst die Aufgabe.
+> wollen modal (cf. [-@sec:infinitive-modals])
    = Der Lehrer will die Aufgabe lösen.
+> haben perfect (cf. [-@sec:participles-haben-perfect])
    = 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. [-@sec:prepositions-benefactive-dative])
    = Jemand löst dem Lehrer die Aufgabe.
+> haben dative passive (cf. [-@sec:participles-haben-passive])
    = Der Lehrer hat die Aufgabe gelöst.
+> wollen modal (cf. [-@sec:infinitive-modals])
    = Der Lehrer will die Aufgabe gelöst haben. :::

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

::: ex 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. :::

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 [@sec:intro-arguments-utterance-valency], 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 [@last]:

• the cutter Arzt 'physician'
• the cut object Nagel 'nail'
• the possessor of the cut object Patient 'patient'
• the result of the cutting Schlitz 'groove, slit'
• the instrument doing the cutting Fräser 'milling cutter'

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

• [@last b], in antipassive: changing the cut object Nagel from accusative to prepositional object, see [@sec:prepositions-in-antipassive].
• [@last c], possessor raising: changing the possessor of the cut object Patient from adnominal genitive into dative, see [@sec:prepositions-possessor-of-location-to-dative-experiencer].
• [@last d], object exchange: adding a new accusative object Schlitz as the result of the cutting, see [@sec:prepositions-partitive-free].
• [@last e], adjunct addition: adding a syntacticaly optional instrument Fräser, see [@sec:prepositions-comitative-intrumental].
• [@last f], instrument anticausative: turning the instrument Fräser from prepositional phrase to nominative, see [@sec:prepositions-transitive-conciliative].

Fixed stacks

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.

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' [@next a,b], see [@sec:reflexive-anticausative]. 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' [@next c,d], see [@sec:adverbial-reflexive-transitive-anticausative]. 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.

::: ex a. Ich schließe die Tür. b. Die Tür schließt sich. c. Ich verkaufe das Buch. d. Das Buch verkauft sich gut. :::

Various diatheses between a verb, like fassen 'to grasp' [@next a], and its pre­verb-alternant, like befassen 'to be concerned with' [@next b], additionally need a reflexive pronoun, see [@sec:preverb-reflexive-antipassive]. So here we have a fixed stack of a reflexive pronoun and a preverb together that mark the diathesis.

::: ex a. Ich fasse einen Entschluss. b. Ich befasse mich mit dem Entschluss. :::

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 [@next b], see [@sec:infinitive-lassen-causative]. Additionally, the combination of lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv and a reflexive pronoun leads to a passive alternation [@next c], which does not make sense as being derived from the causative [@next b]. It seems better to consider the combination of lassen+Infinitiv+Reflexiv as a fixed stack, see [@sec:infinitive-lassen-reflexive-passive].

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

Chaining {#sec:intro-chaining}

Beyond solitary remapping

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.

• Chained Diathesis ([@sec:intro-chained-diatheses]): Two roles change their formal marking, forming a chain in which one role changes its form from X to Y, while the other role changes its form from Y to Z. This results in a chain (X › Y › Z).
• Multi-chained Diathesis ([@sec:intro-multi-chained-diatheses]): Three (or possibly even more) roles change their formal marking, forming a longer chain of connected changes.
• Disjunct Diathesis ([@sec:intro-disjunct-diatheses]): Two or more roles change their formal marking, with no overlap between marking.

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.

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.

Chained diatheses {#sec:intro-chained-diatheses}

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.

A prototypical example of a chained diathesis involving the nominative subject is the werden passive [@next]. 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.

::: ex chained diathesis (OBJ › SBJ › ADJ)

a. Der Lehrling backt den Kuchen. b. Der Kuchen wird gebacken (von dem Lehrling). :::

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‑ [@next]. 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).

::: ex chained diathesis (ADJ › OBJ › ADJ)

a. Sie kocht kubanisches Essen für ihre Freundin. b. Sie bekocht ihre Freundin mit kubanischem Essen. :::

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 [@sec:intro-naming].

Multi-chained diatheses {#sec:intro-multi-chained-diatheses}

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' [@next a] and applying a stack of two diatheses [@next b,c]. This leads to a chain of three role-remappings. First, the preverb diathesis with vor‑ [@next b] leads to the addition of a dative argument dem Jungen, i.e. a role-remapping Ø › OBJ, see [@sec:preverb-dative-addition-accusative]. On top of that, the bekommen dative passive [@next c] promotes this dative to subject and removes the original subject, i.e. a role-remapping OBJ › SBJ › Ø, see [@sec:participles-bekommen-passive]. Combined, these two diatheses lead to a multi-chained role-re­map­ping Ø › OBJ › SBJ › Ø.

::: ex 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. :::

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.

First, the preverb diathesis from erben 'to inherit' to enterben 'to disinherit' [@next], see [@sec:preverb-inverted-passive-accusative-loss], 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).

::: ex multi-chained diathesis (ADJ › SBJ › OBJ › Ø)

a. Der Junge erbt den Schreibtisch von seinem Vater. b. Sein Vater enterbt den Jungen. :::

Second, the verb schmecken 'to taste' [@next], see [@sec:prepositions-ingredient-anticausative], 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).

::: ex multi-chained diathesis (OBJ › ADJ › SBJ › Ø)

a. Der Koch schmeckt die Pfefferminze in der Suppe. b. Die Suppe schmeckt nach Pfefferminze. :::

Disjunct diatheses {#sec:intro-disjunct-diatheses}

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.

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' [@next a] can be used in a object-exchange diathesis [@next 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 [@sec:prepositions-partitive-free]. Independent of this chained diathesis, the possessor of the object Nachbar 'neighbour' can be raised to genitive [@next c], i.e. a possessor applicative (ADJ › OBJ), see [@sec:prepositions-possessor-of-location-to-dative-experiencer-accusative].

::: ex 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. :::

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' [@next a] and 'forebode' [@next b] with a rather transparent connection between the two. However, the role-remappings are quite complex, see [@sec:prepositions-anticausative-preposition-addition].

::: ex disjunct diathesis (Ø › PBJ + OBJ › SBJ › Ø)

a. Ich deute den Traum. b. Der Traum deutet auf nichts Gutes. :::

Second, some preverbs lead to disjunct diatheses, like with schweigen 'to remain silent' and verschweigen 'to conceal' [@next], see [@sec:preverb-double-applicative].

::: ex disjunct diathesis (ADJ › OBJ + PBJ › OBJ)

a. Ich schweige zu dir über meinen Besuch. b. Ich verschweige dir meinen Besuch. :::

Further examples are a few verbs of naming like schimpfen 'to scold' [@next], see [@sec:prepositions-naming-result]. The disjunct diathesis in [@nnext] is less clear, as it might be better analysed as a stack, see [@sec:prepositions-nominative-demotion-dative-addition].

::: ex disjunct diathesis (Ø › OBJ + ADJ › OBJ)

a. Sie schimpft auf mich. b. Sie schimpft mich einen Narren :::

::: ex disjunct diathesis (Ø › OBJ + SBJ › ADJ)

a. Der Sommer ist kalt. b. Mir ist kalt im Sommer. :::

The only more widespread disjunct diathesis is the caused-motion construction that can arise with some apparently intransitive verbs like schwitzen 'to sweat' [@next]. This diathesis introduces two roles at once: a result of the sweating Fleck 'stain' and an obligatory location of the result Hemd 'shirt', see [@sec:prepositions-intransitive-location-as-result].

::: ex disjunct diathesis (Ø › OBJ + Ø › PBJ)

a. Ich schwitze. b. Ich schwitze einen Fleck in mein Hemd. :::

Naming {#sec:intro-naming}

Names for macrorole patterns

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. @melcuk1993; @wunderlich1993; @wunderlich2015; @dixon2000a; @dixon2014; @haspelmath2004c; @kulikov2011; @malchukov2015: 96ff.; @zuniga2019]. 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 [@silverstein1972: 395], but the same phenomenon is also known as deaccusative [@geniusiene1987: 94] or antiapplicative [@haspelmath2004c: 1132; @scheibl2006: 371]. Conversely, the term antipassive is also attested referring to a slightly different phenomenon of the drop of an object [@scheibl2006: 372--373].

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 [@sec:intro-remapping]. 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.

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" [@uhlig1883: 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 @zuniga2019: 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.^[It is of course possible to add yet another definition for the term "middle" to the wide variety of already existing uses [e.g. @inglese2023], but to me this only increases the confusion.]

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. [@sec:intro-chaining]).

Isolated subject diatheses {#sec:intro-isolated-subject-diathesis}

{#par:insubjective} 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 [@sec:intro-es]).

An insubjective diathesis is attested with verbs like stinken 'to stink' [@next], see [@sec:case-nominative-drop]. In a sentence like es stinkt the pronoun es can of course simply be an anaphor, like in [@next b]. In such a sentence, the role of "stinker" is still present and there is no diathesis at all. However, in other contexts [@next 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.

::: ex Insubjective (SBJ › Ø)

a. Der Müll stinkt. b. Das schmutzige Tuch, es stinkt! c. Hier stinkt es. :::

Another example of a insubjective diathesis is illustrated with the verb leben 'to live' [@next], see [@sec:adverbial-reflexive-drop]. 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 [@next b,c].

::: ex Insubjective (SBJ › Ø)

a. Ich lebe in diesem Haus. b. In diesem Haus lebt es sich gut. c. ^* In diesem Haus lebt es sich. :::

Also the so-called impersonal passive consisting of werden+Partizip [@next], see [@sec:participles-werden-impersonal-passive], is an example of a insubjective diathesis, in this case even without any valency-simulating es.

::: ex Insubjective (SBJ › Ø)

a. Die Jungs tanzen hier. b. Hier wird getanzt. c. ^* Hier wird es getanzt. :::

{#par:desubjective} 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 [@next], see [@sec:zuinfinitive-geben-demotion]. 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.

::: ex Desubjective (SBJ › ADJ)

a. Wir gewinnen einen Preis. b. es gibt (für uns) einen Preis zu gewinnen. :::

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 [@next], see [@sec:prepositions-nominative-demotion].

::: ex Desubjective (SBJ › PBJ)

a. Das Geld fehlt ihm. b. Ihm fehlt es an Geld. :::

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' [@next], see [@sec:case-nominative-addition].

::: ex Subject addition (Ø › SBJ)

a. Es donnert. b. Die Motoren donnerten. :::

Chained subject diatheses

Chained diatheses that involve the nominative subject are widespread in German (in contrast to the infrequent occurrence of isolated diatheses as discussed previously). [@fig:subjectchains] 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 [@haspelmath1993a: 101; @nichols2004: 189].

{#fig:subjectchains}

The upper right part of [@fig:subjectchains] 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.

Demotions {#sec:intro-subject-demotions}

{#par:anticausative} 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' [@next], see [@sec:reflexive-anticausative].

::: ex Anticausative (OBJ › SBJ › Ø)

a. Ich schließe die Tür. b. Die Tür schließt sich (von alleine). :::

{#par:passive} 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 [@next]. 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 [@next] is the bekommen Rezipientenpassiv in which a dative is promoted to subject [@sec:participles-bekommen-passive]

::: ex Passive (OBJ › SBJ › ADJ)

a. Ihr Freund kocht ihr eine Suppe. b. Sie bekommt von ihrem Freund eine Suppe gekocht. :::

{#par:conversive} 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' [@next a] with the reflexive diathesis sich empören über 'to be outraged about' [@next b,c], see [@sec:reflexive-preposition-passive]. The term conversive is adapted from Kulikov [-@kulikov2011: 380].

::: ex 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. :::

{#par:fabricative} 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' [@next a], see [@sec:prepositions-fabricative-accusative]. 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 [@next a] is a governed preposition [@next c]. The diathesis promotes this fabricated product to nominative subject and the fabricator is removed from the expression [@next b]. The experiencer in the accusative mich remains unchanged.

::: ex 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. :::

{#par:conciliative} 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 [@next], see [@sec:prepositions-transitive-conciliative]. 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 [@next], while the mit phrase in a fabricative is a governed preposition [@last]. 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.

::: ex Conciliative (ADJ › SBJ › Ø)

a. Der Doktor heilt die Wunde mit einer Salbe. b. Die Salbe heilt die Wunde. :::

Promotions {#sec:intro-subject-promotions}

{#par:novative} 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.

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)' [@next], see [@sec:preverb-causative]. Such a diathesis is aptly called a causative.

::: ex Causative novative (Ø › SBJ › OBJ)

a. Der Tisch brennt. b. Ich verbrenne den Tisch. :::

{#par:experientive} The sehen+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis [@next], see [@sec:infinitive-sehen], 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.

::: ex Experientive novative (Ø › SBJ › OBJ)

a. Der Junge putzt den Tisch. b. Ich sehe den Jungen den Tisch putzen. :::

{#par:opiniative} The finden+Partizip diathesis [@next], see [@sec:participles-finden-opinionator] 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 [@sec:participles-restrictions]. Similar constructions also exist with light verbs wissen, sehen and glauben.

::: ex Opiniative novative (Ø › SBJ › OBJ)

a. Das Projekt scheitert. b. Ich finde das Projekt gescheitert. :::

The lassen+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis [@next], see [@sec:infinitive-lassen-causative] is also structurally a novative (Ø › SBJ › OBJ). This diathesis has multiple possible interpretations, among them also a causative reading [@next]. However, in the example in [@nnext] 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 [@sec:participles-restrictions]. However, note that in both examples the other interpretation is also possible, albeit only is specially crafted contexts.

::: ex Causative novative (Ø › SBJ › OBJ)

a. Der Junge schläft ein. b. Ich lasse den Jungen einschlafen.
(= Ich sorge dafür, dass der Junge einschläft.)

:::

::: ex Permissive novative (Ø › SBJ › OBJ)

a. Der Junge schläft. b. Ich lasse den Jungen schlafen.
(= Ich erlaube, dass der Junge weiter schläft.) :::

Finally, the lehren/helfen+In­fi­ni­tiv diathesis [@next], see [@sec:infinitive-lehren], 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.

::: ex Assistive novative (Ø › SBJ › OBJ)

a. Der Sohn faltet die Wäsche. b. Der Vater lehrt seinem Sohn die Wäsche falten. :::

{#par:novativedemotion} The novative with extended demotion (Ø › SBJ › PBJ) is extremely rare in German. The name is adapted from Kulikov [-@kulikov2011: 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' [@next] might be an example because mit is a governed preposition [@next c], see [@sec:preverb-reversed-fabricative].

::: ex 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. :::

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' [@next], see [@sec:participle-finden-transitive-opiniative]. With this diathesis, there is a new opinionator introduced, just like with the opiniative above (see [@par:opiniative]). However, the erstwhile nominative subject is now demoted to an optional prepositional phrase.

::: ex Novative with extreme demotion (Ø › SBJ › ADJ)

a. Das Archiv hebt den Nachlass auf. b. Ich finde den Nachlass (im Archiv) gut aufgehoben. :::

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' [@next a,b], see [@sec:preverb-inverted-passive-accusative-loss]. This is semantically very close to a causative Ø › SBJ › OBJ in which the newly introduced causer can sometimes be expressed as an adjunct [@next 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).

::: ex 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. :::

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)+Präposition, dass paraphrase. This is for example attested with the diatheses between staunen über 'to marvel' and erstaunen 'to amaze' [@next], see [@sec:preverb-inverted-passives].

::: ex 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. :::

Symmetrical subject diatheses {#sec:intro-symmetrical-subject}

{#par:inversive} 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 [-@malchukov2015: 99--100] inspired by the so-called "inverse" marking found in Algonquian languages. An inversive diathesis is designated as a "symmetric conversive" by Kulikov [-@kulikov2011: 380]. An example of an inversive is the diathesis between wundern 'to puzzle' and bewundern 'to admire' [@next], see [@sec:preverb-accusative-inversive].

::: ex Inversive (OBJ › SBJ › OBJ)

a. Dein Verhalten wundert mich. b. Ich bewundere dein Verhalten. :::

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 [@next], see [@sec:zuinfinitive-bleiben]. 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 [@par:corecase]), 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 [@ex:macrorolehierarchy] then the biggest jump is the jump down, which is the definition of demotion (see [@sec:intro-remapping]). 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.

::: ex Demoted inversive (OBJ › SBJ › OBJ)

a. Ich räume den letzten Schrank ein. b. Dieser letzte Schrank bleibt mir noch einzuräumen. :::

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 [@next], see [@sec:infinitive-haben].

::: ex Promoted inversive (OBJ › SBJ › OBJ)

a. Ein Tropfen hängt ihm an der Nase. b. Er hat einen Tropfen an der Nase hängen. :::

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 [@next], see [@sec:participles-geben-commutative]. Note that the subjects in the two sentences do not have to be the same participant.

::: ex Commutative (Ø › SBJ › Ø)

a. Das Kind verliert den Ring. b. Der Vater gibt den Ring verloren. :::

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' [@next], see [@sec:preverb-location-inversive].

::: ex Preposition inversive (PBJ › SBJ › PBJ)

a. Die Sonne strahlt auf das Haus. b. Das Haus erstrahlt in der Sonne. :::

Finally, an example of an adjunct commutative (ADJ › SBJ › ADJ) is possibly attested with the verb wimmeln 'to swarm' [@next], see [@sec:prepositions-subject-switch].

::: ex Adjunct commutative (ADJ › SBJ › ADJ)

a. Die Kinder wimmeln auf den Platz. b. Der Platz wimmelt von Kindern. :::

Isolated object diatheses

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 [@fig:objectdiatheses]. In contrast, chained object diatheses are less widespread and can mostly be analysed as a combination of multiple isolated diatheses.

The top right diatheses in [@fig:objectdiatheses] 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.

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 [@sec:adverbial-directionals]).

{#fig:objectdiatheses}

I will discuss the different role-remappings from [@fig:objectdiatheses] 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).

Applicatives & antipassives {#sec:intro-applicative-antipassive}

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. @haspelmath2004c: 1132] or "deapplicative" (in line with the other names below).

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.

Applicatives occur frequently with the addition of a preverb, like in the alternation between steigen auf 'to climb' and besteigen 'to mount' [@next], see [@sec:preverb-applicative].

::: ex Applicative (ADJ › OBJ)

a. Sie steigt auf den Berg. b. Sie besteigt den Berg. :::

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 [@next], see [@sec:reflexive-mit-antipassive].

::: ex Antipassive (OBJ › ADJ)

a. Ich treffe dich. b. Ich treffe mich mit dir. :::

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' [@next], see [@sec:preverb-dative-applicative]. An example of a dative antipassive is the covert alternation of berichten 'to report' [@nnext], see [@sec:prepositions-dative-antipassive-accusative].

::: ex Dative applicative (ADJ › OBJ)

a. Ich stamme aus einem Adelsgeschlecht. b. Ich entstamme einem Adelsgeschlecht :::

::: ex Dative antipassive (OBJ › ADJ)

a. Er berichtet dem Vorstand alles. b. Er berichtet alles an den Vorstand. :::

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 [@sec:prepositions-identifying-governed-prepositions]). 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' [@next], see [@sec:preverb-governed-applicative]. An example of a governed antipassive is the diathesis between beklagen 'to lament' and sich beklagen 'to complain' (with a governed preposition über) [@nnext], see [@sec:reflexive-accusative-antipassive]. 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.

::: ex Governed applicative (PBJ › OBJ)

a. Ich arbeite an dem Text.
(Ich arbeite daran, dass der Text fertig wird.) b. Ich bearbeite den Text. :::

::: ex 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.) :::

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.

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' [@next], see [@sec:prepositions-accusative-antipassive]. This is also widespread with datives [@nnext], see [@sec:prepositions-dative-antipassive-accusative]. In such examples, I judge the case-marking to be more basic than the prepositional phrase.

::: ex Covert antipassive (OBJ › ADJ)

a. Ich schieße den Bären. b. Ich schieße auf den Bären. :::

::: ex Covert dative antipassive (OBJ › ADJ)

a. Ich schreibe dir einen Brief.
b. Ich schreibe einen Brief an dich. :::

In contrast, there is a widespread alternation between datives and beneficiary für prepositional phrases [@next] that I classify as an applicative, see [@sec:prepositions-benefactive-dative]. In this example the beneficiary dative seems to be the derived construction.

::: ex Covert applicative: beneficiary raising (ADJ › OBJ)

a. Er kocht eine Suppe für mich. b. Er kocht mir eine Suppe. :::

{#par:possraising} 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 [@next]. The dative can alternate with the possessor of a nominative subject (see [@sec:case-possessor-of-nominative-to-dative-experiencer]), an accusative object (see [@sec:case-possessor-accusative-to-dative]) or an obligatory location (see [@sec:prepositions-possessor-of-location-to-dative-experiencer]). Following widespread convention, I classify these diatheses as promotion (ADJ › OBJ)

::: ex Covert applicative: possessor raising (ADJ › OBJ)

a. Er schneidet meine Haare. b. Er schneidet mir die Haare. :::

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 [@last] are semantically experiencers. In contrast, datives that alternate with für prepositional phrases [@llast] are semantically beneficiaries. In especially crafted context it might be possible to evoke either reading for the same sentence [@next].

::: ex 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.) :::

Objectives & deobjectives {#sec:intro-objective-deobjective}

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 @haspelmath2004c: 1131]. A deobjective drop is illustrated in [@next] with an alternation from kaufen 'to buy' to einkaufen 'to shop', see [@sec:preverb-accusative-drop] for an extensive discussion.

::: ex Deobjective (OBJ › Ø)

a. Ich habe gestern ein Buch gekauft. b. Ich habe gestern eingekauft. :::

A special variant of a deobjective occurs with verbs that apply to the body, like verbrennen 'to burn' [@next]. In such constructions, a reflexive pronoun is necessary. This diathesis is called endoreflexive [@haspelmath1987: 27--28], see [@sec:reflexive-accusative-drop] for an extensive discussion.

::: ex Deobjective: endoreflexive (OBJ › Ø)

a. Er verbrennt das Buch. b. Er verbrennt sich. :::

{#par:objective} 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' [@next]. 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 [@sec:preverb-accusative-addition].

::: ex Objective: added patient (Ø › OBJ)

a. Sie zaubert. b. Sie verzaubert mich. :::

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 [@next] with the diathesis between arbeiten 'to work' and the inherent reflexive sich etwas erarbeiten 'to acquire something through work', see [@sec:preverb-reflexive-resultative]. The result of the work is added as an object in [@next 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 [@sec:adverbial-resultative-predicates]). 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. @nedjalkov1988a].]

::: ex 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.) :::

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' [@next] can be used both with and without an accusative object, see [@sec:case-accusative-drop]. This is classified here as a deobjective diathesis. Such unmarked object drops are also attested with datives, see [@sec:case-dative-drop], and with governed prepositions, see [@sec:prepositions-demotion-of-object]. 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 [@sec:adverbial-action-focus] for an extensive discussion.

::: ex Covert deobjective (OBJ › Ø)

a. Du störst die Veranstaltung. b. Du störst. :::

In contrast, the verb stottern 'to stutter' is classified here as an example of a covert object addition [@next], although there is no formal differentiation from the previous example of a covert object drop [@last]. 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 [@next b]. However, it remains to be seen whether there is really a substantive difference between these two kinds of verbs (see [@sec:case-accusative-addition] for an extensive discussion).

::: ex Covert objective: added result (Ø › OBJ)

a. Er stotterte. b. Er stotterte eine Entschuldigung.
(= Er stotterte, und das Resultat davon ist eine Entschuldigung.) :::

Locatives & delocatives {#sec:intro-locative-delocative}

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 [@next a]. With a (directional) locative phrase an die Front 'to the frontline' the sentence obtains a caused-motion reading [@next b], see [@sec:prepositions-transitive-location-as-result]. 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.

::: ex 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.) :::

Even more noteworthy, such a caused-motion diathesis is also possible with many intransitive verbs like schwitzen 'to sweat' [@next 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' [@next b], see [@sec:prepositions-intransitive-location-as-result].

::: ex 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.) :::

{#par:delocative} 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 [@next] with the alternation between stecken 'to put into' and verstecken 'to hide'. The verb stecken needs an obligatory location [@next a,b]. Such an obligatory location is classified here as a PBJ prepositional object (see [@sec:intro-arguments-utterance-valency]). The situation is different with the verb verstecken. With this verb the location is an ADJ optional adjunct and can be left out (see [@sec:preverb-transitive-antiresultative] for an extensive discussion).

::: ex 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. :::

Symmetrical object diatheses {#sec:intro-symmetrical-object}

Symmetrical object diatheses are rare in German. A case change (OBJ › OBJ) is illustrated in [@next] by the alternation between folgen 'to follow' (with dative) and verfolgen 'to chase' (with accusative), see [@sec:preverb-dative-accusative].

::: ex Case change (OBJ › OBJ)

a. Ich folge dem Auto. b. Ich verfolge das Auto. :::

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' [@next a] changing into sich durcharbeiten 'to work through' [@next b] or sorgen für 'take care of' [@next c] changing into sich sorgen um 'to worry about' [@next d].

::: ex 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. :::

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' [@next a] and a non-governed prepositional phrase von dir 'from you' [@next b] can be seen as as a borderline examples, see [@sec:prepositions-possessor-to-preposition].

::: ex Adjunct change (ADJ › ADJ)

a. Ich erwarte dein Geschenk. b. Ich erwarte ein Geschenk von dir. :::

Chained object diatheses {#sec:intro-object-chains}

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 [@fig:objectchains]). The most frequently attested chained object diatheses are the highlighted variants of object exchange (see [@sec:intro-object-exchange; @sec:intro-chained-other-object]). A few incidental examples of chained case change are also attested (see [@sec:intro-chained-case-change]).

{#fig:objectchains}

Object exchange {#sec:intro-object-exchange}

The highlighted diatheses in [@fig:objectchains] 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 [@next] is the diathesis between schmieren 'to smear' and beschmieren 'to spread' (discussed in detail in [@sec:preverb-applicative-antipassive]). 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.

::: ex Object exchange

a. Ich schmiere eine Salbe auf die Wunde. b. Ich beschmiere die Wunde mit einer Salbe. :::

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".

By definition (cf. [@sec:intro-remapping]), 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 [@next]. 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.

::: ex Macrorole Hierarchy

SBJ » OBJ » PBJ » ADJ » Ø :::

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 [@fig:objectchains]. 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.

For example, consider again the diathesis from schmieren to beschmieren, repeated below in [@next]. It consist of a promotion from a prepositional phrase auf die Wunde to an accusative die Wunde and a demotion from an accusative eine Salbe to a prepositional phrase mit einer Salbe. The promotion starts from an obligatory location [@next a,b], i.e. this is an oblig­a­tory-loc­ational applicative (PBJ › OBJ). In contrast, the demotion ends in an optional instrumental phrase [@next 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").

::: ex Demoted object exchange (PBJ › OBJ › ADJ)

a. Ich schmiere eine Salbe auf die Wunde. b. ^* Ich schmiere eine Salbe. c. Ich beschmiere die Wunde mit einer Salbe. d. Ich beschmiere die Wunde. :::

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.

Demoted object exchange {#sec:intro-demoted-object-exchange}

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.

Typically, a filled holonym diathesis is expressed by a minor demotion ("net one step down"), as illustrated with schmieren/beschmieren above in [@last]. 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 [@next], 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.

Note that with pflanzen/bepflanzen [@next] the pre-diathesis location phrase in den Garten is not obligatory [@next a,b], so the resulting diathesis is symmetric (ADJ › OBJ › ADJ). This is the kind of minor syntactic variation that is indicated in [@fig:objectchains] 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. [@sec:preverb-applicative-antipassive]).

::: ex Symmetric object exchange: filled holonym (ADJ › OBJ › ADJ)

• Ich pflanze Tulpen in den Garten.
• Ich pflanze Tulpen.
• Ich bepflanze den Garten mit Tulpen.
• Ich bepflanze den Garten. :::

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 [@next] with the diathesis between the verb klopfen 'to pound' and ausklopfen 'to beat out' (cf. [@sec:preverb-location-antiresultative]). The unmarked verb klopfen [@next 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 [@next 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 [@next 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 [@next 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.

::: ex 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. :::

Promoted object exchange {#sec:intro-promoted-object-exchange}

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.

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' [@next]. The original object role Bluse 'blouse' [@next a] turns into an optional an prepositional phrase [@next 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 [@next 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.

::: ex Promoted object exchange: joined meronym (Ø › OBJ › ADJ)

• Ich habe eine Bluse genäht.
• Ich habe den Knopf an die Bluse festgenäht.
• Ich habe den Knopf festgenäht. :::

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' [@next a,b] to einmassieren 'to massage in' [@next 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. [@sec:preverb-applicative-in-antipassive]). 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.

::: ex 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. :::

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' [@next a]. There is a covert diathesis that introduces a new object role that cannot be expressed earlier, here Fleck 'stain' [@next 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 [@next 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.

::: ex 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. :::

Other kinds of object exchange {#sec:intro-chained-other-object}

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' [@next a,b]. This chained diathesis is a remapping of the form (PBJ › OBJ › ADJ) because the preposition zu is a governed preposition [@next c]. This diathesis is attested with various verbs of persuasion (cf. [@sec:preverb-applicative-von-antipassive]). 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.

::: ex 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). :::

Another example of an object exchange is illustrated here with the verb bewundern 'to admire' [@next], see [@sec:prepositions-possessor-to-preposition]. 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.

::: ex 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. :::

Chained case changes {#sec:intro-chained-case-change}

Finally, there are a few object chains involving a change of case, shown at the top and the left of [@fig:objectchains]. Note that a case change of dative/genitive to accusative can be interpreted as a promotion, and the reverse as a demotion, cf. [@par:corecase], but that perspective will not be expanded upon here.

Example [@next] 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 [@sec:preverb-antipassive-dative-accusative]).

::: ex Antipassive+case change (OBJ › OBJ › ADJ)

a. Ich schenke dir ein Buch. b. Ich beschenke dich mit einem Buch. :::

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' [@next], see [@sec:preverb-applicative-accusative-to-dative]. In this example a prepositional phrase changes into an accusative (i.e. applicative), while the accusative dich changes to dative dir.

::: ex Applicative+case change (ADJ › OBJ › OBJ)

a. Ich dränge dich zu einem Abo. b. Ich dränge dir ein Abo auf. :::

Finally, an idiosyncratic diathesis is attested with the verb rauben 'to rob' [@next], see [@sec:preverb-dative-accusative-genitive]. 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.

::: ex Double case change (OBJ › OBJ › OBJ)

a. Ich raube dir das Buch. b. Ich beraube dich des Buches. :::