Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of

German Prepositional Phrases

Amanda C. Haight
LIN 679H
Special Honors in the Department of Linguistics
The University of Texas at Austin
December 4, 2015

__________________________________________
John T. Beavers, Ph.D.
Department of Linguistics
Supervising Professor

__________________________________________
Hans C. Boas, Ph.D.
Department of Germanic Studies
Second Reader

1. ABSTRACT
Author: Amanda Haight
Title: Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases
Supervisor: John Beavers
Languages employ a variety of methods for distinguishing directed motion from locational
motion. Regardless of encoding method, many languages exhibit a pragmatic reinterpretation
process where the locational construction is coerced by a variety of factors, including verb class,
landmark, syntactic particle, and other contextual material to mean the goal of directed motion.
Given the diverse nature of the languages employing this pragmatic tool, it was hypothesized
that pragmatic directional reinterpretation of locations was a universal feature of languages
(Beavers et al. 2010, Tham et al. 2012).
After examining an online corpus and consulting on constructed, controlled examples with
a native speaker of German, this thesis concludes that this pragmatic reinterpretation is not
available in Standard German. Instead of German locations being reinterpreted as goals of
motion in contexts necessitating a directional reading, explicit directional encoding becomes
obligatory and locational encoding becomes unacceptable instead of reinterpreted. This finding
calls into question the universal nature of the hypothesis set forth by Beavers et al. (2010) and
Tham et al. (2012), suggesting parametric variation of pragmatic directional reinterpretation of
locations across languages.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ i
2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
3. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Talmys Typology ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Effects of Landmark and Ground ....................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Areas v. Container ........................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.2 True Covers v. Cover Proxy ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.3 Tightness of Landmark .................................................................................................................................. 9
3.3 Effects of the Verb ................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.3.1 Verb Classes .................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.2 Duration and Punctuality .......................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Directional Particles ............................................................................................................................................. 17
3.5 Effects of Syntactic Arrangement ................................................................................................................... 18
3.6 Proximity of Figure to Landmark ................................................................................................................... 19
3.7 Evidence of Reinterpretation Across Typologically Distinct Languages ....................................... 20
4. CORPUS STUDY ........................................................................................................................... 22
4.1 Goals of Study .......................................................................................................................................................... 22
4.2 Optimality Theory Guided Case Choice ........................................................................................................ 22
4.3 Methodology of Corpus Study .......................................................................................................................... 24
4.4 Results of Corpus Study ...................................................................................................................................... 25
5. NATIVE SPEAKER CONSULTATION ...................................................................................... 27
5.1 Methodology of Native Speaker Consultation ........................................................................................... 27
5.2 Irrelevant Factors .................................................................................................................................................. 28
5.3 Motion-Landmark Conflicts .............................................................................................................................. 30
5.3.1 Motion Does Not Conflict With Landmark ......................................................................................... 31
5.3.2 Motion Conflicts with Landmark ........................................................................................................... 33
5.3.3 Motion Conflicts with Source ................................................................................................................... 34
5.4 Effects of Landmark .............................................................................................................................................. 35
5.4.1 Areas v. Containers ...................................................................................................................................... 35
5.4.2 Nested Landmarks ....................................................................................................................................... 42
5.5 Effects of Verb Classifications .......................................................................................................................... 43
5.5.1 Directed Motion Verbs ............................................................................................................................... 43
5.5.2 The Clothesline Problem ........................................................................................................................... 46
5.5.3 Verb Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 49
5.6 Effects of Syntactic Elements ............................................................................................................................ 50
5.6.1 Directional Particles .................................................................................................................................... 50
5.6.2 The Bridge Problem (Alternation in Path Encoding) .................................................................... 53
6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 57
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 60
8. BIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 62

ii

2. INTRODUCTION
German is a case marking language, which means the role of a noun phrase in a clause is
indicated through morphological marking within the noun phrase itself.1 Prepositional phrases
(PPs) are a special circumstance when it comes to case marking because they can determine
much more about the noun than simply whether the noun phrase is a direct or indirect object,
which the accusative and dative case mark in simpler German sentences. Instead, PPs can
determine the semantic role a constituent plays in the sentence, such as whether it is the route,
source, instrument, or what I will be focusing on: goal and location. 2
German prepositions are divided into four classes by the case the constituent noun phrase
(NP) is assigned: dative, accusative, genitive, and alternating.3 The constituent NPs of this latter
set of alternating prepositions can be marked by either the dative or the accusative depending on
the semantic intentions of the speaker. The traditional grammar-school rule goes something like
move-ative accusative, state-ive dative; that is to say the accusative indicates that the NP is the
goal of motion in a description of directed motion, and the dative marks the location where
motion is occurring (Haider 2010: 241). A simple actualization of this rule is seen in (1).

Special acknowledgement goes to Santiago Sanchez who helped build the script that searched
the German corpus for examples relevant to this study, and to Katrin Fuchs who generously
2
This study is concerned strictly with Standard German. In non-standard German, such as
regional dialects, case assignment following prepositions functions significantly differently. All
assumptions and data henceforth are in reference to acceptability in Standard German.
3
Dative - aus, out of, auer besides, bei by or at, mit with, nach after, seit since, von
from, zu to; accusative - bis until, um around, fr for, durch through, ohne without,
gegen against, contrary to; genitive - anstatt instead of, innerhalb inside, auerhalb
outside, trotz in spite of, whrend during, wegen because of; alternating - an on (vertical
surface), auf on (horizontal surface), hinter behind, vor before, in front of, ber over,
unter under, in in, neben next to, zwischen between
1

(1) a. Das Kind luft in das Haus.

The child runs in the.ACC house.
The child runs into the house.
b. Das Kind luft in dem Haus.
The child runs in the.DAT house.
The child runs inL the house. 4
This type of alternation, where a preposition can have either a locative or goal interpretation
determined by a variety of factors, is seen across languages. Example (2) illustrates this
alternation in Russian and (3) illustrates a similar alternation in English. In Russian, the
accusative case is typically used to mark the goal of movement and either the locative or
instrumental case is used to mark the location of movements. In English, into marks the goal of
movement and in has a prototypically stative reading. A similar pairing is seen with on and onto,
though most English prepositions can have either a consequent goal or location reading
depending on the context, as with under in (3c,d).5
(2) a. Sobaka sidit v dome.
Dog sits in house.LOC.
The dog is sitting in the house.
b. Sobaka beit v dom.
Dog runs in house.ACC
The dog is running into the house.
(3) a.
b.
c.
d.

(Russian Nikitina 2007)

John walks in the room.

John walks into the room.
The child sat underL the covers.
The child put the book underG the covers.

Whereas German has explicit case marking to determine the goal or location implications of
prepositions, English, excluding into and onto, marks this alternation through context instead of
markings. To explicitly mark the location reading of in, on and other prepositions in English
translations, I will use inL, onL, etc. which can conventionally be read as around in, around on.
Wholly ambiguous prepositions will be marked with L for readings of location and G for readings
of goal.
5
Notably excluding to, which has a strictly dynamic goal reading.
2

In English, into is strictly dynamic. However, in is not strictly stative, meaning there are contexts
in which the location variant in is acceptable with an explicitly dynamic reading. For example,
the use of inG in (4) can be replaced with into, but the use of the nominally stative preposition is
still acceptable on this reading.
(4)

From the car, John ran inG/*inL the house.

Similarly, there are noted examples in Russian where the locative marker is acceptable in
describing an endpoint of motion, as seen in (5).
(5)

Postav vazu na stol/ na stole.

Put vase on table.ACC/ on table.LOC.
Put the vase on the table.

(Russian Nikitina 2007:3)

Beyond English and Russian, there has been similar variation noted in Polish (Cienki 1989:1417), Czech (Belichova-Krzhizhkova 1974; Ungermanov 2005), and Ukrainian (Nedashkivska
2001). In (6)-(8), the French preposition dans is a typically locative preposition, but there are
certain contexts and elements that contribute to a goal reading.
(6)

(7)

(8)

Il court dans le jardin.

He runs in the garden
He runs into the garden.
Allez, courons dans la maison!
Go.2PL, run.IPL in the house
Come on, lets run inG the house!

(French Beavers et al 2010 : 349)

(French Pourcel & Kopecka 2006 : 35)

?#Allez, entrons dans la maison en courant!

Go.2PL enter.IPL in the house in running
Come on, lets enter the house running! (French Stringer 2003 : 46, ex. (7))

Drawing from typologically distinct satellite-framed and verb-framed languages (satellite- and
verb-framed languages to be discussed further in section 3.1) Beavers et al (2010) suggest
directional interpretations of locative adpositions should be available with the appropriate
pragmatic support even in the absence of morphosyntactic devices for directly expressing
3

direction in a PP, (Beavers et al 2010 : 362). This hypothesis is further elaborated in Tham et al
(2012): The process that derives directional readings is available across languages, even in
language types that differ from English (Tham et al 2012). These researchers consistently
propose that locative PPs are reinterpretable as directional PPs in specific pragmatic contexts
across language typologies. These pragmatic contexts vary across languages, but include factors
such as the type of ground or landmark, the verb class (durative v. punctual, change of state v.
change of position, etc.), permanence of the resulting new location, syntactic arrangement, and
the presence of directional particles.
If the conclusion from Tham et al (2012) Beavers et al (2010) is correct, then it is an
attested cross-linguistically available option to encode directed motion using a locational PP in
combination with specific pragmatic contexts, and furthermore this option seems to exist in a
typologically diverse set of languages. From this we might infer that it is a universally available
process. In this thesis I examine the case study of German, a language with an alternation
between explicitly locational and directional encoding, as in Russian. The null hypothesis is that
there should be some contexts where the location (marked by the dative case) can be
pragmatically reinterpreted as the goal of motion (typically marked by the accusative case) in the
same or similar contexts in which this is attested in other languages, contrary to the standard
grammar school rules.
I discuss evidence from corpus data and native speaker intuitions controlling for the
contexts and relevant factors noted for other languages, and show that a divergence from this
alternation was not attested in German. In other words, this study strongly suggests that locations
categorically cannot be reinterpreted as goals in German, and that the universality of pragmatic
reinterpretation as asserted by Tham et al (2012) and Beavers et al (2010) is not valid.

This suggests that the presence of this strategy in a language is itself subject to
independent parametric variation, much like the various factors Beavers et al (2010) suggest
cross-cut other languages, albeit here having to do with a pragmatically conditioned interpretive
process rather than mophosyntactic processes.
To reach this conclusion, I will first review in section 3 the relevant literature attesting to
divergence in the alternation of goal and location marking in languages other than German,
noting specifically the effects of the landmark, the verb, directional particles, and syntactic
arrangement. Section 4 begins the search for divergence from the standard German
generalization by extracting and examining literal uses of unter in the sDeWaC corpus.6 Section
5 details the results found after consulting a native speaker about case acceptability and
subsequent semantic interpretation of novel examples constructed with guidance from
divergence found in other languages. While the factors tested in section 5 clearly affected case
acceptability and semantic interpretation, there was no evidence for reinterpretation of locations
as goals in German. Section 6 discusses the theoretical importance these findings implicate and
suggests further investigation as to why certain languages allow this type of pragmatic
reinterpretation and others do not.

Corpus can be found at: http://wacky.sslmit.unibo.it/doku.php?id=corpora (see Baroni et al.

2009).
5

3. LITERATURE REVIEW
Before discussing German data, I briefly recap relevant background information on the
expression of directed motion across languages, starting with Leonard Talmys typology of
motion expressions, moving to a discussion of contexts outside of German where overtly marked
locations are pragmatically reinterpreted to be the goals of motion.

3.1 Talmys Typology

Languages collectively employ a variety of strategies to describe motion events. In any
discussion of motion in spatial relationships of a language, it is important to begin with an
understanding of Leonard Talmys (Talmy 2000, see also Talmy 1985) verb typology of verbframed and satellite-framed languages. Verb-framed languages (sometimes referred to as path
languages) such as French and Spanish encode the direction of motion in the verb and manner as
a satellite, defined as certain immediate constituents of a verb root other than inflections,
auxiliaries, or nominal arguments. They relate to the verb root as periphery (or modifiers) to a
head, (Talmy 1985). Satellites can include English particles, Russian verb prefixes, Chinese
coverbs, Atsugewi non-inflectional affixes, Germanic (in)separable prefixes, prepositions (and
subsequent case), and postpositional deictic elements. Alternatively, satellite-framed languages
(sometimes referred to as manner languages) such as English, Dutch, and German, encode
manner in the verb and direction in a satellite element. According to this typology, directed
motion expression in a verb-framed language must employ a directional encoding verb, and a
directed motion expression in a satellite-framed language must employ a directional encoding
satellite, otherwise it is to be interpreted as non-directed motion within a location.
6

The examples of Spanish (9a) and English (9b) are prototypical examples of verb-framed
and satellite-framed languages respectively, though it is important to note that this typology is
best interpreted as a tendency rather than a necessity, e.g. satellite-framed languages often have
directionally encoded verbs like the English enter (Beavers et al 2010).
(9) a. Entr corriendo/volando/nadando a la cueva.
enter.pst.3sg running/flying/swimming a the cave
He entered the cave running/flying/swimming. (Spanish Talmy 1985:111)
b. He ran/flew/swam into the cave.

(English Talmy 1985:111)

It is this typology and understanding of German as a satellite-framed language that forms the
foundation to explore the directionality of motion events described by German prepositional
phrases. In German, directionality can be determined in a number of ways, but most often
through a satellite PP and the case on its complement NP.

3.2 Effects of Landmark and Ground

I now turn to the pragmatic effects of landmarks of motion addressed by Israeli (2004),
Estigarribia and Levin (2007), and Nikitina (2008) for interpreting locative expressions as
encoding goals. In a basic motion event, the landmark (sometimes referred to as ground) refers
to the area where the motion takes place or the goal of directed motion (Talmy 1985, Langacker
1987). The aforementioned authors have argued that, in their languages of study, certain qualities
of the motions landmark have an effect on the pragmatic reinterpretation of overtly marked
locations as goals.
3.2.1

Areas v. Container

Nikitina divides landmarks into areas and containers and asserts that inG is more likely to
occur with landmarks that have the qualities of a container. Nikitina distinguishes these
landmarks by the presence (containers) or absence (areas) of well-defined boundaries. In her
7

corpus, Nikitina found that inG was used with 9% of area landmarks and 17% of container
landmarks. While into was always the preferred method for conveying directed movement, there
was a statistically significant difference in the use of directional inG between containers and
areas. She accounts for this difference in frequency by noting that areas are more likely to be
associated with motion with prominent paths, thus using in is more likely to be interpreted as a
locational PP and into is used to explicate the directionality of movement. Thus, because the
landmarks lack distinct boundaries, Nikitina argues that examples like (10b) are more likely to
be interpreted as locational than directional and thus are more likely to employ into to explicate
directed movement, unlike (10a).
(10) a. He walked in the room/backyard/store. (locational or directional)
b. He walked in the city/field/mountains. (locational / ??directional)
(Nikitina 2008 : 187 (19))
For our study, I will test the effect of areas and containers on acceptable case marking to
determine if the dative can ever be reinterpreted as marking a goal of directed motion. From
Nikitinas study, I would expect to find a comparable directional interpretation of a dative
marked PP constituent meaning inG when the motion involves a container landmark.
3.2.2

True Covers v. Cover Proxy

Where containers and areas discussed by Nikitina (2008) pertain specifically to the preposition
in, Estigarribia and Levin (2007) discuss similar constraints on landmarks of under, notably
distinguishing true cover and cover proxies. A true cover seen in (11) is a structure with a clear
enclosed space underneath. It is analogous to a container and more readily receives a directional
reading of under. A cover proxy seen in (12) is a larger entity without ground support. It is
analogous to areas and more readily receive a locational reading of under.

(11) We strolled underG the awning.

(12) We strolled underL the stars.
While the examined preposition has varying types of landmarks due to the spatial information
encoded in the preposition, each preposition exhibiting a directionality alternation has constraints
on the directionality interpretations allowed based on the spatial reality of the landmark.
3.2.3

Tightness of Landmark

This section discusses a noted variation in Russian where an implied boundary crossing is
marked by a locational marker. Israeli (2004) claims there are certain contexts that allow
speakers of Russian to emphasize the motion within a landmark through the use of a locational
marker rather than emphasize the motion across a boundary through the use of a directional
marker. These constraints center around the size of the figure in comparison to the size of the
landmark and how snuggly the figure fits within the landmark and any other occupants of that
space.
In Russian placement verbs the accusative case, like in German, is used to mark the goal of
motion, and either the locative or instrumental case can be used in a stationary event. This
standard generalization for Russian is illustrated by (13a,b).
(13) a. Malik sel na divanA.
boy.NOM.SG sat.PF.M on couch.ACC.SG
The boy sat on the couch.
b. Malik sidel na divaneL.
boy.NOM.SG sat.IPS.M on couch.LOC.SG
The boy was sitting on the couch.

(Israeli 2004)

In concurrence with the standard pragmatic reinterpretation hypothesis and other literature on
directed motion in Russian, Israeli asserts that there is evidence of objects with locational
marking begin reinterpreted as goals of motion given appropriate context or intention of the
9

speaker. An example of this variation in Russian is seen in (14) where word order and emphasis
affect the speakers choice of accusative or locative to mark the landmark, but semantics is the
same.
(14) a. Poves kartinu na stenuA.
Hang.IMP.SG painting.ACC.SG on wall.ACC.SG
Hang the picture on the wall.
b. A na steneL my povesim kartinu.
And on wall.LOC.SG we.NOM hang.1P.FUT.PL painting.ACC.SG
And on the wall we will hang a picture.
(Russian Zaitseva 1994: 112)
Israeli uses the schemas in Figure 1 to illustrate case choice in these placement verbs. The source
of variation comes particularly from the speakers choice between figures 1.3 and 1.4.
Figure 1 Image Schemas, Israeli (2004:9)

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

LOC/INST: No motion
LOC/INST: Path of motion does not cross boundary
ACC: Path of motion crosses boundary
LOC/INST: Path of motion crosses boundary, emphasis on motion inside container

Israeli differentiates figure 1.4 from 1.3 by claiming that though the crossing of a boundary is
implied by the description, it is the motion inside the container that is emphasized and triggers
the otherwise stationary case. Israeli cites Russian examples that clearly imply the crossing of a
boundary, yet are marked by the locative case, as in (15). In this case, the container must be large
enough to contain multiple of the moving objects in question, yet said object when coming to
rest inside the container not snuggly fit (see figure 2.4 below). While (17) and (18) seem
contradictory, Israeli attributes the conflict to a matter of emphasis of motion.
10

(15)

On postavil (stood.PF.TR.M) mainu v garaeL (in garage.LOC.SG), vyel

erez pustuju proxodnuju
He parked the car in the garage, went out through an empty checkpoint
7,8

(16)

Mirona poloili v bolnicuA.

Miron.ACC laid.PF.TR.PL in hospital.ACC.SG
Miron was hospitalized (placed in a hospital).

(Israeli 2004)

Israeli claims that the use of the locative in (15) emphasizes the motion within the container,
rather than the inherent crossing of the container boundary. In (16) the boundary crossing is
emphasized by the use of the accusative, though the ground is also a large container.
Nonetheless, the data show that the locative case can be used to encode a goal.
That said, only certain contexts are subject to a choice of emphasizing the boundary
crossing or the motion within the container, affected primarily by the size of the figure compared
to the size of the landmark. If the figure fits snuggly in the landmark, the accusative must mark
the goal. Only when the figure fits loosely in the landmark is the locative or instrumental case
an option. This fitting model is illustrated by figure 2.
Figure 2 Israelis container illustrations

2.1 ACC: object fits snuggly in container

2.2 LOC/INST: object is much smaller than container, movement inside container is
emphasized
2.3 ACC: object is much smaller than container, but container contains other small objects
2.4 ACC: object is much smaller than container, movement of the boundary crossing is
emphasized

Israeli notes here that the context of this example is a large garage, accommodating more than
one car, that is relatively empty. A car parked in a single car garage would fit the structure of 2.1
and be marked by the accusative.
8
Glossing conventions here borrowed from the source.
11

Israeli notes that objects that fit singularly or snuggly inside a container (a body in a coffin,
a person in a chair, a letter in a pocket, etc., Israeli 2004:16) are regularly are marked by the
accusative case in concomitance with Figure 1.3. The car in the garage in (15) fits loosely, and is
therefore subject to emphasis of the movement within the landmark. Example (17) illustrates the
new case acceptability if the garage discussed in (15) was filled with multiple cars, and the
ground would be marked by the accusative and fit with figure 2.3.
(17)

On postavil (stood.PF.TR.M) mainy v garaA (in garage.ACC.SG), vyel

erez pustuju proxodnuju
He parked the cars in the garage, went out through an empty checkpoint
(Israeli 2004)

Through Figures 1 and 2, Israeli illustrates the relation between the figure and the ground as
pivotal in case choice in Russian placement verbs. In particular, there are certain constraints that
allow a subset of boundary crossings to be described by locational marking. If the figure fits
loosely within the landmark, allowing for emphasizeable movement within the landmark, the
speaker can choose to emphasize this interior movement rather than the boundary crossing
through the choice of locational marking.
Israeli touches on, but does not attempt to address, a second set of variations from
Russians standard generalization. Whereas the above mentioned examples allow for both the
accusative or locative/instrumental markings depending on contextual constraints and speaker
emphasis, there is a second category of variation where not only is locational marking used to
mark a goal, but the accusative is entirely unacceptable. One such example is seen in (18).
(18) a. *On povesil rubaku vo dvorA.
he.NOM hung.PF.TR.M shirt.ACC.SG in courtyard.ACC.SG
He hung his shirt in the yard.

12

b. On povesil rubaku vo dvoreL.

he.NOM hung.PF.TR.M shirt.ACC.SG in courtyard.LOC.SG
He hung his shirt in the yard.
Israeli does not account for this variation, but it will be discussed in German contexts in section
5.5.2.

3.3 Effects of the Verb

Verb class is a second factor to have noted effects on directed motion variation across languages
with the discussed encoding alternation. Specifically, there are categories of verbs that can
describe either directional or locational movement depending on satellite markings, others that
necessitate one type of motion and marking, and more interestingly a set that requires a singular
interpretation, but allows either marking. I also touch on duration and the lexical aspect of verbs
with noted marking tendencies in English, but which will not likely be a factor in German.
3.3.1

Verb Classes

Nikitina breaks down Russian motion verbs into the following classes by their reading and
marking acceptability:

General motion entailment verbs: can combine with either a location-marking or goalmarking satellite to describe location or goal of motion respectively
Inherently undirected motion verbs: disallow goal marking satellites
Inherently directed motion verbs: disallow location marking satellites
Encoding variation verbs: both location and goal satellites mark the endpoint of motion

It is this last category that is of most interest to this study. The verbs that make up this last class
are change of position (saat seat (caus.), klast lay/put/place down, stavit put/place/set,
veat hang (caus.) and their intransitive counterparts), change of state verbs (prjatat hide,
zatoat incarcerate, zaryvat bury, etc.), and less importantly metaphorical motion verbs
(zapisyvat to write down) where both locational and directional PPs can express the goal of

13

motion. The alternation with what Nikitina calls change of position verbs is exemplified in
English through (19).
(19) a. John put the box into his pocket.
b. John put the box in his pocket
Comparing (19) with (20) specifies that this alternation is based in the verb and not the relation
of the figure to the landmark as discussed in section 3.2.3. Essentially, put in English requires a
directional reading, but does not require a directional marking.
(20) a. John put the ping-pong ball into the large empty box.
b. John put the ping-pong ball inG/*inL the large empty box.
A similar variation occurs in Russian, as seen in (21), as well as Polish, Czech, and Ukrainian.
Both the locational and directional markings are acceptable. A similar alternation is illustrated in
(22) with change of state verbs.
(21)

Change of position
Postav vazu na stol/stole.
Put vase on table.ACC/table.LOC.
Put the vase on the table.

(22)

Change of State
Pirat sprjatal zoloto v sunduk / v sunduke.
Pirate hid gold in chest.ACC / in chest.LOC
The pirate hid the gold in a chest.

(Russian Nikitina 2007 : 6)

Examples (19)-(22) arguably involve change in location since there is no explicit contextual
source, but it could be implied which would contribute to the directional reading. But the explicit
lack of change in location in (23) explicates that there is no inherent change of location
necessarily entailed by change of position and change of state verbs.
(23) a. Ja uvidel, to butylka upala, I snova e postavil.
I saw that bottle fell and again it.ACC put.up.
I saw that the bottle fell and put it back into standing position.

14

b. Oni sprijatali korobku, nakryv e gazetoj.

They hid box cover.PRT.PST it.ACC newspaper.INSTR.
They hid the box by covering it with a newspaper.
(Russian Nikitina 2007 : 7)
Both change of position and change of state verbs in Russian allow for a variation of locational
and directional marking. But since there is no inherent change in location in these contexts,
Nikitina accounts for this marking as indicating a result argument rather than a goal argument
and directional reading. Essentially, the NPs marked by accusative in change of position or
change of state verbs do not mark a goal of motion, rather they mark a result state of the verb
action that usually coincides with the endpoint of motion, thus accounting for the alternation.
In relation to German, the first set of change of position verbs is ruled out. The transitive
verbs stellen to put, setzen to sit, and legen to lay, require goal PPs and necessitate use of
the accusative as in (24), and their intransitive counterparts stehen to put/stand, sitzen to sit,
and liegen to lie require location PPs and necessitate use of the dative. Thus the German
corresponding change of position verbs do not fall into the same category of verbs, and
consequently neither do their constituent PPs. While upon further investigation it may reveal that
the constituent PPs may indeed be result arguments, they do not exhibit the same alternation, and
thus I set them aside.
(24)

Stell die Vase auf den/*dem Tisch.

Put the vase on the.ACC/*the.DAT table.
Put the vase onto the table.

Though the acceptability alternation is not attested by change of position verbs in German,
Nikitinas suggestion that the use of the accusative actually indicates a result argument rather
than a goal argument is significant in the interpretation of the uniquely acceptable case in
German. While German does not exhibit the same acceptability alternation, a similar semantic
implication may be possible.
15

3.3.2

Duration and Punctuality

Duration and punctuality of a verb is noted by Nikitina (2008) to influence the choice of a
locational or directional marker in English. Specifically, transition events (punctual verbs) are
more likely than process events (durative verbs) to allow a directional in. While into is always
preferred in English when describing a directional event, Nikitina attests that in is sufficient in
transition events as a directional reading and is more likely to depict a directional motion than
with process events. When describing directionality, process events are more likely to occur with
into to explicate directionality as in can be more easily interpreted in this class of events as
locational than directional.
Nikitina concludes that verbs that tend to describe transitions (such as get, bring, put, dip)
occur more frequently with directional in than verbs that describe inherently unbounded
processes (such as climb, drive, pull, carry) (Nikitina 2008:181). That is to say, with verbs that
describe transitions, the ambiguous in is often read as the goal of the transition, and with verbs
that describe processes, the ambiguous in is often read as the location of the process.
This assertion is backed up by Nikitinas data, which found that a directional interpretation
of in (inG) was used in 19% of cases with transition verbs and 12% with process verbs, a
statistically significant difference. In either case, into is preferred to inG when talking about
directed motion, and the difference between the 19% and 12% is only 3 clauses of the dataset (37
instances of inG with process verbs compared to 40 instances of inG with transition verbs).
This study highlights the relationship between a quality of the verb and the acceptability of
reinterpreting a location as a goal. In English, both durative and punctual verbs allow such a
reinterpretation, however it is more likely to occur during transition events with punctual verbs.

16

3.4 Directional Particles

A third factor affecting pragmatic reinterpretation of locations as goals is directional particles
(Nikitina 2008). These directional particles encode directional information outside of the verb
and satellite ordinarily used to construct directed motion events in both V-framed and S-framed
languages. They serve to specify a directional context, thus mitigating the necessity for
traditional directional constructions, and therefore allowing for reinterpretation of locative
constructions as directional.
Nikitina (2008) uses (25) from her corpus to illustrate how the addition of a directional
particle (in this instance up) emphasizes the directional reading.
(25) She climbed up into one of those orange streetcars, rode away in it, and never
came back.
(English Nikitina 2008 : 181)
Nikitina defines to climb as an unbounded verb, a verb type that most easily lends itself to a
locational reading of in, and that it is the directional particle up that overrides the locational
reading and reinterpretation as directional.
However, this specific example has a few complications, as it does not actually use the
ambiguous in in question, the relevant example is instead reconstructed in (26a). However, there
is a conflict between the movement and the landmark, illustrated in (26b), which suggests
something more along the lines of Israelis container theory (as discussed in section 3.2.3) might
be the source of the directional reading.
(26) a. She climbed up in one of those orange streetcars, rode away in it.
b. She climbed in one of those orange streetcars, rode away in it
Even without a directional particle, (26b) maintains a directional reading, indicating that
directionality in this particular example comes from something other than the directional particle.
While this particular example cited by Nikitina is problematic, a simple reconstruction of the
17

example shows the assertion that directional particles contribute to the directional reading of a
locative marking is valid. The examples in (27) were constructed with the same unbounded verb,
but with a non-conflicting landmark (the trees). In contrast to the streetcar, the trees is a
landmark that can be climbed in an unbounded manner, la Tarzan. Example (27a) maintains a
primarily locational reading, compared to (26b) which has a directional reading. Examples
(27b,c) illustrate that a directional reading can be induced through the use of a directional
satellite or a directional particle.
(27) a.
b.
c.
d.

She climbed in the trees.

She climbed into the trees.
She climbed up in the trees.
She climbed up into the trees.

(location, ??direction)
(direction, *location)
(location, direction)
(direction, *location)

Though the examples provided by Nikitina did not strongly support the assertion as they
were compounded by other directional influences, a reconstruction controlling for other
directional influences reveals that the addition of directional particles specifies the directional
contexts, rendering the directional satellite unnecessary to attain a directional reading. Through
the use of a directional particle in English, a location can be reinterpreted as the goal of
movement.

3.5 Effects of Syntactic Arrangement

A fourth factor noted to affect the reinterpretation of locations as goals is the order of constituent
phrases in a sentence. Specifically, a locational reading is preferred if the PP is topicalized, or
comes before the contextual information necessary for a directional reinterpretation. This pattern
is noted in English (Nikitina 2008, Thomas 2001, 2005) and in Russian (Nikitina 2008).
Illustrated in English, (28a) is less likely to receive a directional reading where the PP precedes
the context, as compared to (28b) which easily is read as directional.

18

(28) a. ?? In this pool John fell.

b. John fell in this pool.

(Nikitina 2008 : 182)

Russian allows for a fairly free rearrangement of constituent elements, as case aids in
interpreting argument roles. While the traditional syntactic arrangement illustrated by (29b)
allows for an alternation in interpretation, the preposing of the PP in (29a) disprefers the
accusative marking.
(29) a. V kuxne na ?9stenu / na stene ja povesil asy.
In kitchen.LOC on ?wall.ACC/on wall.LOC I hang clock.
In the kitchen on the wall I hang a clock.
b. Jam povesil asy v kuxne na stenu / na stene.
I hang clock in kitchen.LOC on wall.ACC/on wall.LOC.
I hang the clock in the kitchen on the wall. (Russian Blazhev (1988:64-5))
The comparison of (29a) to (29b) indicates that topicalizing the location in (29a) prefers the use
of locational PPs. In other words, (29a) emphasizes the place where the clock is being hung and
(29b) emphasizes the change of location of the clock, while both imply motion and change of
location of the clock.
The conclusions from these studies indicate that syntactic arrangement, particularly
preposing the alternating argument in question, can make an ordinarily alternating PP show
preference for a particular marking or reading. In practice, this means this study will need to
control for syntactic arrangement lest the variation is missed.

3.6 Proximity of Figure to Landmark

In English, the proximity of the figure, or the moving object, to the landmark affects the
availability of the directional reinterpretation of in (Thomas 2005, Tham et al 2012). A

Here and below, a single question mark identifies another possible marking that retains the
same semantic interpretation, but indicates the dispreference for this form compared to the
alternative.
19

directional reading is more available for in the closer the figure is to the landmark. The locational
in in (30a) receives a directional reading more easily than in (30b) because the figure is closer to
the landmark.
(30) a. Pat walked inG the study from the kitchen.
b. #Pat walked inG the study from a mile away.
When considering border-crossing events, it will be pertinent to examine the scalable proximity
of the figure to the landmark and its effect on case acceptability or preference in German.

3.7 Evidence of Reinterpretation Across Typologically Distinct Languages

The previously discussed literature pertains primarily to satellite-framed languages in preparation
for a comparison to German, another satellite-framed language. But this directional
reinterpretation hypothesis is supported by evidence from across typologically distinct languages
given similar contextual constraints on the verb, aspect, and landmark, which suggests it is a
natural phenomenon of language not contingent on language type.
In particular, in verb-framed languages, systematically distinct from satellite-framed
languages, traditionally locative prepositions can be interpreted as directional events given a verb
that implies displacement (running and flying verbs), punctual aspect, and specific types of
landmarks (Tham et al. 2012). In other words, the same factors that contribute to directional
readings of locative PPs in satellite-framed languages affect reinterpretation in verb-framed
languages like Italian in (31), Spanish in (32), and French (6)-(7), despite the lack of an
alternative explicit goal-marking satellite.
(31)

La rodine volata al nido.

The swallow is fly.PSTPRT at.the nest
The swallow flew to the nest.

(Italian Tham et al 2012 : 6 (15))

20

(32)

Michel corre al Molino y destruye el cementerio.

Michel run to.the mill and destroy the cemetery
Michel runs to the mill and destroys the cemetery.
(Spanish Fbregas 2007: 168, (3b))

Even languages outside of the standard verb-framed and satellite-framed languages show
evidence for directional reinterpretation of locative markings. Mandarin, an equipollently-framed
language, uses coverbs, lexical units exhibiting properties of both verbs and prepositions (Li and
Thompson 1981), to express location and directionality.10 The coverb zi in isolation is read
exclusively as locative, in contrast with the directional coverbs do arrive/to and jn enter.
However, given similar contexts that govern reinterpretation in S- and V-framed languages, zi
can receive a directional reading, as seen in (33)-(34).
(33)

Dio zi shu-li
Drop be.at water-within
drop into the water

(34)

Wuya yu jio-le y sheng fei zi qing-shang

Crow again call-ASP one sound fly be.at wall-upon
The crow cawed once more, and flew onto the wall.
(Mandarin Tham et al. 2009)

While the variation is not identical across languages (the exact verbs contributing to a directional
reading in one language do not always correspond exactly in another language), there are
consistent patterns suggesting that certain types of verbs, like displacement, transition, and
arriving verbs, and types of landmarks contribute to the directional reinterpretation of nominally
locative markings along with other contextual patterns. Guided by the principal that there are
cross-linguistic patterns contributing to directional reinterpretations, the reinterpretation
hypothesis suggests that German should allow this reinterpretation given similar contexts.

10

In equipollently-framed languages, both manner and path are both encoded as main verbs
(Beavers et al. 2010).
21

4. CORPUS STUDY
4.1 Goals of Study
In quick review, the traditional understanding of the use of either accusative or dative case in
German to mark the complement NP of a motion prepositional phrase is that accusative marks
the NP as the goal of the motion and dative marks the NP as simply the location of the motion.
As evidenced by the previously discussed literature, in languages that exhibit a similar
goal/location dynamic, there are certain situations where this is complicated or there are
exceptions to this rule. Specifically, I am looking to either corroborate or refute the interpretation
of Beavers et al (2010) and Tham et al (2012) that languages universally can reinterpret locations
to be goals under certain pragmatic conditions. In the context of German, I am looking for data
where the dative is used to mark a NP that is understood to be the goal of motion.11

4.2 Optimality Theory Guided Case Choice

This study primarily concerns itself with the set of alternating prepositions, searching for a
divergence from the standard generalization and a reinterpretation of an overtly marked location
PP as a goal PP. I note at the outset that this strategy leaves out the majority of prepositions,
notably zu to, which is an overtly directional preposition, yet it is a strictly dative preposition:

11

The languages exhibiting reinterpretation behavior universally reinterpreted locations as goals,

never reinterpreting goals as locations. Though not attested in other languages, this study was
conducted to look for any abnormality or divergence from the standard generalization. Thus
additional consideration was given to examine if ever the accusative was used to mark a NP that
was understood to be the location of movement (or semantic role other than goal). No evidence
of this was found either, and I do not discuss it further here.
22

its complement must always take the dative case. This demonstrates that dative case can be
associated with a goal reading if it is lexically fixed or the only possible complement case for a
given preposition. Zwarts (2006) discusses a hierarchy of constraints in Optimality Theory that
accounts for case choice with non-alternating prepositions, placing lexicalized case above
contextually determined case. The question I address here is not whether dative can in general
ever encode a goal, but rather whether it does when it alternates with accusative.
While this study was primarily concerned with alternating prepositions, one tested example
explored the possibility of combining directional selecting verbs (stellen, legen, and setzen) and a
strictly dative preposition, bei by, at. For this quick study, setzen to sit was left out as it
required an object with an anatomical seat. The examples in (35b) and (36b) exhibit the
standard generalization when an accusative preposition is used. A native speaker was unsure as
to which case was acceptable in (35a), suggesting that an unacceptability lay in an improper
combination of verb and preposition. But it is the result of (36a) which was quite unexpected.
While there was a preference to use an alternative preposition to communicate this event, the
native speakers intuition was that the accusative, not the dative case was acceptable, and she
suggested that (36a) might be a colloquialism, or something a rural grandmother might say.
(35) Legen to lay sth.
a. Ich lege das Buch bei *den/*dem Baum.
I lay the book by the.ACC/the.DAT tree.
I lay the book by the tree.
b. Ich lege das Buch neben den/*dem Baum.
I lay the book next to the.ACC/*the.DAT tree.
I lay the book next to the tree.
(36) Stellen to put sth.
a. Ich stelle das Buch bei den/*dem Baum.
I put the book by the.ACC/*the.DAT tree.
I put the book by the tree.

23

b. Ich stelle das Buch neben den/*dem Baum.

I put the book next to the.ACC/*the.DAT tree.
I put the book next to the tree.
The preference for the accusative NP with a nominally dative (non-alternating) preposition in
(36a) evidences dialectic divergence from standard categorization of German prepositions. While
this finding does not exhibit the directional reinterpretation of a locational PP, it suggests that the
categorical groupings of German prepositions deserve revisiting. The exceptional acceptability in
(36a) suggests that, at least in dialects of German, standard rules guiding prepositions are
squishy and a divergence from the standard generalization about alternating prepositions might
be possible given proper contexts.

4.3 Methodology of Corpus Study

Following in the example of studies like Nikitina (2008) and Estigarribia and Levin (2007), I
consulted the Stuttgart DeWaC corpus (Baroni et al 2009), built from downloaded web text, to
pull relevant examples for consultation with a native speaker as to the nuance and possible nonstandard readings of the examples event structures as defined by case marking of the dual
prepositions constituent noun phrase. The aforementioned studies looked at contexts
surrounding in/into and underL/underG in a corpus and were able to describe a set of contexts
delineating each variation as acceptable, unacceptable, or alternate.
In efforts to pull a manageable set of data, I used a coded script to pull sentences with the
co-occurrences of unter and a variety of strategically chosen verbs of displacement, punctuality,
intention, and manner.12 Of the dual case prepositions, unter was chosen as it is less likely to be

12

The following are the strategically chosen verbs: laufen to walk, fahren to drive, steigen to
climb, werfen to throw, fliegen to fly, rollen to roll, wandern to wander, gleiten to glide,
schwimmen to swim, tanzen to dance, krabbeln to crawl, rennen to run, hpfen to
jump/bound, schlngeln to wiggle, streifen to roam, wackeln to totter, radeln to bike,
24

an element of a separable prefix or particle verb, it is likely to be used in describing literal, not
metaphorical, motion, and it is predicted that it will be easy to determine the source, route, and
goal of the given syntactic event.
From this set of data I manually reviewed the sentences and further extracted only
examples where unter was a dependent of the verb in question. Further complicated by Germans
widespread use of particle verbs, which often use prepositions as a non-literal complement to
invoke a semantic meaning distinct from that of the main verb, these examples were further
narrowed to keep only the examples where unter was used in a literal sense of referring to an
event happening under some physical object, not say, under the supervision/gaze/cheers of the
overseer/neighbors/crowd.

4.4 Results of Corpus Study

Of the 1,017,199 sentences from the corpus with unter, 16342 occurred concurrently with our
chosen verbs. Of these, 1293 fit our constraints of being constituents of the verb and literal
usage. Of these examples, I manually selected examples likely to coerce a pragmatic
reinterpretation based on the contexts discussed above for a final set of 48 examples.
Specifically, I was looking for examples of non-standard usage of accusative and dative marking.
A native speaker confirmed that all of these examples nonetheless fit the standard generalization
of accusative marking goals and dative marking locations of motion. A comparable study of
English (Nikitina 2008) found 15% of 518 clauses from a narrowed corpus had a non-standard
usage of in to mark direction. While under does not have a comparable directional variant
(*underto), Estagarribia and Levin (2007) found an alternation of 81% directional readings and

bummeln to stroll, joggen to job, hinken to limp, traben to trot, humpeln to hobble,
hoppeln to scuttle, hopsen to hop, rudern to row, trieben to float.
25

19% locational readings of under. Having tested similar constraints on the German corpus, it is
extremely surprising to have found absolutely no alternation or divergence in German case
marking.
While the absence of divergence is striking given the breadth of the corpus study, it could
be attributed to a number of assumptions and constraints aimed at limiting the data. It could be
that an alternation is not available for unter but is for in, or there is another context outside of
verb class that allows for the directional interpretation of locational marking. The constraints
imposed to make the data manageable theoretically could have eliminated the sought after
exceptions. Thus a second methodology of constructing examples was used to further examine
the expanded contexts in which a deviation from the standard generalization might occur in a
more systematic and controlled manner.

26

5. NATIVE SPEAKER CONSULTATION

5.1 Methodology of Native Speaker Consultation
Given the cross-linguistic patterns attested across language type contributing to directional
reinterpretation of locations, a second methodology involved constructing novel examples
guided by the attested patterns to determine if similar interpretations exist in German. These
novel examples were constructed to test effects of manner of motion, duration and aspect of
motion, types of landmarks, syntactic arrangement, and directional particles on the interpretation
of events with locative markings. These examples were then discussed with a native speaker to
determine if they could be given directional interpretations.
While the type of context given was a large factor in determining acceptability of either
case, the choice of presentation of the context had no affect on acceptability. When explicit
context was necessary to elicit an unacceptable use of a case, examples like (37) were used to
ensure that the presence or adjacency of explicit context (like route or source) did not affect the
resulting interpretation and acceptability of case use. Some examples were given the context as
an English statement while others had the context explicit in the German example itself. In either
situation, it was the sheer fact that there was context, not the way it was presented to the speaker,
which determined the acceptability of a given case.13

13

Examples in the following section may employ one or both of these context presentation
strategies as the data permit, but the strategy of context presentation proved to have no affect on
acceptability and should not be considered a testable factor.
27

(37) a. Sie luft in die/der Bar. (No context)

She walks in the.ACC/the.DAT bar.
She walks into/inL the bar.
b. CONTEXT : The woman is standing outside the entrance
Sie luft in die/*der Bar.
She walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT bar.
She walks into the bar.
c. Von gerade auerhalb des Eingangs, luft sie in die/*der Bar.
From right outside the.GEN entrance, walks she in the.ACC/*the.DAT bar.
From right outside the entrance, she walks into the bar.
Universally, when the context required a directional reading, the use of dative (locative) marking
was determined to be ungrammatical, and reinterpretation as a directional PP was not possible.
With ambiguous contexts, either marking was acceptable, albeit with the interpretation guided by
the standard generalization. The data found by both the corpus study and constructed example
methodologies strongly suggests that the directional reinterpretation hypothesis is not available
in German.

5.2 Irrelevant Factors

In creating examples to test with a native speaker, I created examples to test for a variety of
factors mentioned in the literature which contributed to either ambiguity or interpretation
preference in languages exhibiting the discussed alternation other than German. The following
are factor that were deemed to have no relevant effect on the acceptability of either case.
Manner Verbs
Evidence presented by Beavers et al (2010) (see section 2, examples (6)-(7)) suggests that certain
contexts allow for reinterpretation of PPs in combination with manner verbs (generally given a
locational reading in verb-framed languages) to allow a goal reading. Further evidence in
satellite-framed languages suggested that the locational inL was used more often (compared to
28

inG or into) with verbs encoding distinct manner of motion (Nikitina 2008). The sentences shown
in (38) were constructed to test the effect of manner-heavy and manner-neutral verbs on
acceptability of directional or locational readings.
(38) a. Der Mann luft/fhrt/spaziert/springt in das/dem Zimmer.
The man walks/drives/wanders/jumps in the.ACC/the.DAT room.
The man walks/drives/wanders/jumps into/inL the room.
b. Der Mann luft/fhrt/spaziert/springt in den/dem Wald.
The man walks/drives/wanders/jumps in the.ACC/the.DAT forest.
The man walks/drives/wanders/jumps into/inL the forest.
While it was found that certain qualities of a verb do contribute to case acceptability (to be
discussed in section 5.5), manner was not one of them. The manner encoded in verbs did not
contribute to a divergence from the standard generalization, nor did it necessitate the use of a
particular case. Both cases were acceptable depending on the interpretation.
Syntactic Arrangement
As discussed in section 3.5, English and Russian showed a preference for locational readings
when the PP was topicalized and thus presented before the context. But German has a high
tolerance for topicalization while retaining meaning, and thus case preference is not affected by
syntactic arrangement. The comparison of (a-b) in examples (39)-(41) reveals that PP
topicalization does not change the acceptability of a given case nor the interpretation, and is thus
not a relevant factor when considering acceptability of cases in description of motion events.
(39) a. Der Mann spaziert in den/dem Wald.
The man wanders in the.ACC/the.DAT forest.
The man wanders into/inL the forest.
b. In den/dem Wald spaziert der Mann.
In the.ACC/the.DAT forest wanders the man.
Into/inL the forest wanders the man.

29

(40) a. Der Mann geht in das/*dem Zimmer.14

The man goes in the.ACC/*the.DAT room.
The man goes into the room.
b. In das/*dem Zimmer geht der Mann.
In the.ACC/*the.DAT room goes the man.
Into the room goes the man.
(41) a. Der Mann luft in das/dem Zimmer.
The man walks in the.ACC/the.DAT room.
The man walks into/inL room.
b. In das/dem Zimmer luft der Mann.
In the.ACC/the.DAT room walks the man.
The man walks into/inL the room.
While manner-verbs and syntactic arrangement were noted to have an effect on alternation
acceptability or preference in languages other than German, they exhibited no tendencies in our
constructed examples of German to prefer one case marking to the other. These factors can be
ruled out when considering factors affecting case acceptability or preference in German.

5.3 Motion-Landmark Conflicts

In the absence of specific context the standard generalization states that both accusative and
dative markings are acceptable, albeit with different interpretations. Given a certain set of
constraints on the verb and the landmark, this generalization holds. However, when the context is
such that one reading or the other is ruled out due to the nature of the landmark, one marking
becomes acceptable and the other unacceptable. The unacceptable marking cannot be
reinterpreted as a location or goal. This strongly suggests that reinterpretation is not possible.
The following sections discuss the variation in acceptable cases when a motion does not conflict

14

Given enough context focusing the motion within the room, the dative can be acceptable with
the interpretation of going back and forth inside the room, but the accusative use and intention
is consistently more likely in practice.
30

with a landmark, conflicts with a landmark, or conflicts with the source of motion and no
exterior context is presented.
5.3.1

Motion Does Not Conflict With Landmark

When a motion can logically be accomplished within the bounds of the landmark, the use of the
dative is available to mark location and accusative is available for a directional interpretation.
This alternation of acceptable cases and subsequent interpretations is illustrated in (42). The
movements described by the verbs in (42) can reasonably be accomplished within the given
landmark, thus both case markings are available depending on semantic intention.
(42) a. Der Mann luft in das/dem Zimmer.
The man walks in the.ACC/the.DAT room.
The man walks into/inL the room.
b. Er fhrt in die/der Stadt.
He drives in the.fem.ACC/the.fem.DAT city.
He drives into/inL the city.
c. Er fhrt in die Berge/den Bergen
He drives in the.pl.ACC/the.pl.DAT mountains
He drives into/inL the mountains.
Walking can be accomplished in a room or can be a method of displacement into the room, thus
either case marking is acceptable for (42a) depending on the intention of the speaker. The
examples in (43) further illustrate possible case and interpretations when a movement does not
conflict with the given landmark.
(43) a. Der Mann luft in das/dem Haus.
The man walks in the.ACC/the.DAT house.
The man walks into/inL the house.

31

b. Der Mann luft/spaziert/wandert/bummelt15 in den/dem Wald.

The man walks/strolls/wanders/ambles in the.ACC/the.DAT forest.
The man walks/strolls/wanders/ambles into/inL the forest.
c. Er fhrt auf die/der Rennstrecke.
He drives on the.masc.ACC/the.masc.DAT racetrack.
He drives onto/onL the racetrack.
d. Er fhrt in die/der Garage.
He drives in the.fem.ACC/the.fem.DAT Garage.
He drives into/inL the Garage.
e. Sie luft/spaziert/wandert/bummelt in die/der Bar.
She walks/strolls/wanders/ambles in the.ACC/the.DAT bar
She walks/strolls/wanders/ambles into/inL the bar.
f. Er tanzt mit seiner Frau in das/dem Zimmer.
He dances with his wife in the.ACC/the.DAT room.
He dances into/inL the room with his wife.
g. Er hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/dem Zimmer.
He limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/the.DAT room.
He limps/jogs/dances into/inL the room.
h. Er hinkt/joggt in das/dem Feld.
He limps/jogs in the.ACC/the.DAT field.
He limps/jogs into/inL the field.
These data are of course unsurprising given the standard generalization. When a particular
motion does not conflict with the landmark, either case (and corresponding interpretation) is
acceptable.

15

Verbs with high unintentionality like stroll, wander, or amble are unlikely to be used in the
context of crossing a boundary and thus use of the accusative would be rare and unusual, but
conceptually it is possible.
32

5.3.2

Motion Conflicts with Landmark

When motion conflicts with the landmark such that the specific motion within the landmark is
not possible, there is a preference for the accusative case because a locative interpretation is
either impossible or highly unlikely. This conflict of motion and landmark is best illustrated by
Israelis container illustration (see figure 2.1) where a movement is not logically possible given
the spatial configuration of the landmark. In section 3.4 I discussed the conflict between climb
and streetcar as the likely source of a directional interpretation in English. Climb in an
unbounded, continuous sense as demanded by a locational interpretation is logically improbable,
if not impossible, in the confines of a streetcar.
Example (44a) recreates this situation in German. Whereas English can reinterpret the
locative in as directional, German instead disallows the dative case and permits only the
accusative. This contrasts with (44b) in which the movement of walking does not inherently
conflict with the spatial configuration of the streetcar landmark. In comparing (44a) and (44b) it
is evident that it is not the presence of a directional particle (as was claimed by Nikitina 2008),
the unbounded nature of the verb (both steigen and laufen can be unbounded), or the size of the
figure that contributes to the locational marking acceptability. Rather it is the spatial requirement
of locational motion that conflicts with the spatial reality of the given landmark which allows
only a directional marking of (44a).
(44) a. Sie steigt in die/*der Straenbahn.
She climbs in the.F.ACC/*the.F.DAT streetcar.
She climbs into the/*inL the streetcar.
b. Sie luft in die/der Straenbahn.
She walks in the.F.ACC/the.F.DAT streetcar.
She walks into/ inL the streetcar.
A typically unbounded verb (like steigen to climb) is used to describe a bounded, transition
event in combination with a container-type landmark. However, laufen, also a typically
33

unbounded verb, is unaffected in case preference by the nature of the landmark. There is a
fundamental spatial requirement necessitated by a locative interpretation of steigen that is not
met by Straenbahn (i.e. steigen in the unbounded sense is physically not possible in the
confines of a streetcar). This suggests that there are spatial requirements for normally nondirected motion events that, when not met by the landmark necessarily yield a directional
reading, and in the case of German, require an explicit directional marking.
While this conflict of spatial requirements on motion and landmark spatial reality yields a
reinterpretation of locations as goals in languages other than German, this reinterpretation is not
available in this context in German and the conflicting marking is simply unacceptable rather
than reinterpreted.
5.3.3

Motion Conflicts with Source

In testing a set of contexts where the motion described conflicted with a source of motion, a new
subset of case marking constraints unattested by previous literature was discovered. Whereas a
conflict between motion and landmark yielded the accusative as the only acceptable marking,
(45) and (46) suggest that a conflict between the motion and the source yields the dative as the
only acceptable marking through similar logic.
(45)

CONTEXT: He jumps into the pool, then starts swimming

Er schwimmt in *die/der Schwimmbahn.
He swims in *the.ACC/the.DAT swimming lane.
He swims inL the swimming lane.

(46)

Er rudert in *den/dem See.16

He rows in *the.ACC/the.DAT lake.
He rows inL the lake.

16

The accusative variant is acceptable only when context specifies motion from one body of
water to another, as in rowing into the lake from a connecting river.
34

In (45), technically the swimmer is not swimming until they are actually in the water. Before the
jumping motion, they are standing, not swimming. In fact, it would not be possible to be on land
and have the moment of transition from cement to water to occur through swimming. A sense
of prototypical context accounts for the lack of explicit context for (46). Accusative would only
be acceptable if the rower was somehow in the boat on land, and through rowing actions, scooted
into the water and continued to row. In both examples, the type of motion described by the verb
conflicts with the source to elicit only a description of the post-transition motion and thus the
exclusive use of the dative case.
In comparison to the conflict discussed in section 5.3.2, this conflict derives from the
spatial requirements of the motion conflicting with the spatial realities of the source. Though
further data is needed to strengthen this hypothesis, (45) and (46) suggest that a conflict between
motion and source necessitates the dative as a description of only the post-transition event.
Though this conflict does not yield a reinterpretation diverging from the standard generalization,
it contributes to the understanding of case marking acceptability in German motion events.

5.4 Effects of Landmark

Section 3.2 discussed the effects of the landmark on possible directional reinterpretations of
locations. This section explores the effects of the type of landmark in German.
5.4.1

Areas v. Containers

As was discussed in English (Nikitina 2008, Tham et al 2012) and Russian (Israeli 2004) in
section 3.2, the quality of the landmark affects the preference for a locative or directed
interpretation. As evidenced by the alternation with container landmarks in (47) and area
landmarks in (48), German shows no preference for locational or directional case marking.

35

(47)

Die Frau luft in die/der Bar // das/dem Zimmer.

The woman walks in the.ACC/the.DAT bar // room.
The woman walks into/inL the bar // room.

(48)

Die Frau luft in den/dem Wald // das/dem Feld.

The woman walks in the.ACC/the.DAT forest // field.
The woman walks into/inL the forest // field.

In contrast to the increased English preference for directional in with containers (Nikitina 2008)
because of the defined boundary, German makes no distinction between the borders of areas or
containers. Rather the determination of a border-crossing event is determined by the choice of
case. Given no source context, the type of landmark, whether a container or area, was found to
have no preference for a locative or dynamic marking.
However, when context gave the source of motion indicating the presence or absence of a
border crossing, only the case marking corresponding to the directional (border crossing:
accusative) or locational (no border crossing: dative) event was acceptable. The examples in (49)
illustrate case choice in German where contextual evidence implicates the source of movement
as either on the inside of a border, the outside of a border, or on the border regardless of border
type.
(49) a. Non-Border Crossing
Sie steht in der Kche und dann luft sie in *das/dem Haus.17
She stands in the kitchen and then walks she in *the.ACC/the.DAT house.
She stands in the kitchen and then walks inL the house.
b. Border Crossing
Von dem Auto, luft sie in die/*der Bar.
From the.DAT car, walks she in the.ACC/*the.DAT bar.
From the car, she walks into the bar.
c. Source on the Border
Vom Waldrand, luft sie in den/??dem Wald
From the.DAT forest.border, walks in the.ACC/??the.DAT forest.
From the edge of the forest, she walks into/??inL the forest.
17

In context of traditional kitchen located inside the main building of house, not in separate
extension.
36

When the contextual source is inside the border of the landmark as in (49a), there is explicitly no
directionality and only the dative is acceptable. When the contextual source is outside the border
of the landmark as in (49b) there is explicit directionality and only the accusative is acceptable.
When the source of movement is explicitly on the border of the landmark, regardless of the type
of landmark, the accusative is always preferred. However, in this third context the dative could
be used to emphasize the movement within the landmark, though this expression would be rare
and somewhat unnatural. The use of the dative in this context is acceptable, but not preferred.
Examples (50) and (51) provide further evidence of exclusive dative acceptability in nonborder crossing events and accusative preference in on the border events.
(50)

Non-Border Crossing Events

a. Er hinkt/joggt/tanzt in *das/dem Zimmer von innerhalb des Zimmers.
He limps/jogs/dances in *the.ACC/the.DAT room from inside the.GEN room.
He limps/jogs/dances inL the room from inside the room.
b. CONTEXT: Man is in the room
Er hinkt/joggt/tanzt in *das/dem Zimmer.
He limps/jogs/dances in *the.ACC/the.DAT room.
He limps/jogs/dances inL the room.
c. CONTEXT : Standing in the pool, jumping
Er hpft/springt in *das/dem Pool
He hops/jumps in *the.ACC/the.DAT pool.
He hops/jumps inL the pool.
d. CONTEXT : Man starts from standstill in the lake, then starts rowing
Er rudert in *den/dem See.
He rows in *the.ACC/the.DAT lake.
He rows inL the lake.
e. CONTEXT : Swimming in one swimming lane
Er schwimmt in *die/der schwimmbahn.
He swims in *the.ACC/the.DAT swimming lane.
He swims inL the swimming lane.

37

(51)

On the Border Events

a. CONTEXT : Man is standing in the doorway to the room.
Er hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/??dem Zimmer.
He limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/??the.DAT room.
He limps/jogs/dances into/??inL the room.
b. CONTEXT : Woman is standing in entrance way and then enters bar.
Sie luft/spaziert/wandert/bummelt in die/??der Bar.
She walks/strolls/wanders/ambles in the.ACC/??the.DAT bar.
She walks/strolls/wanders/ambles into/??inL the bar.
c. CONTEXT : Man is standing on the edge of the forest.
Er hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/??dem Feld.
He limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/??the.DAT field.
He limps jogs/dances into/??inL the field.
d. CONTEXT : Man starts from delta, between the river and lake.
Er rudert in die/??dem See.
He rows in the.ACC/??the.DAT lake.
He rows into/??inL the lake.
e. CONTEXT : Man is sticking head out of the water, body is in the water, and
then he ducks under the water.
Der Mann schwimmt unter das/??dem Wasser.
The man swims under the.ACC/??the.DAT water.
The man swims underG /??underL the water.

In contrast to within the landmark and on the border motion, a border-crossing event involves
a scalable distance in terms of how close the figure is to the landmark. This proximity of the
figure to the landmark contributes to the allowance of a directional reinterpretation of in in
English the closer the figure is to the landmark (Thomas 2004, Tham et al 2012) as discussed in
section 3.6. Effect of proximity in the border-crossing event is tested in (52).
(52) a. CONTEXT : The woman is standing outside the entrance
Sie luft in die/*der Bar.
She walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT bar.
She walks into the bar.
b. Von gerade auerhalb des Eingangs, luft sie in die/*der Bar.
From right outside the.GEN entrance, walks she in the.ACC/*the.DAT bar.
From right outside the entrance, she walks into the bar.

38

c. CONTEXT : The woman is standing by her car in the parking lot, then enters
bar
Sie luft in die/*der Bar.
She walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT bar.
She walks into the bar.
Whether the woman in question (52) is close to or far from the border she crosses, the acceptable
case and reading is the same, indicating that in German, border-crossing events are also binary. If
there is a border-crossing event, no matter how far the figure is from the landmark, only the
accusative is acceptable. In German, proximity does not allow for the directional reinterpretation
of a location. Examples (53)-(59) are further evidence that proximity does not affect casemarking choice in border-crossing events.
(53) a. Er luft/hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/*dem Zimmer von auerhalb des Hauses
He walks/limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/*the.DAT room from outside
the.GEN house.
He walks/limps/jogs/dances into the room from outside the house.
b. CONTEXT : Man is standing outside of the house
Er luft/hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/*dem Zimmer.
He walks/limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/*the.DAT room from outside
the.GEN house.
He walks/limps/jogs/dances into the room from outside the house.
(54) a. CONTEXT : Man is standing outside of the room.
Er luft/hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/*dem Zimmer
He walks/limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/*the.DAT room.
He walks/limps/jogs/dances into the room.
b. Er luft/hinkt/joggt/tanzt von der Kche in das/*dem Wohnzimmer.
He walks/limps/jogs/dances from the.DAT kitchen in the.ACC/*the.DAT
living room.
He walks/limps/jogs/dances from the kitchen into the living room.
c. Er luft/hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/*dem Zimmer von einem anderen Zimmer.
He walks/limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/*the.DAT room from a.DAT different
room.
He walks/limps/jogs/dances into the room from a different room.

39

d. Er luft/hinkt/joggt/tanzt durch den Gang des Hauses in das/*dem

Wohnzimmer.
He walks/limps/jogs/dances through the entrance the.GEN house in
the.ACC/*the.DAT living room.
He walks/limps/jogs/dances through the entrance of the house into the living
room.
(55) a. Er schwimmt in die/*der Schwimmbahn von der benachbarten Schwimmbahn.
He swims in the.ACC/*the.DAT swimming lane from the neighboring
swimming lane.
He swims into the swimming land from the neighboring lane.
b. CONTEXT : from two lanes over, enters the lane
Er schwimmt in die/*der Schwimmbahn.
He swims in the.ACC/*the.DAT swimming lane.
He swims into the swimming lane.
(56)

Er rudert in den/*dem See von dem Fluss.

He rows in the.ACC/*the.DAT lake from the.DAT river.
He rows into the lake from the river

(57) a. CONTEXT : From the edge of the pool

Er hpft/springt in den/*dem Pool.
He hops/jumps in the.ACC/*the.DAT pool.
He hops/jumps into the pool.
b. Er steht neben dem Pool und dann hpft/springt er in das/*dem Pool.
He stands next the.DAT pool and then hops/jumps he in the.ACC/*the.DAT
pool.
He stands next to the pool and then he hops/jumps into the pool.
c. Er luft von dem Haus und hpft/springt in den/*dem Pool.
He runs from the house and hops/jumps in the.ACC/*the.DAT pool.
He runs from the house and hops/jumps into the pool.
(58) a. CONTEXT : Man is standing inside the forest.
Er luft in das/*dem Feld.
He walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT field.
He walks into the field.
(59) a. CONTEXT : Woman is standing just outside the forest (not on the border)
Sie luft in den/*dem Wald.
She walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT forest.
She walks into the forest.
b. Von auerhalb des Walds, luft sie in den/*dem Wald.
From outside the.GEN forest, walks she in the.ACC/*the.DAT forest.
From outside the forest, she walks into the forest.

40

c. CONTEXT : Woman is standing half a mile from the forest.

Sie luft in den/*dem Wald.
She walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT forest.
She walks into the forest.
Summarizing these examples, there are three possible scema with corresponding acceptability of
accusative or dative illustrated by Figure 3.
Figure 3 Border Crossing Schema

3.1 ACC only

3.2 ACC highly preferred, DAT highly dispreferred
3.3 DAT only
Otherwise stated, the German standard generalization can be illustrated as the following:
Figure 4 German Standard Generalization
SOURCE GOAL ACC
SOURCE = GOAL DAT
If the source and goal were explicitly different, the accusative is the only acceptable case. If the
source and goal were explicitly identical, the dative is the only acceptable case. Some variation
occurs when the mover is on the border of a container. Accusative is preferred, but dative is
acceptable and seems to emphasize the movement inside the container (similar to Israelis
schema for Russian). While this might suggest a kind of reinterpretation of dative as marking a
goal, given the context it is just as likely to reflect some degree of speaker indeterminacy

41

regarding whether being on the border is considered being inside or outside the landmark, and
thus there is no reason to reject the standard generalization based solely on this data.
5.4.2

Nested Landmarks

I now consider an unusual case where the figure in motion is located within a nested landmark
and motion occurs crossing the boundary of the innermost landmark, but not the outermost
landmark. The specific context of nested landmarks, as seen in (60), at first glance seems to
exhibit alternating features similar to the divergence attested in languages other than German
where both the accusative and dative are acceptable markings to describe the same event.
Though they describe the same event physically happening, (60a) emphasizes the border of the
forest (thus no border crossing) and (60b) emphasizes the border of the car (thus a border
crossing).
(60) a. CONTEXT : Car is on a road in forest.
Vom Auto, luft/spaziert/wandert/bummelt sie im Wald.
From the car, walks/strolls/wanders/ambles she in the.masc.DAT forest.
From the car she walks/strolls/wanders/ambles inL the forest.
b. CONTEXT : Car is on a road in forest.
Vom Auto, luft/spaziert/wandert/bummelt sie in den Wald.
From the car, walks/strolls/wanders/ambles she in the.masc.ACC forest.
From the car she walks/strolls/wanders/ambles into the forest.
When examining the semantic consequences for the alternate case use, it is clear that the choice
of accusative and dative reveal conflicting interpretations. The use of the dative in (60a) is not
referring to the forest as the goal of a motion, rather it is emphasizing that the movement of
exiting the car is located within the forest, compared to the emphasis of exiting the car in (60b).
Thus nested landmark events are not evidence of directional reinterpretations of goals.

42

5.5 Effects of Verb Classifications

As discussed in section 3.3, certain classes of verbs are attested to allow a directional
reinterpretation of locations. This section explores the effect of verb class on case marking
acceptability and the possibility of allowing the reinterpretation of a dative marker to mean the
goal of motion.
5.5.1

Directed Motion Verbs

Zwarts categorizes parken as a verb of directed motion (Zwarts 2006 : 5), but in comparison
with other verbs that encode directionality, it does not function similarly (in section 5.5.2 I argue
that it is in fact not a verb of directed motion). Verbs of directed motion, such as werfen to
throw or fallen to fall, entail a trajectory, but their interpretation as either directed or locative
can vary with proximity and spatial configuration, as is suggested in (61).
(61) Fallen to fall
CONTEXT : Man standing on the table, then falls onto the table
a. Der Mann fllt auf *den/dem Tisch.
The man falls on *the.ACC/the.DAT table.
The man falls onL the table.
CONTEXT : Man falls from a second floor balcony.
b. Der Mann fllt auf den/*dem Tisch.
The man falls on the.ACC/*the.DAT table.
The man falls onto the table.
While (61a) prefers a locative interpretation, it is truly a locative reading and not reinterpreted to
mean the goal of motion. When the source of directed motion is exclusively distinct from the
goal of motion, the sentence follows the standard generalization and only the accusative is
acceptable.18

18

There are four, well-documented directional-PP selecting verbs that can be considered a subset
of directed motion verbs: stellen, legen, setzen, and hngen. Not only are they verbs of directed
43

Zwarts claims that parken is also a directed motion verb, and therefore that it does not
require the use of accusative goal marking. He claims, in fact, that this marking is redundant,
which is why the goal constituents of parken use the dative marking. But parken does not behave
in the same way other verbs of directed motion (like fallen or werfen) behave above. Unaffected
by context, parken uniformly selects a location (dative) PP, as evidenced in (62).
(62) a. Er parkt das Auto vor *das/dem Haus.
He parks the car before *the.ACC/the.DAT house.
He parks the car in front ofL the house.
b. Er stellt das Auto vor das/*dem Haus.
He puts the car before the.ACC/*the.DAT house.
He parks the car in front ofG the house.
(German Zwarts 2006 : 6 (9b))
This same directionality pattern is evidenced in English, as seen in (63) and (64).
(63) a. He parked the car inL the garage
b. He parked the car *into/inG the garage.
(64) a. He put the car ?inL the garage.
b. He put the car into/inG the garage.
Discussion with a native speaker confirmed that the action described by parken was not merely
putting the gear into park (which would suggest a purely locational reading and thus restricted
dative marking), as there is some implied motion involved (see (65b)) and you can apply the
verb to non-car figures (see (65c)).
(65) a. CONTEXT : Man is stopped in the car in the driveway, puts gear into park
Er parkt das Auto vor *das/dem Haus.
He parks the car before *the.ACC/the.DAT house.
He parks the car in front ofL the house.
b. CONTEXT : Man drives into the driveway then parks
Er parkt das Auto vor *das/dem Haus.
He parks the car before *the.ACC/the.DAT house.
He parks the car in front ofL the house.

motion, but also they inherently require a goal constituent in the form of a directional
(accusative) PP.
44

c. Er parkt das Fahrrad vor *das/dem Haus.

He parks the bike before *the.ACC/the.DAT house.
He parks the bike in front ofL the house.
Comparatively, stellen can be used to describe the same event, only it selects for a goal PP.
(66) Stellen, to put
a. Er stellt das Auto vor das/*dem Haus.
He puts the car before the.ACC/*the.DAT house.
He parks the car in front ofG the house.
b. CONTEXT : Man is sitting in the car in the driveway, stopped, puts gear into
park
Er stellt das Auto vor das/*dem Haus.
He puts the car before the.ACC/*the.DAT house.
He parks the car in front ofG the house.
c. CONTEXT : Man drives into the driveway, then parks
Er stellt das Auto vor das/*dem Haus.
He puts the car before the.ACC/*the.DAT house.
He parks the car in front ofG the house.
d. Er stellt das Fahrrad vor das/*dem Haus.
He puts the car before the.ACC/*the.DAT house.
He parks the bike in front ofG the house.
Rather than being a verb of directed motion that lexically encodes the dative case, I claim that
parken falls into a separate category of inherently direction-less change-of-state by motion
verbs, similar to the result verbs mentioned by Nikitina in section 3.3.1. Parken patterns more
like the verbs in (67) and (68) than verbs of directed motion. These change-of-state by motion
verbs describe the end result of a motion, but have no inherent direction in themselves per se,
and thus cannot have a constituent goal PP, necessitating the use of the dative case.
(67) Verbergen/verstecken to hide
a. Sie verbirgt das Buch unter *den/dem Tisch.
She hid the book under *the.ACC/the.DAT table.
She hid the book underL the table.
b. CONTEXT : Takes from shelf in living room, hides under table in bedroom
Sie verbirgt das Buch unter *den/dem Tisch.
She hid the book under *the.ACC/the.DAT table.
She hid the book underL the table.
45

c. Sie verbirgt sich in *den/dem Schrank.

She hid herself in *the.ACC/the.DAT cabinet.
She hid herself inL the cabinet.
(68) Erscheinen, to appear
a. Der Mann erscheint unter *das/dem Wasser.
The man appears under *the.ACC/the.DAT water.
The man appears underL the water.
b. Der Mann erscheint unter *die/der Decke.
The man appears under *the.ACC/the.DAT canopy.
The man appears underL the canopy.
c. Er erscheint in *die/der Tr.
He appears in *the.ACC/the.DAT door.
He appears inL the doorway.
d. Von auerhalb des Hauses, erscheint der Mann in *die/der Tr.
From outside the.GEN house, appears the man in *the.ACC/the.DAT door.
From outside the house, the man appears in the doorway.
Directed motion verbs can take a locational or directional PP given the context, but change-ofstate by motion verbs describe a resulting state that happens after motion. This resulting state
does not require any directionality in and of itself; therefore it gives rise to a locational marking.
These verbs are thus not evidence of the dative used to mark the goal of motion because they do
not actually describe motion. la Nikitina, these change-of-state by motion verbs describe the
location of the resulting state.
5.5.2

The Clothesline Problem

In analyzing an exceptional example from Israeli (2004), I discovered a subset of change-of-state

by motion verbs that I hypothesize actually encode the goal in the verb through the use of a
separable prefix. Israeli notes a specific example in Russian that would typically take the
accusative case in Russians standard generalization, but in the instance of (69) the accusative
marking is unacceptable (a subsequent example cites a parallel unexpected marking for the

46

Russian verb for to park). Israeli does not hypothesize as to the source of this unexpected
marking, but I explore it here in the context of German.
(69) a. *On povesil rubaku vo dvorA.
he.NOM hung.PG.TR.M shirt.ACC.SG in courtyard.ACC.SG
He hung his shirt in the yard.'
(Russian Israeli 2004 : 5 (7))
b. On povesil rubaku vo dvoreL.
He.NOM hung.PF.TR.M shirt.ACC.SG in courtyard.LOC.SG
He hung his shirt in the yard.
There are several ways to describe this particular event in German using a set of verbs
(aufhngen to hang up, suspend hngen to hang, legen to lay/set) and a set of goals (der Hof
the yard, die Leine the line, die Wand the wall). I have tested several iterations of these
verb-goal combinations in (70)-(72) to isolate the source of the difference.
(70) Aufhngen to hang/suspend sth.
a. Er hngt sein Hemd auf *den/dem Hof auf.
He hangs his shirt on *the.ACC/the.DAT yard up.SP
He hangs his shirt up inL the yard.
b. *Er hngt sein Hemd auf die/der Leine auf.
He hangs his shirt on the.ACC/the.DAT line up.SP.
He hangs his shirt up onL the line.
c. Er hngt das Bild an *die/der Wand auf.
He hangs the picture on *the.ACC/the.DAT wall up.SP.
He hangs the picture up onL the wall.
(71) Hngen to hang
a. Er hngt sein Hemd auf den/*dem Hof.
He hangs his shirt on the.ACC/*the.DAT yard.
He hangs his shirt inG the yard.
b. Er hngt sein Hemd auf die/*der Leine.
He hangs his shirt on the.ACC/*the.DAT line.
He hangs his shirt onG the line.
c. Er hngt das Bild an die/*der Wand.
He hangs the picture on the.ACC/*the.DAT wall.
He hangs the picture onto the wall.

47

(72) Legen to lay sth.

a. Er legt sein Hemd auf den/*dem Hof.
He lays his shirt on the.ACC/*the.DAT yard.
He lays his shirt inG the yard.
b. #Er legt sein Hemd auf die/der Leine.
#He lays his shirt on the.ACC/the.DAT line.
He lays his shirt on the line.
Categorically aufhngen necessitates using the dative case and hngen necessitates using the
accusative case. Legen requires a horizontal surface; therefore the examples of the picture on the
wall and the shirt on the line in (72b) are necessarily unacceptable from a conflict between verb
and landmark. A similar conflict between verb and landmark is seen in (70b) as, according to the
native speaker, Leine does not meet the location qualifications required by a PP of aufhngen.
In comparing (70) and (71), the difference in acceptability is seen in the verb choice
rather than landmark choice. In consultation with a second native speaker about the general event
types associated with aufhngen, I determined that aufhngen falls in the category of change-ofstate by motion verbs. Specifically, aufhngen is used to describe the end-state of the hanging
motion, like suspending a flag on a pole, while hngen falls into the class of directional PP
selecting verbs.
What makes aufhngen different than the other change-of-state by motion verbs,
however, is that it is actually a directional PP selecting verb, but the directional PP has become a
part of the verb. This can be envisioned by a question test:
Where did he hang his shirt/the picture?
Answer for (70): Up.
Answer for (71): In the yard, on the line, on the wall.
The goal of motion is encoded as auf- in aufhngen, therefore, any additional spatial PP must be
read as a location rather than the goal of motion. This verb thus functions in the same way as the

48

change-of-state by motion verbs, but the goal of the motion that the verb is describing the end of
is encoded in the verb itself. Further evidence of this verb class is exhibited by (73).
(73) Ankommen to arrive
a. Er kommt an *die/der Station an.
He comes on *the.ACC/the.DAT station on.SP.
He arrives atL the station.
b. Er kommt unter *die/der Decke an.
He comes under *the.ACC/the.DAT canopy on.SP.
He arrives underL the canopy.
c. Von Frankreich, kommt der Mann an *den/dem Berliner Bahnhof an.
From France, comes the man on *the.ACC/the.DAT Berlin Station on.SP.
From France, the man arrives at the Berlin Station.
This may be more of a historical note on the development of the verb, but it has important
connections to the role of syntactic elements and post-positional particles to be discussed in
section 5.6.
5.5.3

Verb Summary

The following table summarizes the verbs I have explored:

Type of Verb

Subset

Directed-motion
Verbs
Dir.PP-selecting
Verbs
Change-of-state by
motion verbs
Goal-encoding Verbs

Verbs

Case

Fallen to fall,
werfen to throw

Accusative or Dative,
Depending on
Reading
Accusative

hngen to hang,
stellen to put, legen
to lay, setzen to sit
parken parken,
verstecken to hide,
verbergen to hide,
erscheinen to appear
aufhngen to hang
up, suspend,
ankommen to arrive

Dative

Dative

49

There are two main types of verbs I have explored, directed-motion verbs and change-of-state by
motion verbs, which are subsequently divided into four distinct categories. One set of directed
motion verbs select for a directional PP as a goal of motion, while another set of directed motion
verbs can select for a directional or locational PP depending on context. Of the change-of-state
by motion verbs, one set describes the location of the resulting state of motion through
lexicalization and the other set describes it through a compound construction. Crucially, though,
in free alternation dative never comes to encode a goal the interpretation is always locational,
and dative is judged unacceptable if this is not compatible with the context, rather than
undergoing reinterpretation as in other languages.

5.6 Effects of Syntactic Elements

In this section I discuss the effects of syntactic elements discussed in section 3.4 in German
contexts.
5.6.1

Directional Particles

Directional particles in German, like other languages mentioned in section 3.4, serve to explicate
the context of an event and are a cornerstone of directional context. Abraham (2003) even argued
that the German alternating prepositions did not actually alternate, that these prepositions only
governed the dative and the use of accusative and implied directionality is derived from either an
overt or covert (i.e. unexpressed, but semantically present) deictic particle. While this explication
of context in languages other than German by use of directional particles allows for a directional
reinterpretation of a location, the explicit directional context in German instead necessitates the
use of the accusative.
Nikitina (2008 : 181) notes that directionally ambiguous prepositions in English were
made explicitly directional with the insertion of a directional element, as in (74).
50

(74) If I dont come back in the house, Breeds going to (Nikitina 2008 : 181 (8b))
The addition of back serves to explicate the source of motion as exterior to the house, making the
source and goal different and in is reinterpreted as a directional PP. The examples in (75) show
the addition of zuruck back to similarly explicate the source of motion as distinct from the goal.
Unlike English however, the locative marking is disallowed rather than reinterpreted.
(75) Goal-marking particles (zuruck back)
a. Der Mann luft zuruck in das/*dem Zimmer.
The man walks back in the.ACC/the.DAT room.
The man walks back into the room.
b. Der Mann schwimmt zuruck unter das/*dem Wasser.
The man swims back under the.ACC/*the.DAT water.
The man swims back underG the water.
c. Es geht zuruck in das/*dem Wasser.
It goes back in the.ACC/*the.DAT water.
It goes back into the water.
d. Es geht zuruck unter das/*dem Wasser.
It goes back under the.ACC/*the.DAT water.
It goes back underG the water.
German has complementary locational particles that similarly specify the context of a motion,
shown in (76), and explicate the source of movement as the same as the goal of movement.
(76) Locational particles
a. Der Mann geht in *das/dem Zimmer auf und ab/hin und her/herum.
The man goes in *the.ACC/the.DAT room there and back/here and there.
The man goes back and forth (paced) inL the room.
Whether directional or locational in nature, German particles serve to explicate context where
not otherwise explicit and the consequent case is used according to the acceptable interpretations.
German post-positional particles are another subset of directional particles and must be
placed at the end of a sentence. The pairs of sentence presented in (77-9) illustrate how the post-

51

positional particles explicate the context, necessitating the use of accusative when the particle is
included.
(77) a. Sie luft in die/der Straenbahn.
She walks in the.ACC/the.DAT streetcar.
She walks into/inL the streetcar.
b. Sie luft in die/*der Straenbahn hinein.
She walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT streetcar into.
She walks into the streetcar.
(78) a. Sie klettert in die/den Bamen.
She climbs in the.ACC/the.DAT trees.
She climbs into/inL the trees.
b. Sie klettert in die/*den Bamen hinauf.
She climbs in the.ACC/*the.DAT trees up.
She climbs up into the trees.
(79) a. Sie klettert auf den/dem Berg.
She climbs on the.ACC/the.DAT mountain.
She climbs onto/onL the mountain.
b. Sie klettert auf den/*dem Berg hinauf.
She climbs on the.ACC/*the.DAT mountain up.
She climbs up onto the mountain.
The inclusion of a postpositional particle serves primarily to specify directionality where it is not
already clarified. The use of steigen in (80) disallows the dative, as opposed to klettern, due to
lexically encoded telicity. The type of movement described by steigen involves smaller climbing
motions like climbing a ladder or into a car that has a specified end. The inclusion of a postpositional particle in (80b) merely serves to emphasize the directionality of the parent sentence.
(80) a. Sie steigt auf den/*dem Berg.
She climbs on the.ACC/*the.DAT mountain.
She climbs onto the mountain.
b. Sie steigt auf den/*dem Berg hinauf.
She climbs on the.ACC/*the.DAT mountain up.
She climbs up onto the mountain.
The function of post-positional particles in German corroborates Nikitinas assertion that
directional particles specify directional contexts to allow exclusively directional readings.
52

However, this effect is limited to contexts like (77)-(79) where either interpretation is possible
given the use of the proper case. The inclusion of directional particles has no tangible effect on
contexts where directionality is already implied by presented contexts. Rather than allowing the
directional reinterpretation of the dative case, the inclusion of a directional particle necessitates
the use of the accusative. Still, the larger point is that when the reading is directional, accusative
becomes obligatory.
5.6.2

The Bridge Problem (Alternation in Path Encoding)

With the set of alternating prepositions, the complement case choice traditionally marks goal or
location PPs. However, there is evidence of case choice marking a third argument: the entire
path. While the interpretation of goals and locations in German through case choice has so far
proved unambiguous, the strategy for encoding a complete path through case choice does not
exhibit similar rigidity.
The following pattern is exhibited through the combination of case and post-positional
particles in (81): ACC marks the goal of motion as under the bridge, DAT marks the location of
motion as under the bridge, DAT+PostPos particle marks the path of motion as under the bridge,
and ACC+PostPos particle is unacceptable.
(81) a. Er schwamm unter die Brcke.
He swam under the.ACC Bridge.
He swam underG the bridge.
b. Er schwamm unter der Brcke.
He swam under the.DAT bridge.
He swam underL the bridge.
c. Er schwamm unter der Brcke hindurch.
He swam under the.DAT bridge through.
He swam through the under side of the bridge.
d. #Er schwamm unter die Brcke hindurch.
He swam under the.ACC bridge through.
He swam through the under side of the bridge.
53

Considering the standard generalization as envisioned by Figure 4, (81c) is not as surprising as it

may seem. In the event of swimming under a bridge and out the other side, the location under the
bridge is not the goal of movement, the other side of the bridge is. The source and goal of this
movement are both not under the bridge, therefore the dative is used and accusative is
unacceptable. Alternatively, the motion event could be understood where hindurch indicates a
path of motion and the dative marks the location of the path.
However, this cannot be made into a generalization about possible combinations of case
and post-positional particles across alternating prepositions, given contradictory evidence in
(82c) where it is a combination of ACC+PostPos particle that marks the path of movement, and
DAT+PostPos particle is unacceptable in (82d).
(82) a. Er luft auf die Brcke.
He walks on the.ACC bridge.
He walks onto the bridge.
b. Er luft auf der Brcke.
He walks on the.DAT bridge.
He walks onL the bridge.
c. Er luft auf die Brcke hinber.
He walks on the.ACC bridge across.
He walks across the bridge.
d. #Er luft auf der Brcke hinber.
He walks on the.DAT bridge across.
He walks across the bridge.
This pattern is similarly evidenced through elaboration on an example from Israeli (2004) seen in
(84) where again, ACC+PostPos particle mark the path of movement.
(83) a. Das flugzeug flog ber der Stadt.
The airplane flew over the.DAT city.
The airplane flew over the city. [remaining above the city, inside its
airspace]

54

b. Das Flugzeug flog ber die Stadt.

The airplane flew over the.ACC city.
The airplane flew over the city. [crossing the airspace above the city]
(German Israeli 2004 : 8 (16))
(84)

Das flugzeug flog ber die/*der Stadt hinber.

The airplane flew over the.ACC/*the.DAT city across.
The airplane flew over the city.

While in (83a) the airspace above the city is indeed the only location of motion, the airspace is
not the goal of motion in (83b); it is the path. Where traditionally the accusative marks the goal
of motion, here it marks the path. The DAT+PostPos particle is used to mark a path in (81c)
while ACC+PostPos particle is used to mark a path in (82c) and (84).
Yet another alternation of path encoding is seen in (85). In this case, the path of walking
across the bridge can be conveyed by ACC (85a), ACC+PostPos particle (85c), or DAT+PostPos
particle (85d). (85c) emphasizes the bridge, while (85d) emphasizes the action of walking across.
(85) a. Er luft ber die Brcke.
He walks over the.ACC bridge.
He walks over the bridge and stops in the middle.
-ORHe walks over the bridge to the other side.
b. Er luft ber der Brcke.
He walks over the.DAT bridge.
He is walking in some space above the bridge (e.g. on a tightrope).
c. Er luft ber die Brcke hinber.
He walks over the.ACC bridge across.
He walks across the bridge.
d. Er luft ber der Brcke hinber.
He walks over the.DAT bridge across.
He walks across by way of the bridge.
Instead of exhibiting an alternation in the encoding of goals, German exhibits an alternation in
the expression of path. While it is not the sought after directional reinterpretation of a location,
German does exhibit an alternation in path encoding given the use of a dative PP (as in (81c) and
(85d)) and accusative PPs (as in (82c), (83b), (84), (85a), (85c)) being both interpreted as the
55

path of motion. It is clear that the encoding of path of motion through case in German deserves
further study.

56

6. CONCLUSION
Given explicit context or intention, German nonetheless still adheres to the standard
generalization of case choice with alternating prepositions. Through two methodologies, this
study strongly suggests that German does not employ the directional reinterpretation of locations
as goals exhibited across other typologically diverse languages. Given the breadth of languages
across typologies that employ some version of this pragmatic reinterpretation, the absence of this
strategy in German as determined by this study is striking and necessitates the reconsideration of
this pragmatic tool as a natural phenomenon of language, placing limits on the assertions by
Tham et al (2012) and Beavers et al (2010). Though this study did not find evidence for the
pragmatic reinterpretation of locations as goals, it did provide evidence that German has a richer
morphological system for encoding direction and path, whether through prepositions, case,
compound prefix verbs, or post-positional particles, than is typically discussed.
It is tempting to address the reason why, of all languages, German does not allow this
widely attested exception. One theory may point to the fact that many languages exhibiting this
alternation involve some amount of explicit additional information (in is shorter than into) where
the locational variant is shorter and easier to say, but in German the locational variant is not
actually unmarked in any obvious way, thus there is no pragmatic reason to use it over the
directional variant. Such an assertion would also conflict with the attested reinterpretations
available in Russian, which uses a case marking system almost identical to German. The
locational variants in Russian often include more information than the directional variants,
further conflicting with any lexically based pragmatic use.

57

The simplest and likeliest reason draws on parametric variation: the idea that there is a set
of tools languages can choose from to express ideas and German just opts out of this pragmatic
variation, similar to how it opts into a case system. But this motion specific parametric variation
is itself a novel finding in the study of motion typologies. A key tenant allowing for the
pragmatic reinterpretation evidence presented by Beavers et al (2010) centers on their
redefinition of Talmyan typologies. Specifically, they claim that the apparent categories of
motion encoding typologies are not guided by any motion specific parameters; rather motion
encoding is guided by a broader set of lexical, morphological, and syntactic grammatical devices
available to languages, which are exploited by languages in encoding motion and thus derive
apparent motion encoding typologies, defining these typologies as actually based on more
general grammatical resources. The findings from this study, however, suggest that there is at
least one motion specific parameter available to languages: the ability to reinterpret locations as
goals. Unless this parameter derives from some deeper interpretive process, which has yet to be
determined, the pragmatic reinterpretation of locations as goals is a motion specific parameter
available to languages when encoding motion.
The impact of this study is two-fold. Firstly, it provides evidence of the first known
exception to the proposed universal ability of languages to reinterpret locations as goals.
Secondly, it provides evidence that there is in fact at least one motion specific parameter that
guides motion-encoding strategy in language. The natural question following this study is
whether there are other languages showing a similar rigidity in goal encoding and whether there
are other motion specific parameters that guide motion-encoding strategies available to
languages. I hope this study of the interpretation of German directional prepositional phrases will

58

provide groundwork for other studies of motion-encoding strategy and motion specific
parametric variation.

59

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abraham, Werner. 2003. The myth of doubly governing prepositions in German. In E. Shay &
U. Seibert (eds.), Motion, Direction and Location in Languages. In honor of Zygmunt
Frajzyngier. 19-38. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Typological Studies in
Language 56).
Baroni,M., S. Bernardini, A. Ferraresi and E. Zanchetta. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A
Collection of Very Large Linguistically Processed Web-Crawled Corpora. Language
Resources and Evaluation 43 (3): 209-226.
Beavers, John, Beth Levin, Shiao Wei Tham. 2010. The Typology of Motion Expressions
Revisited. J. Linguistics 46: 331-377.
Belichova-Krzhizhkova, E. 1974. Prostranstvennaia determinaciia v russkom i v cheshskom
iazykax. M. Zatovkaniuk, T.I. Konstantinova and A.G. Shirokova (eds.) Konfrontan
stadium rusk a esk gramatiky a slovn zsoby: Sopostavitelnoe izuchenie grammatiki
i leksiki russkogo i cheshskogo iazykov, vol. 1. 92-118. Prague: Universita Karlova.
Cienki, Alan J. 1989. Spatial Cognition and the Semantics of Prepositions in English, Polish,
and Russian. Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Dikken, Marcel den. 2003. On the syntax of locative and directional adpositional phrases. Ms.
The Graduate Center of the City University of New York.
Estigarribia, Bruno & Beth Levin. 2007. When can UNDER mean *UNDER TO? Eighth Annual
Semantics Fest, Stanford University: March 2007.
Fbregas, Antonio. 2007. The exhaustive lexicalization principle. Nordlyd: Troms Working
Papers in Linguistics 24: 165-199.
Gehrke, Berit. 2006. On directional readings of locative prepositions. To appear in the
proceedings of ConSOLE XIV in Vitoria-Gasteiz, 2005.
Haider, Hubert. 2010. The Syntax of German. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Israeli, Alina. 2004. Case choice in placement verbs in Russian. Clossos. Issue 5 (Summer
2004): 1-54.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Nedashkivska, Alla. 2001. Wither or where: Case choice and verbs of placement in
contemporary Ukrainian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 9: 213-51.
60

Nikitina, Tatiana. 2007. Variation in the encoding of goals and static locations in Russian. Ms.
Stanford University.
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2008. Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals. In A.
Asbury, J. Dotlacil, B. Gehrke, R. Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P,
175-195. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 2007. Case in Spatial Adpositional Phrases: The Dative-Accusative
Alternation in German. In G. Alboiu, A. Avram, L. Avram, & D. Isac (eds.) Festschrift
for Alexandra Cornilescu,
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen
(ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3: Grammatical Categories
and the Lexicon, 57-149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. A Typology of Event Integration. Towards a Cognitive Semantics:
Typology and Processing Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tham, Shiao We, Beth Levin, John Beavers. 2012. Directional interpretations with locative
prepositions. Presented at The Meaning of P, Bochum, Germany: November 2012.
Thomas, E. 2001. On the expression of directional movement in English. Essex Graduate Papers
in Language and Linguistics 4: 87-104.
Thomas, E. 2005. On syntactic versus semantic telicity: Evidence from In and On. In H.
Cuyckens, W. de Mulder & T. Mortelmans (eds.) Adpositions of Movement, 145-166.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ungermanov, Marta. 2005. Locative complements of verbs of movement in Czech: Some
typical structures and their interpretation. H. Cuyckens, W. de Mulder, & T. Mortelmans
(eds.) Adpositions of Movement. 87-113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zaitseva, Valentina. 1994. The metaphoric nature of coding: Toward a theory of utterance.
Journal of Pragmatics 22. 103-126.
Zwarts, Joost. 2006. Case Marking Direction: The Accusative in German PPs. Presented at the
Variation and Stability in Grammar workshop. Nijmegen: Radaboud University
Nijmegen, April 2006.
Zwarts, Joost. 2010. A hierarchy of locations: evidence from the encoding of direction in
adpositions and cases. Linguistics 48: 983-1009.

61

8. BIOGRAPHY
Amanda Haight was born on June 2, 1993 and raised in Austin, Texas. She attended the Liberal
Arts and Science Academy of Austin from 2007-2011. Upon graduating, she enrolled at the
University of Texas at Austin with majors in Plan II Honors and Linguistics. During her time at
UT, she served as president and co-founder of the Undergraduate Linguistics Society, an
Associate Editor for The Daily Texan, participated as an actor in the UT Theatre Department,
and was an active member of Texas Spirits. Amanda graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Kappa
Phi in the fall of 2015 and will join Bain & Company as an Associate Consultant in Fall 2016.

62