Noun – Special uses of the Dative

ObjectivesLearning objectives

• An overview of the syntax and semantics of the dative

VocabularyVocabulary

SyntaxSyntax-semantics: Noun – Special uses of the dative

As we have seen, datives can introduce recipients and instruments (3.1.4.2), individuals affected by the event in some way (11.3.3.2), specific time periods in which an event takes place (30.1.3.2), and individuals who have a particular perspective on the eventuality (46.1.3.2). To these uses, the following may be added:

More nuanced meanings could be added as well, but these uses give us a general picture of what the dative is doing. Datives modify eventuality descriptions by introducing an additional participant or quality. How the dative modifies the eventuality description depends on the nature of the noun in dative case, the nature of the eventuality, and the syntactic position of the dative. The basic contrast we laid out in 11.3.3.2 was between non-core datives vs. core datives. Whereas core datives change the nature of the eventuality in some way, non-core datives do not. This basic distinction runs through the entire system and all uses of the dative. Non-core datives receive various interpretations based on the semantics of the clause to which they are related. For example, the difference between 2 Cor 5:13 and Phil 1:21 (used as examples in 11.3.3.2 and 46.1.3.2) is that the former refers to an activity while the latter refers to a state.

Because actions involve change and changes affect people, we interpret the non-core dative in examples like 2 Cor 5:13 as referring to people who are affected in some way by the action. In contrast, an assertion like ‘to live is Christ and to die is gain’ does not involve change and so cannot affect someone in the same way. However, that assertion can be believed by someone, which is why the non-core dative refers to someone who believes the assertion to be true when the predicate is a state.

Core datives, as we have suggested, affect the nature of the eventuality in some way. All the examples in the beginning of this section are core datives. The nature of the eventuality changes when the dative is used. To take (619) as an example, when the noun in the dative refers to a quality rather than a person, the manner interpretation holds. Likewise, argument datives like we see in (620) are found with verbs where the argument introduced by the dative is not affected by the action. The eventuality referred to in προσκυνήσει τῷ θεῷ does not involve a change in the argument τῷ θεῷ by virtue of the event occurring. In contrast, accusative arguments do normally involve some change in the argument (see 1.3.3.3).3 The following chart lists the different kinds of datives, including whether they are core datives or non-core datives as well as some of their basic syntactic and semantic characteristics:

1 In the syntactic literature on datives, core datives are often classified as what are called “low applicatives”, and non-core datives are classified as “high applicatives.” Applicatives are arguments introduced in the eventuality and their relative “position” refers to whether they are found higher up in the clause (outside of the VP) or lower in the clause (inside the VP); see Cuervo (2003) and Pylkännen (2008) for more discussion and a much more in-depth treatment of datives.

2 It should be noted that many grammars categorize datives based on their interpretation rather than their syntactic function, so we would categorize them differently. To illustrate, the verb μαρτυρέω takes a dative argument that introduces the person who is witnessed against. Wallace (1996:143) as well as Kostenberger, Merkle, and Plummer (2020:126–127) categorize datives with μαρτυρέω as datives of disadvantage, even though the dative introduces an argument of the verb. The argument here would be that such instances are a different category from true non-core datives, and they must be interpreted based on other contextual principles outside the meaning of the verb itself. This is true of all the examples cited by these authors for the dative of disadvantage. In each example, the best syntactic analysis is probably that the dative is introducing a participant in an event, and that event happens to be negative. I do not know of a good example of a non-care dative being interpreted negatively in the NT. Some languages lack this use altogether. This suggests that Greek does not, in fact, have the category of a “dative of disadvantage” or a non-core dative malefactive.

3 Verbs that take genitive arguments also do not normally have affected arguments. I leave the difference between dative and genitive arguments open for further research.

Table 430 (continued)