Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 24] 2018
► pp. 181–210

Constructions as cross-linguistic generalizations over instances

Passive patterns in contact

The study takes the position that constructions (as form–meaning–function constellations) are not by definition language specific. This position is supported and illustrated with a case where different types of passive constructions in one language come in contact with ways of expressing comparable meanings and functions in another language. The functions of the constructions in the languages are in many respects similar, albeit that the languages express these functions differently in form. This opens up the very question of what is to be counted as “the same form” in two different languages, which leads to an approach where semantic and pragmatic features are given a more central place in the constructional analysis.
The two languages and their contact features investigated are Finnish and Swedish, and in particular the Solv dialect of Swedish, i.e., languages that are both typologically and genetically very different from each other. Actives and passives are seen as constituting different patterns that speakers orient to and use; patterns are not constructions in the traditional sense of form–meaning pairs, but constructions as meaning–function constellations. The study suggests that what we may interpret as Swedish dialects having borrowed features from Finnish in their passive constructions is rather the result of a long-standing cultural give-and-take situation between Finnish and Swedish in the Solf community.
Keywords: Finnish, Swedish, passive, patterns, language contact, Construction Grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Passives – a brief overview
  • 3.Passives and actives as linguistic resources
  • 4.Patterns and constructions: Swedish
  • 5.The Finnish “passive”
  • 6.Patterns, language contact, and language change
  • 7.Solf Swedish
  • 8.Constructional pattern contact
  • 9.Implications
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.06ost
References (68)
References
Ackerman, F., & Webelhuth, G. (1998). A theory of predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (Ed.). (2010). Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1974). Meaning and form. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 36, 218–233.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1977). In defense of spontaneous demotion: The impersonal passive. In P. Cole, & J. Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical relations (pp.59–81). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An introduction. New York-Hove: Psychology Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engelberg, M. (2016). Yleispätevä mies: Suomen kielen geneerinen, piilevä ja kieliopillistuva maskuliinisuus [‘The omnipotent man: The generic, latent and nascent grammaticization of masculinity in Finnish’] University of Helsinki: Nordica Helsingiensia 44.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Eds.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1988). The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. BLS 14 (pp.35–55). University of California. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). Grammatical Construction Theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich, & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp.17–38). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2010). A Frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp.313–339). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., P. Kay, & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let alone. Language, 64(3). 501–538.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
FrameNet. Retrieved from [URL].
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp.11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T. R., & Alho I. (2004). Iso Suomen Kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Retrieved from [URL].Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O. (Eds.). (2016). Constructions across grammars. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In K. Braunmüller, & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp.241–257). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(this volume). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar.
Hölzl, A. (2018). Constructionalization areas: The case of negation in Manchu. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (241–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, P., & Hinchliffe, I. (2008). Swedish. An essential grammar. [2nd ed.] London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern Grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1937). Analytic syntax. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. (2017). Finnish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1975). Some universals of passive in Relational Grammar. CLS, 11, 340–352.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. (Ed.). (2006). Nordiske sprogholdninger. En masketest [‘Nordic language attitudes. A matched-guise test’]. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T., & Grondelaers, S. (Eds.). (2013). Language (de)standardization in late modern Europe: Experimental studies. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Kuzar, R. (2012). Sentence patterns in English and Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laakso, V., & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Minority, but non-confrontational. Balancing on the double-edged sword of hegemony and ambivalence. In J. Freeland, & D. Patrick (Eds.), Language rights and language survival (p.67–85). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1971). Passive resistance. CLS, 7, 149–162.Google Scholar
Lasch, A. (2016). Nonagentive Konstruktionen im Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leino, J., & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Constructions and variability. In M. Fried, & H. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions. Back to the roots (pp.191–215). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leino, P., & Östman, J.-O. (2008). Language change, variability, and functional load: Finnish genericity from a constructional point of view. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp.37–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leinonen, M., & Östman, J.-O. (1983). Passive patterns in Russian and Swedish. In F. Karlsson (Ed.), Papers from the Seventh Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics (pp.175–198). University of Helsinki: Department of General Linguistics, Publications 9.Google Scholar
Li Wei. (2008). Contact. In J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, vol. 12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [URL].DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meeuwis, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2009). Contact linguistics. In J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, vol. 13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [URL].DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikanne, U. (1997). Lexical conceptual structure and syntactic arguments. SKY Yearbook 1997, 81–118.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (1981). The Finnish “passive” and relational grammar. CLS, 7, 286–294.Google Scholar
(1986). Pragmatics as Implicitness. An analysis of question particles in Solf Swedish, with implications for the study of passive clauses and the language of persuasion. (PhD dissertation). University of California, Berkeley. Made available by University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI (no. 86 24885) in 1987.Google Scholar
(1991). On the language-internal interaction of prosody and pragmatic particles. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Levels of linguistic adaptation (pp.203–221). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Recasting the deictic foundation, using physics and Finnish. In M. Shibatani, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Essays in semantics and pragmatics (pp.247–278). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(1996). Östersjöeuropa i ett pragmatiskt grepp. [‘Baltic Europe in a pragmatic grasp’]. Svenskans Beskrivning, 21, 34–55.Google Scholar
(1999). Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns: Focus on news reports. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp.77–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Sulvan kansan wellerismit konstruktiona [‘Wellerisms in Solv as a construction’]. In I. Herlin, J. Kalliokoski, L. Kotilainen, & T. Onikki Rantajääskö (Eds.), Äidinkielen merkitykset [‘Senses of the mother tongue’] (pp 75–97). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
(2005). Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In J.-O. Östman, & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006a). Constructions in cross-language research: Verbs as pragmatic particles in Solv. In K. Aijmer, & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic markers in contrast (pp.237–257). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
(2006b). Ordstäv som en central del av språket. Om att få med “allt” i en grammatisk beskrivning [‘Wellerisms as part of the language core. On including ‘everything’ in a grammatical description’]. Svenskans beskrivning, 28, 389–401.Google Scholar
(2008a). Det globala i det lokala: Regionalisering är inte utjämning [‘The global in the local. Regionalization is not levelling’]. Svenskan i Finland, 10, 22–34.Google Scholar
(2008b). Expedition Liljendal. In H. Palmén, C. Sandström, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Dialekt i östra Nyland. Fältarbete i Liljendal med omnejd [‘Dialect in eastern Nyland. Field work in Liljendal and its vicinity’] (pp.9–25). University of Helsinki: Nordica Helsingiensia 14.Google Scholar
(2011). Language contact in the North of Europe. In B. Kortmann, & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe (pp.359–380). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). From Construction Grammar to Construction Discourse … and back. In J. Bücker, S. Günthner, & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V: Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten (pp.15–44). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2016). Styling street credibility on the public byways: When the standard becomes ‘the dialect’. In J. Thøgersen, N. Coupland, & J. Mortensen (Eds.), Style, media and language ideologies (pp.85–104). Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
(2017). Lingvistiska dialektlandskap, estetik och språklig självintervention [‘Linguistic dialect landscapes, aesthetics, and linguistic self-intervention’]. In J.-O. Östman, C. Sandström, P. Gustavsson, & L. Södergård (Eds.), Ideologi, identitet, intervention. Nordisk dialektologi 10 (pp.429–440). University of Helsinki: Nordica Helsingiensia 48.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M. (2005). The cognitive grounding of Construction Grammar. In J.-O. Östman, & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.1–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O., & Solin, A. (Eds.). (2016). Discourse and responsibility in professional settings. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Dialects, discourse, and Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.476–490). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M., & Postal, P. (1977). Toward a universal characterization of passivization. BLS, 3, 394–417.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raukko, J., & Östman, J.-O. (1994). Pragmaattinen näkökulma Itämeren kielialueeseen. [‘A pragmatic perspective on the areal linguistics of Baltic Europe’] University of Helsinki: Department of General linguistics, Publications 25.Google Scholar
Shore, S. (1988). On the so-called Finnish passive. Word, 39(3), 151–176.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A. (1984). The passive. A comparative linguistic analysis. London etc.: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., Andersson, E. et al. (1999). Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. [4 volumes] Stockholm: Svenska Akademien & Norstedts.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (2015). Ideology in language use: Pragmatic guidelines for empirical research. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiik, B., & Östman, J.-O. (1983). Skriftspråk och identitet. [‘Written language and identity’] In E. Andersson, M. Saari, & P. Slotte (Eds.), Struktur och variation (pp.181–216). Åbo Akademi university: The Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation, Publications 85.Google Scholar