Cover not available
Part of
Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages
Edited by Evie Coussé, Steffen Höder, Benjamin Lyngfelt and Julia Prentice
[Constructional Approaches to Language 37] 2023
► pp. 1–23

Chapter 1
Introduction

Nordic languages and construction grammar

| University of Gothenburg
| Kiel University
| University of Gothenburg
| University of Gothenburg
Article outline
  • 1.The Nordic languages
    • 1.1History
    • 1.2Syntax
    • 1.3Morphology
    • 1.4Phonology
  • 2.Focus areas in Nordic construction grammar
    • 2.1Interactional construction grammar
    • 2.2Diachronic construction grammar
    • 2.3Constructicography
    • 2.4Diasystematic Construction Grammar
  • 3.This volume
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.37.01cou
References (76)
References
Andersson, P. (2007). Modalitet och förändring. En studie av må och kunna i fornsvenska [Modality and change. A study of må and can in Old Swedish]. Doctoral thesis, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
(2014). The fast case: Constructionalization of a Swedish concessive. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 37, 141–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersson, P., & Blensenius, K. (2018). Matches and mismatches in Swedish [gå och V] ‘go/walk and V’: An exemplar-based perspective. Constructions and Frames, 10, 147–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12, 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). The rise of Dative Substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account. Lingua, 121, 60–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Arnett, C., Carey, S. M., Eythórsson, T., Jenset, G. B., Kroonen, G., & Oberlin, A. (2016). Dative subjects in Germanic. STUF, 69, 49–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. & Molnár, V. (2003). The passive in Icelandic – compared to Mainland Scandinavian. In J. Hetland & V. Molnár (Eds.), Structures of focus and grammatical relations (pp. 231–260). Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S. (Eds.). (2015). Diachronic construction grammar. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bast, R., Endresen, A., Janda, L. A., Lund, M., Lyashevskaya, O., Mordashova, D., Nesset, T., Rakhilina, E., Tyers, F. M. & Zhukova, V. (2021). The Russian Constructicon. An electronic database of the Russian grammatical constructions. Available at [URL].Google Scholar
Bentzen, K., Rosenkvist, H., & Johannessen, J. B. (Eds.). (2015). Studies in Övdalian morphology and syntax. New research on a lesser-known Scandinavian language. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Constructional concepts to Romance languages. In H. C. Boas & F. Gonzálvez-García (Eds.), Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar (pp. 1–36). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T. (2019). Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, 35, 41–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Höder, S. (2021). Widening the scope. Recent trends in constructional contact linguistics. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact 2. Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition (pp. 2–13). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borin, L., Dannélls, D. & Grūzītis, N. (2018). Linguistics vs. language technology in constructicon building and use. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 229–253). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borin, L. & Lyngfelt, B. (to appear). Framenets and constructiCons. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J. (Eds.). (2018). Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2022). Morphosyntax. Constructions of the world’s languages. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (2004). Definite articles in Scandinavian: Competing grammaticalization processes in standard and non-standard varieties. In B. Kortmann (Ed.), Dialectology meets typology. Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 147–180). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diderichsen, P. (1946). Elementær dansk grammatik [Elementary Danish grammar]. Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Ehrlemark, A., Johansson, R. & Lyngfelt, B. (2016). Retrieving Occurrences of Grammatical Constructions. Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, December 11–17. Osaka, Japan.Google Scholar
Endresen, A. & Janda, L. A. (2020). Taking Construction Grammar One Step Further: Families, Clusters, and Networks of Evaluative Constructions in Russian. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S., & Vannebo, K. I. (1997). Norsk referansegrammatikk [Norwegian reference grammar]. Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1989). Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language Processing in Social Context (pp. 17–38). North-Holland/Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Border conflicts: FrameNet meets construction grammar. In Proceedings of EURALEX13. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 49–68.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 309–372). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Forsberg, M., Johansson, R., Bäckström, L., Borin, L. Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J., & Prentice, J. (2014). From construction candidates to construction entries. An experiment using semi-automatic methods for identifying constructions in corpora. Constructions and Frames, 6, 113–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J-O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grūzītis, N., Dannèlls, D., Lyngfelt, B. & Ranta, A. (2015). Formalising the Swedish Constructicon in Grammatical Framework. In Proceedings of the Grammar Engineering Across Frameworks (GEAF) 2015 Workshop (pp. 49–56). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, E., & Heltoft, L. (2011). Grammatik over det danske sprog [Grammar of the Danish language]. Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab (3 vols).Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language, 86, 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b). Where did this future construction come from? A case study of Swedish komma att V. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 107–131). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press. 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). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 137–152). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp.37–70). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Grammatical arealisms across the Danish-German border from a constructional perspective. In C. Zimmer (Ed.), German (ic) in language contact: Grammatical and sociolinguistic dynamics (pp. 11–42). Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S., Prentice, J. & Tingsell, S. (2021). Additional language acquisition as emerging multilingualism. A Construction Grammar approach. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact 2. Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition (pp. 309–337). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, P., & Enger, H.‑O. (2018). Norwegian. A comprehensive grammar. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, P., & Hinchliffe, I. (2013). Swedish. A comprehensive grammar (3rd edn.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L., Lyashevskaya, O., Nesset, T., Rakhilina, E., & Tyer, F. M. (2018). A constructicon for Russian. Filling in the gaps. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Construction development across languages (pp.165–181). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laanemets, A. (2012). Passiv i moderne dansk, norsk og svensk. Et korpusbaseret studie af tale- og skriftsprog [Passive in modern Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. A corpus-based study of spoken and written language]. University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
Liebkind, K., Tandefelt, M. & Moring, T. (2007). Introduction: why a special issue on the Swedish-speaking Finns? International Journal of the Sociology of Language 187–188, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Grammatical constructions in dialogue. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald, G. (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 97–110). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loenheim, L. Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, L., Prentice, J., & Tingsell, S. (2016). Constructicography meets (second) language education: On constructions in teaching aids and the usefulness of a Swedish constructicon. In S. DeKnop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 327–355). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lundskær-Nielsen, T., & Holmes, P. (2010). Danish. A comprehensive grammar (2nd edn.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Ehrlemark, A., & Rydstedt, R. (2018a). Constructicography at work. Theory meets practice in the Swedish constructicon. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages (pp. 41–106). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T. (Eds.). (2018b). Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Torrent, T. T., Laviola, A. Bäckström, L., Hannesdóttir, A. H., & Matos, E. E. (2018c). Aligning constructicons across languages: A trilingual comparison between English, Swedish, and Brazilian Portuguese. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 255–302). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Torrent, T. T., Matos, E. E., & Bäckström, L. (2022). Comparative Concepts as a resource for Multilingual Constructicography. In K. Blensenius (Ed.), Valency and constructions. Perspectives on combining words (pp. 101–129). MASO.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Bäckström, L., Höder, S., & Ljunglöf, P. (to appear). Using Comparative Concepts to connect constructions and constructiCons. A linking model for multilingual constructicography. In A. Ziem, A. Willich, & S. Michel (Eds.), Constructing constructicons. Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. & Wide, C. (Eds.) (2014). Special issue on constructionist approaches to Swedish. Constructions, Vol. 9. <[URL]> DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neijmann, D. L. (2021). Icelandic. An essential grammar. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. (1997). The history of the genitive in Swedish. A case study in degrammaticalization. Doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Norde, M., & Van Goethem, K. (2018). Debonding and clipping of prefixoids in Germanic: constructionalization or constructional change? In G. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words. Advances in construction morphology (pp. 475–518). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petersen, H. P. (2020–2021). Føroysk mállæra [Faroese grammar]. Nám (3 vols).Google Scholar
Platzack, C. (1987). Huvudsatsordföljd och bisatsordföljd [Main clause word order and subordinate clause word order]. In U. Teleman (Ed.), Grammatik på villovägar [Grammar gone astray] (pp. 87–96). Esselte.Google Scholar
Prentice, J. & Tingsell, S. (2019). Inlärningsfokus i det svenska konstruktikonet [Learner focus in the Swedish constructiCon]. In Svenskans Beskrivning 36 (pp. 231–242). Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Prentice, J., Håkansson, C., Lindström Tiedemann, T., Pilán, I., & Volodina, E. (2021). Language learning and teaching with Swedish FrameNet++: Two examples. In D. Dannélls, L. Borin & K. Friberg Heppin (Eds.), The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, integration, method development and practical language technology applications (pp. 303–329). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenkvist, H. (Ed.) (2018). Estlandssvenskans språkstruktur [Estonian Swedish language structure]. Dept. of Swedish, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, E. (Ed.). (2005). Íslensk tunga [Icelandic language]. Almenna bókafélagið (3 vols).Google Scholar
Sköldberg, E., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Lyngfelt, B., Olsson, L-J., Prentice, J., Rydstedt, R., Tingsell, S., & Uppström, J. (2013). Between Grammars and dictionaries: a Swedish constructicon. Proceedings of eLex 2013 (pp. 310–327). Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Smirnova, E., & Sommerer, L. (2020). Introduction. The nature of the node and the network. Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in diachronic construction grammar (pp. 1–42). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., & Andersson, E. (Eds.). (1999). Svenska Akademiens grammatik [The Swedish Academy grammar]. Norstedts (4 vols).Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H. P., Jacobsen, J. í L., & Hansen, Z. S. (2012). Faroese. An overview and reference grammar (2nd edn.). Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Urban, A. (2021). Idioconstructions in conflict: Ad hoc generalization in multilingual speech processing. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition (pp. 17–54). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 141–179). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wide, C. (2009). Interactional Construction Grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.111–142). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziem, A., Willich, A., & Michel, S. (Eds.) (to appear). Constructing constructicons. Benjamins.Google Scholar