Cover not available
Article published In:
Asymmetries, Mismatches and Construction Grammar
Edited by Nikos Koutsoukos, Kristel Van Goethem and Hendrik De Smet
[Constructions and Frames 10:2] 2018
► pp. 147–177

Matches and mismatches in Swedish [gå och V] ‘go/walk and V’

An exemplar-based perspective

 | University of Gothenburg
 | University of Gothenburg
This article studies the pseudo-coordination [gå ‘go/walk’ och ‘and’ V]. The construction has several meanings and it also has subordination counterparts in Modern Swedish, unlike most Swedish pseudo-coordinations. Our diachronic study shows that [gå och V] cannot readily be reduced to the verbs in isolation and that synchronic lexicocentric perspectives based on syntactic (re)configurations cannot capture the constructional meaning such as the assumed inference of ‘surprise’ or ’unexpectedness’. We argue that a detailed analysis of the historical development makes the picture clearer.
In the development of [gå och V], item-based analogy continuously facilitates new verbs in the V slot. At a certain stage, there is a mismatch between the agentivity of the construction and the non-agentivity of events denoted by the second verb. This mismatch is resolved by the override principle that forces non-agentive verbs to be interpreted agentively and promote a more abstract and lexicalized version of the construction. The exemplar-based view to constructions proposed by Bybee (2010, 2013) seems favorable, since frequent exemplars of [gå och V] allow for redundant or marginal features to serve as the model for novel expansions of the construction.
Keywords: pseudo-coordination, mismatch, exemplar model, item-based analogy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Pseudo-coordination and previous studies of [gå och V]
    • 2.2Constructional approaches to grammatical change: The role of mismatch and item-based analogy
    • 2.3The exemplar model and change in constructions
  • 3.Method(s) and data
  • 4.The development of [gå och V]
    • 4.1[Gå och V] in Old Swedish
      • 4.1.1The variation between [gå och V] ‘go/walk and V’ and [gå att v] ‘go/walk to v.inf’
    • 4.2[Gå och V] in Early Modern Swedish
    • 4.3[Gå och V] in late Modern Swedish
    • 4.4Summary and the role of mismatch in the development of [gå och V]
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00017.and
References (60)
References
Andersson, P. (2014). The fast case. Constructionalization of a Swedish concessive. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 37(2), 141–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersson, P., & Blensenius, K. (2018). En historia om pseudosamordning. Studier i svensk språkhistoria, 141, 80–101. Vasa: Vasa University Press.Google Scholar
Audring, J., & Booij, G. (2018). Category change in construction morphology. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 209–228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Sommerer, L., Smirnova, E., & Gildea, S. (Eds.). (2015). Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, N. (1916). Svensk språklära. För den högre elementarundervisningen. 9th ed. Stockholm: Bonnier.Google Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (2008). Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M., Ebert, K. H., & de Groot, C. (2000). The progressive in Europe. In Ö. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp. 517–558). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bjerre, A., & Bjerre, T. (2007). Hybrid phrases: The Danish sidder og phrase. In A. Søgaard & P. Haugereid (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Typed Feature Structure Grammars (pp. 39–46). CST, CST Working Papers.Google Scholar
Blensenius, K. (2015). Progressive constructions in Swedish. (Dissertation.) Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Dept. of Swedish.Google Scholar
Borin, L., Forsberg, M., & Roxendal, J. (2012). Korp – the corpus infrastructure of Språkbanken. Proceedings of LREC 2012 (pp. 474–478). Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D. (2006). A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 821, 323–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations for constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carlquist, J. (1996). De fornsvenska helgonlegenderna. Källor, stil och skriftmiljö. Samlingar utgivna av svenska fornskrift-sällskapet. [The Old Swedish Saints’ lives. Sources, style and literacy], part 262, vol. 821. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Cederschiöld, G. (1911). Om svenskan som skriftspråk. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Coussé, E. (2018). Grammaticalization, host-class expansion, and category change. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 93–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J. (2018). Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. Opportunities, challenges, and potential incompatibilities. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar (pp. 1–23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2014). Does innovation need reanalysis? In E. Coussé & F. von Mengden (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change (pp. 23–48). Amseterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2017). Entrenchment effects in language change. In H.-J. Smid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning (pp. 75–100). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ebert, K. H. (2000). Progressive markers in Germanic languages. In Ö. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp. 605–653). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ekberg, L. (1993). Verbet ta i metaforisk och grammatikaliserad användning. Språk och stil, 31, 105–139.Google Scholar
Francis, E. J., & Michaelis, L. A. (2003). Mismatch. Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar. Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Henriksson, H. (2006). Aspektualität ohne Aspekt? Progressivität und Imperfektivität im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Hesse, A. (2009). Zur Grammatikalisierung der Pseudokoordination im Norwegischen und in den anderen skandinavischen Sprachen. Tübingen & Basel: A. Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2012). Diachronic constructional analysis: How to use it and how to deal with confounding factors. In K. Allan & J. Robynson (Eds.), Current methods in historical semantics (pp. 133–160). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2013). Constructional change in English. Studies in allomorphy, word formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, T., & Trousdale, G. (2013). The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holm, G. (1958). Syntaxgeografiska studier över två nordiska verb. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet, Institutionen för nordiska språk.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 131, 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. Closs. (2003). Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1895). En sproglig værdiforskydning. Og = at . Dania, 31, 145–182.Google Scholar
Josefsson, G. (1991). Pseudocoordination – a VP + VP coordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 471, 130–156.Google Scholar
(2014). Pseudocoordination in Swedish with gå ‘go’ and the “surprise effect”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 931, 26–50.Google Scholar
Kinn, T., Blensenius, K., & Andersson, P. (Submitted). Posture, location, and activity in Mainland Scandinavian pseudocoordinations.
Kinn, T. (2018). Pseudocoordination in Norwegian. Degrees of grammaticalization and constructional variants. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar (pp. 75–106). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kjeldahl, A. (2010). The syntax of quirky verbal morphology. (Dissertation.) Aarhus: University of Aarhus, Dept. of English.Google Scholar
Kvist Darnell, U. (2008). Pseudosamordningar i svenska. Särskilt sådana med verben sitta, ligga och stå. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet, Institutionen för lingvistik.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2015). Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edition. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, M. (2005). Aspectual posture verb constructions. Dutch Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17(3), 183–217.Google Scholar
Lødrup, H. (2002). The syntactic structure of Norwegian pseudocoordinations. Studia Linguistica, 56(2), 121–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). There is no reanalysis in Norwegian pseudo-coordinations (except when there is). In H. P. Helland & C. Meklenborg Salvesen (Eds.), Affaire(s) de grammaire. Mélanges offerts à Marianne Hobæk Haff à l’occasion de ses soixante-cinq ans (pp. 43–65). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ottelin, O. (1900). Studier öfver Codex Bureanus I1. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Persson, P. (1918). Syntaktiska anmärkningar. In Studier tillegnade Esaias Tegnér den 13 januari 1918 (pp. 444–454). Lund: C. W. K. Gleerups.Google Scholar
Ross, B. H., & Makin, V. S. (1999). Prototype versus exemplar models. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 205–241). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
SAG = Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., & Andersson, E. (1999). Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.Google Scholar
SAOB = Ordbok över svenska språket utgiven av Svenska Akademien. Lund 1897–. (In addition to the online version: saob.se)Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J., & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring: Theoretical premises, practical problems, and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2017). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning (pp. 9–36). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 81, 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sundén, D. A. (1931). Svensk språklära i sammandrag för allmänna läroverken, kommunala mellanskolor m.m. 28 ed. Stockholm: J. Beckman.Google Scholar
Söderwall, K. F. (1884–1953). Ordbok Öfver svenska medeltids-språket [Dictionary of Swedish language in the Middle Ages], volume I–III1. Supplement, volume IV–V1. Lund: Svenska fornskriftsällskapet.Google Scholar
Thorell, O. (1951). Fem moseböcker på fornsvenska – en språklig undersökning på grundval av de bevarade handskrifterna. Uppsala: Svenska fornskriftssällskapet.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiklund, A.-L. (2007). The syntax of tenselessness. Tense/mood/aspect-agreeing infinitivals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). The syntax of surprise: Unexpected event readings in complex predication. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 841, 181–224.Google Scholar
Östergren, O. (1901). Är sammanfallet af och och att att hänföra till fornsvensk tid? Språk och stil, 11, 82–108.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Coussé, Evie, Steffen Höder, Benjamin Lyngfelt & Julia Prentice
2023. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Blensenius, Kristian & Peter Andersson Lilja
2022. Chapter 9. In search of subjective meaning in Swedish pseudocoordination. In Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 274], ► pp. 214 ff. DOI logo
Giusti, Giuliana, Vincenzo Nicolò Di Caro & Daniel Ross
2022. Chapter 1. Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions. In Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 274], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.