Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 19:1 (2019) ► pp.2–26

A corpus-based contrastive study of impersonal passives in Swedish and Dutch

ORCID logo | Stockholm University
| Artevelde University College Ghent
This paper deals with impersonal passives in two Germanic languages, Swedish and Dutch. Impersonal passives constitute one type of impersonal construction (denoting constructions with non-canonical subjects) as described in Siewierska (2008a: 116). Formally, they consist of an overt expletive subject, such as det ‘it’ in Swedish and er ‘there’ in Dutch, combined with a passive predicate. Semantically, such passive constructions encode actions with a general reference, i.e. where no agent is specified (cf. Siewierska 1984, Engdahl 2006, Viberg 2010). The study is corpus-based and uses a bidirectional translation corpus of Swedish and Dutch to map out the specific morphosyntactic and semantic profile of the impersonal passive in both Swedish and in Dutch. The similarities and differences make these languages suitable to study from a contrastive perspective in that interesting aspects on impersonal passives are highlighted in the translation data.
Keywords: impersonal passive, corpus-based, translation, Swedish/Dutch
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Remarks on Swedish and Dutch
  • 3.Corpus and method
  • 4.Analysis and results of the source data
    • 4.1Transitivity
    • 4.2Telicity
    • 4.3Controllability
    • 4.4Semantic fields
  • 5.Analysis and results of the translation data
    • 5.1The Swedish translations
    • 5.2The Dutch translations
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16003.joh
References (33)
References
Abraham, W. 2011. Verbs of motion: Impersonal passivization between unaccusativity and unergativity. In Impersonal constructions. A cross-linguistic perspective, A. Malchukov and A. Siewierska (eds), 91–126. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abraham, W. and Leiss, E. 2006. The impersonal passive. Voice suspended under aspectual conditions. In Passivization and Typology. Form and function, W. Abraham and L. Leisiö (eds), 502–517. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. 2004. The generic person in English and Swedish. A contrastive study of one and man. Languages in Contrast 51: 93–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beliën, M. 2016. Dutch impersonal passives. Beyond volition and atelicity. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2016: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnie, A. and Harley, H. 2005. Existential impersonals. Studia Linguistica 591: 46–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1977. In defense of spontaneous demotion: The impersonal passive. In Grammatical relations, P. Cole and J. Sadock (eds), 47–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E. and van der Auwera, J. 2012. Human impersonal pronouns in Swedish and Dutch. A contrastive study of man and men. Languages in Contrast 121: 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, E. 2006. Semantic and syntactic patterns in Swedish passives. In Demoting the Agent. Passive, middle and other voice phenomena, T. Solstad and B. Lyngfelt (eds.), 21–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, E. and Laanemets, A. 2015. Opersonlig passiv i danska, norska och svenska – en korpusstudie. Nordisk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 331: 129–156.Google Scholar
Falk, C. 1993. Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Z. 1982. Indefinite agent, passive and impersonal passive: a functional study. Lingua 581: 267–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D. and Geeraerts, D. 2008. National variation in the use of er ‘there’. Regional and constraints on cognitive explanations. In Cognitive sociolinguistics: language variation, cultural models, social systems, G. Kristiansen and R. Dirven (eds), 153–204. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., De Rooij, J. and van den Toorn, M. C. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn. (= ANS)Google Scholar
Johansson, S. 2007. Seeing through Multilingual Corpora. On the use of corpora in contrastive analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, R. 1976. On the subjectless “pseudo-passive” in standard Dutch and the semantics of background agents. In Subject and Topic, C. N. Li (ed.), 386–415. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1976–1977. De “onechte lijdende vorm”, Spektator 61: 1–18.Google Scholar
Klooster, W. 2001. Grammatica van het hedendaags Nederlands. Een volledig overzicht. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. 2010. En akademiledamot pensioneras inte – om konstruktioner med s-verb i svenskan. In Bo65. Festskrift till Bo Ralph, K. Jóhannesson, I. Larsson, E. Magnusson Petzell, S. -G. Malmgren, L. Rogström and E. Sköldberg (eds), 178–192. Göteborg: Meijerbergs arkiv för svensk ordforskningGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A. and Siewierska, A. 2011. Introduction. In Impersonal constructions. A cross-linguistic perspective, A. Malchukov and A. Siewierska (eds), 1–15. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rawoens, G. 2010. Multilingual corpora in cross-linguistic research. Focus on the compilation of a Dutch-Swedish parallel corpus. In Statistical Analysis of Textual Data. Proceedings of 10th International Conference JADT2010, S. Bolasco, I. Chiari and L. Giuliano (eds), 1287–1294. Milano: LED Edizioni Universitarie.Google Scholar
Rawoens, G., Johansson, A. and Boons, H. 2016. Het onpersoonlijk passief in het Nederlands en het Zweeds. Internationale Neerlandistiek 54/2: 99–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sansò, A. 2006. “Agent defocusing” revisited. Passive and impersonal construction in some European languages. In Passivization and Typology. Form and function, W. Abraham and L. Leisiö (eds), 232–273. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1985. Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language 61/4: 821–848. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A. 1984. The passive: a comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
2008a. Introduction: impersonalization from a subject-centered vs. agent-centered perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society. Special issue Impersonal Constructions in Grammatical Theory, 106/2: 115–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b. Ways of impersonalizing. Pronominal vs. verbal strategies. In Current Trends in Contrastive Linguistics, M. Gómez González, J. L. Mackenzie and E. M. González Álvarez (eds), 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S. and Andersson, E. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien & Norstedts Ordbok. (= SAG)Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca (N.Y.): Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A. 1992. Praxis of linguistics: Passives in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics 3/3: 301–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Å. 2010. Swedish Impersonal Constructions from a Cross-linguistic Perspective. An Exploratory Corpus-based Study. Orientalia Suecana LIX1 : 122–158.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A. 1993. Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating syntax and lexical semantics. In Semantics and the lexicon, J. Pustejovsky (ed.), 129–161. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Åfarli, T. 2006. Passive and argument structure. In Passivization and Typology. Form and function, W. Abraham and L. Leisiö (eds), 373–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Hasselgård, Hilde
2023. Chapter 2. Impersonal passives in English and Norwegian. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Taylor, Charlotte & Dario del Fante*
2020. Comparing across languages in corpus and discourse analysis: some issues and approaches. Meta 65:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.