Cover not available
Part of
Cross-linguistic Correspondences: From lexis to genre
Edited by Thomas Egan and Hildegunn Dirdal
[Studies in Language Companion Series 191] 2017
► pp. 121–146

Chapter 5
locative at seen through its Swedish and Norwegian equivalents

| Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences
| Artevelde University College
At is commonly understood to be one of three basic topological prepositions in English, the other two being in and on. While there are close equivalents in Swedish and Norwegian to both in and on, this is not the case for at. This chapter investigates the choices made by both Swedish and Norwegian translators of physical location predications containing at. It investigates whether the Swedish and Norwegian translation correspondences of the English preposition can aid us in mapping its semantic network. The corpus data for the study comprise all tokens of at coding physical location in the English original fiction texts found in both the English–Swedish Parallel Corpus (ESPC) and the English–Norwegian Parallel Corpus (ENPC). Roughly 25% of these tokens are translated into Swedish and Norwegian by the on preposition (på/på), 25% by the in preposition (i/i) and 25% by the by preposition (vid/ved). Some 12% are translated by other prepositions and the remainder by divergent constructions. The analysis of these translation correspondences leads to the proposal of a semantic network for at.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theory and data
  • 3.Previous studies of at
  • 4.The translation correspondences of at
    • 4.1Tokens translated by vid/ved
    • 4.2Tokens translated by i into both languages
    • 4.3Tokens translated by på into both languages
    • 4.4 At-relations translated by other prepositions into both languages
    • 4.5Where Norwegians are on and Swedes are in
    • 4.6Where Norwegians are in and Swedes are on
  • 5.The five principal types of at-ness
  • 6.Summary and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.191.05ega
References (30)
References
Primary
OED. 2009. The Oxford English Dictionary: On Compact Disc. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
The Oslo Multilingual Corpus (OMC). <[URL]>
Secondary
Arppe, Antti, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, Glynn, Dylan, Hilpert, Martin & Zeschel, Arne. 2011. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brisard, Frank. 1997. The English tense system as an epistemic category: The case of futurity. In Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 150], Marjolein Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee and Eve Sweetser (eds), 271–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyvik, Helge. 1998. A translational basis for semantics. In Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method, and Case Studies, Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 51–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2004. Translations as semantic mirrors: From parallel corpus to wordnet. In Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the 23rd International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 23), Göteborg, 22–26 May 2002, Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 313–326. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garretson, Gregory. 2004. The Meanings of English “of”: Uncovering Semantic Distinctions via a Translation Corpus. MA thesis, Boston University.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Herskovits, Annette. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig. 2007. Seeing through Multilingual Corpora: On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 26]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991a. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Applications. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindkvist, Karl Gunnar. 1978. AT versus ON, IN, BY: On the Early History of Spatial AT and Certain Ideas Distinguishing AT from ON, IN, BY. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, Seth. 2010. English Prepositions Explained. Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2003. Translations as evidence for semantics: An illustration. Linguistics 41(4): 757–785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Sally A. 1992. Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 89–94. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally. 1993. Far afield in lexical fields: The English prepositions. In ESCOL ’92 Proceedings, 206–217. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds), 27–48. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek & Rice, Sally. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics 6(1): 89–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvyan. 2001. Reconsidering propositional polysemy networks: The case of over . Language 77(4): 724–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1998. Contrasts in polysemy and differentiation: Running and putting in English and Swedish. In Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research, Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 343–376. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2002. Polysemy and disambiguation cues across languages: The case of Swedish få and English get . In Lexis in Contrast [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 7], Bengt Altenberg & Sylviane Granger (eds), 119–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. The polysemy of the Swedish verb komma ‘come’: A view from translation corpora. In Meaning through Language Contrast, Vol. 2 [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 99], Kasia M. Jaszczolt & Ken Turner (eds), 75–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Egan, Thomas & Siri Fürst Skogmo
2021.  Just a moment. In Time in Languages, Languages in Time [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 101], ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.