Chapter published in:
Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar
Edited by Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson and Joel Olofsson
[Constructional Approaches to Language 21] 2018
► pp. 75–107

Pseudocoordination in Norwegian

Degrees of grammaticalization and constructional variants

Pseudocoordination in the Scandinavian languages is often claimed to involve grammaticalization. Such coordination is exemplified by Norwegian sitte og lese ‘be reading’ (literally: ‘sit and read’), gå og se ‘go and see’, and løpe rundt og leke ‘run around and play’, where the first verb in some cases expresses partly or even mainly grammatical meaning. Using a large contemporary corpus, the article explores constructional variants involving atelic motion, like løpe rundt ‘run around’. Indicators of grammaticalization such as paradigmatization, bleaching, and decategorialization of the first verb are in focus, as well as the concomitants of grammaticalization in the larger construction. Some first verbs do show signs of grammaticalization, but this is not a general characteristic of the construction.
Keywords: Norwegian, pseudocoordination, verb, grammaticalization, paradigmatization, bleaching, decategorialization, schema, subschema
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Pseudocoordination as a construction
    • 2.1Overall structure
    • 2.2The verb slots
    • 2.3 Pseudocoordination and ordinary VP coordination
    • 2.4Constructional meaning
  • 3.Pseudocoordination and grammaticalization
    • 3.1The coordinator
    • 3.2V1 meanings and functions
    • 3.3V1 paradigmatization
    • 3.4Constituents in the postfields
    • 3.5The semantic relation between V1 and V2
    • 3.6The meaning of the construction as a whole
    • 3.7Summary
  • 4.Pseudocoordination of atelic motion
    • 4.1First corpus study: Vr(X)oV
    • 4.2Second corpus study: VoV
    • 4.3Subschema comparison
  • 5.Concluding discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c4
References
Ahlberg, M., Andersson, P., Forsberg, M., & Tahmasebi, N.
(2015) A case study on supervised classification of Swedish pseudo-coordination. 20th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics (NODALIDA 2015), NEALT Proceedings Series, 23, 11–19.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A.
(2006) Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. In A. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Serial Verb Constructions (pp. 1–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachmann, I.
(2013) Has go-V ousted go-and-V? In H. Hasselgård, J. Ebeling, & S.O. Ebeling (Eds.), Corpus Perspectives on Patterns of Lexis (pp. 91–111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bjerre, T., & Bjerre, A.
(2007) Pseudocoordination in Danish. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG07 Conference (pp. 6–24). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Blensenius, K.
(2015) Progressive Constructions in Swedish. Dissertation. Gothenburg: Göteborgs Universitet.Google Scholar
Boye, K., & Harder, P.
(2012) A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language, 88, 1–44.
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, R. P.
(2007) Coordinate Structures. Constraint-Based Syntax-Semantics Processing. Dissertation. Lisbon: Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S., & Vannebo, K. I.
(1997) Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(1979) On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th.
(2014) Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses. http://​tinyurl​.com​/collostructions
Hansen, E., & Heltoft, L.
(2011) Grammatik over det Danske Sprog. Copenhagen: Det Danske Sprog‑ og Litteraturselskab.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F.
(1991) Grammaticalization. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
(2002) World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, A.
(2009) Zur Grammatikalisierung der Pseudokoordination. Tübingen: A. Francke.Google Scholar
Heycock, C., & Petersen, H. P.
(2012) Pseudo-coordinations in Faroese. In K. Braunmüller & G. Christoph (Eds.), Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2008) Germanic Future Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) What can synchronic gradience tell us about reanalysis? In E. C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization (pp. 181–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Koops, C.
(2008) A quantitative approach to the development of complex predicates. Diachronica, 25, 240–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P.
(2004) Lexicalization or grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? (pp. 21–42). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Höder, S.
(2012) Der is wieder bei und malt Karten. Niederdeutsche Syntax aus nordeuropäischer Sicht. In R. Langhanke, K. Berg, M. Elmentaler, & J. Peters (Eds.), Niederdeutsche Syntax (pp. 181–201). Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Holm, E.
(2013) “Det sto aldri noe på papir, men det lå i luften og satt i veggene”. Kroppspositurverb brukt om eksistens og lokasjon i norsk. MA thesis. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(1991) On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Volume 1 (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. In J. Bybee & M. Noonan (Eds.), Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse (pp. 145–173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huldén, L.
(1961) Om samordning hos Bellman. Studier i nordisk filologi, 51, 7–149.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B.
(1998) Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnsen, L. G.
(1988) A note on subcoordination. Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 195–201.Google Scholar
Josefsson, G.
(1991) Pseudocoordination – a VP + VP coordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 47, 130–56.Google Scholar
Kinn, T.
(2014) Verbalt presens partisipp. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift, 32, 62–99.Google Scholar
(2017) Den trassige verbforma: presens partisipp og kongruensproblem i pseudokoordinasjon. In Z. S. Hansen, A. Johansen, H. P. Petersen, & L. Reinert (Eds.), Bók Jógvan (pp. 213–230). Tórshavn: Fróðskapur. Faroe University Press.Google Scholar
Kjeldahl, A.
(2010) The Syntax of Quirky Morphology. Dissertation. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitet.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T.
(1999) On ‘sit’/’stand’/’lie’ auxiliation. Linguistics, 37, 191–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Auxiliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kvist Darnell, U.
(2008) Pseudosamordningar i svenska. Dissertation. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1986) Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. Chicago Linguistic Society, 22, 152–67.Google Scholar
Langacker. R. W.
(1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(2015) Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 3rd edition. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, M.
(2005) Aspectual posture verb constructions in Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17, 183–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lesuisse, M., & Lemmens, M.
this volume). Grammaticalisation cut short: a diachronic constructional view on English posture verbs.
Lødrup, H.
(2002) The syntactic structures of Norwegian pseudocoordinations. Studia Linguistica, 56, 121–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) There is no reanalysis in Norwegian pseudocoordinations (except when there is). In H. P. Helland & C. M. Salvesen (Eds.), Affaire(s) de grammaire (pp. 43–65). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Newman, J., & Rice, S.
(2004) Patterns of usage for English sit , stand, and lie . Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 351–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Asymmetry in English multi-verb sequences. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Asymmetric Events (pp. 3–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, P. J.
(2011) Kongruenskonstruktion i dansk. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R.
(1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2000) The English GO-(PRT)-AND-VERB construction. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 26, 259–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 290–306). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 209–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., & Andersson, E.
(1999) Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Thorell, O.
(1973) Svensk grammatik. Stockholm: Esselte Studium.Google Scholar
Tonne, I.
(1999) A Norwegian progressive marker and the level of grammaticalization. Languages in Contrast, 2, 131–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Progressives in Norwegian and the Theory of Aspectuality. Dissertation. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G.
(2014) On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48, 557–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vannebo, K. I.
(1969) Aksjonsart i norsk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
(2003)  Ta og ro deg ned noen hakk: On pseudocoordination with the verb ta ‘take’ in a grammaticalization perspective. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 26, 165–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Vos, M. A.
(2005) The Syntax of Verbal Pseudo-coordination in English and Afrikaans. Dissertation. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1980) Lingua mentalis: The Semantics of Natural Language. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wiklund, A.-L.
(2007) The Syntax of Tenselessness. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wulff, S.
(2006)  Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 101–125). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Andersson, Peter & Kristian Blensenius
2018. Matches and mismatches in Swedish [gå och V] ‘go/walk and V’. Constructions and Frames 10:2 ► pp. 147 ff. Crossref logo
Blensenius, Kristian & Peter Andersson Lilja
2022.  In Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 274], ► pp. 214 ff. Crossref logo
Fanego, Teresa
2020. On the History of the English Progressive Construction Jane came whistling down the street. Journal of English Linguistics 48:4 ► pp. 319 ff. Crossref logo
Lødrup, Helge
2019. Pseudocoordination with posture verbs in Mainland Scandinavian: A grammaticalized progressive construction?. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 42:01 ► pp. 87 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2022. 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.