Cover not available
Part of
Neglected Aspects of Motion-Event Description: Deixis, asymmetries, constructions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Benjamin Fagard
[Human Cognitive Processing 72] 2022
► pp. 189–207

Chapter 9
Co-event relations in Swedish motion constructions

ORCID logo | University West, Sweden
This paper discusses co-events denoted by verbs used in Swedish motion events. The motion events are analyzed as constructions in the sense of construction grammar, in which the motion component can be argued to be evoked by a syntactic construction rather than by the verb per se.
The manner of motion aspect of motion events has been extensively explored in typological research. The purpose of the paper is to give an overview of co-events often neglected in this research on motion events. Based on empirical findings in large corpora, this paper also focuses on co-event relations other than manner, such as concomitant activities, concurrent results, predicatives and modality.
Keywords: concomitant activities, concurrent results, construction grammar, corpus study, modality, Swedish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Motion events in Swedish
  • 3.Motion events as motion constructions
  • 4.Co-event relations
    • 4.1Manner of motion
    • 4.2Concurrent result
    • 4.3Concomitance
    • 4.4Predicative
    • 4.5Modality
  • 5.Final remarks
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 7 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.72.09olo
References (37)
References
Andersson, E. 1997. Svenska rörelseverb och måladverbial. In S. Haapamäki (Ed.), Svenskan i Finland 4 (35–50). Skrifter från svenska institutionen vid Åbo Akademi Nr. 3. Åbo: Åbo universitet.Google Scholar
Andersson, P. 2007. Modalitet och förändring. En studie av må och kunna i fornsvenska. GNS. Diss. University of Gothenburg.
Baayen, H., & Lieber, R. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29, 801–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2008. Productivity. Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beliën, M. 2008. Constructions, constraints, and construal. Adpositions in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Bourdin, P. 1996. On Goal-bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters. In B. Palek (Ed.), Typology: Prototypes, item orderings and universals (185–218). Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (296–322). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. 2015. Construction Grammar. In A. Alexiadou & T. Kiss (Eds.), Syntax – Theory and Analysis (974–1003). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Israel, M. 1996. The way constructions grow. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (217–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, G. 2002. Must down: On non-occurring verbs of motion in Modern English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 339–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. 2005. Entity and Event Coercion in a Symbolic Theory of Syntax. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried, (Eds.), Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (45–87). Constructional Approaches to Language, Volume 3. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikanne, U., & Östman, J.-O. 2006. Finland-Swedish directionality in conceptual semantics and in construction grammar: A methodological dialogue. In M. Suominen & A. Arppe (Eds.), A man of measure – Festschrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday (66–86). Turku: SKY Journal of Linguistics. Volume 19.Google Scholar
Olofsson, J. 2014. Argument structure constructions and syntactic productivity – The case of Swedish motion constructions. Constructions, 1(7), 1–17.Google Scholar
2017. Förhållandet mellan rörelseverb och förflyttningskonstruktioner – lexikogrammatisk associationskraft och produktivitet [‘The relationship between motion verbs and motion constructions – lexicogrammatical attraction and productivity’]. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift, 35(1), 87–107.Google Scholar
2018. Förflyttning på svenska. Om syntaktisk produktivitet utifrån ett konstruktionsperspektiv [‘Motion in Swedish – on productivity from a construction grammar perspective’]. GNS. Diss. University of Gothenburg.
2019. Frekvens som mått på produktivitet – en konstruktionsgrammatisk undersökning av förflyttningskonstruktioner i svenskan [‘Frequency as a measure of productivity – a construction grammar study of motion constructions in Swedish’]. Språk & Stil, 29, 168–202.Google Scholar
Özçalışkan, S. 2004. Typological variation in encoding the manner, path, and ground components of a metaphorical motion event. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 73–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sjögreen, C. 2015. Kasta bort bollen och äta bort sin huvudvärk. En studie av argumentstrukturen i kausativa bort-konstruktioner. [‘The argument structure of Swedish causative bort-constructions’]. Diss. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.
SO = Svensk ordbok, utgiven av Svenska Akademien [’Swedish Dictionary’] 2009. Stockholm: Norstedt.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1996. Two ways to travel: verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays in Semantics (195–317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2004. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating Events in Narrative: Vol. 2. Typological and Contextual Perspectives (219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2013. Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (290–306). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strömqvist, S., & Ragnarsdóttir, H. 2004. Time, Space and Manner in Icelandic and Swedish. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating Events in Narrative: Vol. 2. Typological and Contextual Perspectives (113–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics Vol.2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2017a. Neglected Aspects of the Motion System. Talk presented at the workshop Neglected Aspects of Motion-Event Description (NAMED), 19–20 of May 2017, École normale supérieure, Paris. [URL]
2017b. Foreword: Past, present, and future of motion research. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages and applications (1–12). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., & Andersson, E. 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik [‘The Swedish Academy Grammar’]. Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar
Viberg, Å. 2013a. Ord om konsten att förflytta sig: Svenskans gå, åka och köra i tvärspråkligt perspektiv [Words about the manner of motion: Swedish go, ride and drive in a contrastive perspective]. In B. Lindblom (Ed.), Text, tal & tecken. Några perspektiv inom språkforskningen [Text, speech and sign: Some perspectives in language research]. [KVHAA Konferenser 83] (116–138). Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien (KVHAA).Google Scholar
2013b. Seeing the lexical profile of Swedish through multilingual corpora. The case of Swedish åka and other vehicle verbs. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), Advances in corpus-based contrastive linguistics. Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (25–56). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 1988. Modals in Danish and event expressions. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 39, 1–33.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., & David, C. 2003. Motion event constructions in Swedish, French and Thai: Three different language types? Manusya, 6, 18–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J., & Yangklang, P. 2004. A third way to travel: the place of Thai in the motion event typology. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating Events in Narrative: Typological and Contextual Perspectives (159–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar