Cover not available
Part of
Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions
Edited by Giuliana Giusti, Vincenzo Nicolò Di Caro and Daniel Ross
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 274] 2022
► pp. 213–230

Chapter 9
In search of subjective meaning in Swedish pseudocoordination

| University of Gothenburg
| University of Gothenburg | University of Borås
This study provides a discussion of the development of subjective meaning associated with the motion-verb pseudocoordination gå och V ‘go/walk and V’ and the posture-verb pseudocoordination sitta och V ‘sit and V’, using historical and present-day linguistic data. It is claimed that an interpretation in terms of item-based analogy and entrenchment of frequent meaning clusters is the most plausible analysis for the development of subjective (and pejorative) meaning associated with gå och V. The study of sitta och V is preliminary, but the results indicate that the subjective meaning of this construction is less entrenched that that of the gå och V construction and that the subjective overtone of subjectivity may be a result of the combination of the social/cultural meaning of the posture and certain intrinsically pejorative verbs, together with certain locatives.
Keywords: pseudocoordination, motion verb, posture verb, subjective meaning, Swedish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Swedish gå och V and sitta och V
    • 2.1 gå och V
    • 2.2Posture-verb pseudocoordination, e.g. sitta och V
  • 3.Subjectivity in pseudocoordination
    • 3.1Study 1: Swedish gå ‘go/walk’ och V
    • 3.2Study 2: Swedish sitta ‘sit’ och V
      • 3.2.1Old and Modern Swedish sitta här/där och V
      • 3.2.2Present-day Swedish
  • 4.Summary and conclusions
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations in examples
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.274.09ble
References
Andersson, Peter & Blensenius, Kristian
2018 Matches and mismatches in Swedish [gå och V] ‘go/walk and V’. An exemplar-based perspective. Constructions and Frames 10 (2), 147–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Bergljot, Flecken, Monique, & Carroll, Mary
2013 Progressive Attraction: On the Use and Grammaticalization of Progressive Aspect in Dutch, Norwegian, and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 25 (2), 95–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa. & Vikner, Sten
2017 Having the edge: A new perspective on pseudo-coordination in Danish and Afrikaans. In Nicholas LaCara, Keir Moulton, & Anne-Michelle Tessier (Eds.), A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson (pp. 77–90). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Blensenius, Kristian
2015 Progressive Constructions in Swedish. Diss. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
Borin, Lars, Forsberg, Markus, & Roxendal, Johan
2012 Korp – the corpus infrastructure of Språkbanken. Proceedings of LREC 2012 (pp. 474–478). Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
Breed, Adri
2017 The subjective use of postural verb in Afrikaans. Evolution from progressive to modal. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 52 (1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2006 From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Usage-based theory and exemplar representations for constructions. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1966 “Tomo y me voy”. Ein Problem vergleichender europäischer Syntax. Vox Romanica, 25 , 13–55.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H.
2000 Progressive markers in Germanic languages. In Östen Dahl (Ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe (pp. 605–653). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Lena
1993 Verbet ta i metaforisk och grammatikaliserad användning. Språk och stil, 3 , 105–139.Google Scholar
Fraser, Katherine
2018 Polysemous posture in English: a case study of non-literal meaning. In Alexandra Anna Spalek & Matthew Gotham (Eds.), Approaches to Coercion and Polysemy, Oslo Studies in Language, 10 ( 2 ), 9–28.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
2006 Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henriksson, Henrik
2006 Aspektualität ohne Aspekt? Progressivität und Imperfektivität im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Hesse, Andrea
2009 Zur Grammatikalisierung der Pseudokoordination im Norwegischen und in den anderen skandinavischen Sprachen. Tübingen & Basel: A. Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Christian Koops
2008 A quantitative approach to the development of complex predicates. Diachronica, 25 , 240–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holm, Gösta
1958 Syntaxgeografiska studier över två nordiska verb. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet, Institutionen för nordiska språk.Google Scholar
Hultman, Tor G.
2003 Svenska Akademiens språklära. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Johansson, Bengt
1987 Att uttrycka progressiv aspekt. Diverse: Vänskrift till Bertel Fortelius 3.8.1987 (pp. 37–49). Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög
2014 Pseudocoordination in Swedish with gå ‘go’ and the “surprise effect”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 93 , 26–50.Google Scholar
Kinn, Torodd
2018 Pseudocoordination in Norwegian. Degrees of grammaticalization and constructional variants. In Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar (pp. 75–106). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinn, Torodd, Blensenius, K., & Andersson, P.
2018 Posture, location, and activity in Mainland Scandinavian pseudocoordinations. CogniTextes, 18 (Online: [URL]) DOI logo
Kvist Darnell, Ulrika
2008  Pseudosamordningar i svenska. Särskilt sådana med verben sitta, ligga och stå. Diss. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Lemmens, Maarten
2005 Aspectual posture verb constructions. Dutch Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17 (3), 183–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, Helge
2019 Pseudocoordination with posture verbs in Mainland Scandinavian: A grammaticalized progressive construction? Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 42 , 87–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A.
2004 Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (1), 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John
2002 A cross-linguistic overview of the posture verbs ‘sit’, ‘stand’, and ‘lie’. In John Newman (Ed.), The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing and Lying (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: Benjamin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norén, Kerstin & Linell, Per
2007 Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and grammar. Some empirical substantiations. Pragmatics, 17 , 387–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Daniel
2016 Going to surprise: the grammaticalization of itive as mirative. In Jacek Woźny (Ed.), Online Proceedings of Cognitive Linguistics Wrocław Web Conference 2016. (Online: [URL])
SAG = Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik
1999 Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Vol. 1–4. 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
Tonne, Ingebjørg
2001 Progressives in Norwegian and the Theory of Aspectuality. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Vannebo, Kjell Ivar
2003 Ta og ro deg ned noen hakk: on pseudocoordination with the verb ta ‘take’ in a grammaticalization perspective. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 26 , 165–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena
2009 The Syntax of Surprise: Unexpected event readings in complex predication. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 84 , 181–224.Google Scholar