Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article studies the pseudo-coordination [ ‘go/walk’ ‘and’ ]. The construction has several meanings and it also has subordination counterparts in Modern Swedish, unlike most Swedish pseudo-coordinations. Our diachronic study shows that [ V] cannot readily be reduced to the verbs in isolation and that synchronic lexicocentric perspectives based on syntactic (re)configurations cannot capture the constructional meaning such as the assumed inference of ‘surprise’ or ’unexpectedness’. We argue that a detailed analysis of the historical development makes the picture clearer.

In the development of [], item-based analogy continuously facilitates new verbs in the V slot. At a certain stage, there is a mismatch between the agentivity of the construction and the non-agentivity of events denoted by the second verb. This mismatch is resolved by the override principle that forces non-agentive verbs to be interpreted agentively and promote a more abstract and lexicalized version of the construction. The exemplar-based view to constructions proposed by Bybee (20102013) seems favorable, since frequent exemplars of [ V] allow for redundant or marginal features to serve as the model for novel expansions of the construction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Andersson, P.
    (2014) The fast case. Constructionalization of a Swedish concessive. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 37(2), 141–167. 10.1017/S033258651400016X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S033258651400016X [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersson, P., & Blensenius, K.
    (2018) En historia om pseudosamordning. Studier i svensk språkhistoria, 14, 80–101. Vasa: Vasa University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Audring, J., & Booij, G.
    (2018) Category change in construction morphology. InK. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp.209–228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barðdal, J., Sommerer, L., Smirnova, E., & Gildea, S.
    (Eds.) (2015) Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beckman, N.
    (1916) Svensk språklära. För den högre elementarundervisningen. 9th ed.Stockholm: Bonnier.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
    (2008) Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211757
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211757 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bertinetto, P. M., Ebert, K. H., & de Groot, C.
    (2000) The progressive in Europe. InÖ. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp.517–558). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bjerre, A., & Bjerre, T.
    (2007) Hybrid phrases: The Danish sidder og phrase. InA. Søgaard & P. Haugereid (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Typed Feature Structure Grammars (pp.39–46). CST, CST Working Papers.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blensenius, K.
    (2015) Progressive constructions in Swedish. (Dissertation.) Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Dept. of Swedish.
  10. Borin, L., Forsberg, M., & Roxendal, J.
    (2012) Korp – the corpus infrastructure of Språkbanken. Proceedings of LREC 2012 (pp.474–478). Istanbul: ELRA.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bybee, J., & Eddington, D.
    (2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82, 323–355. 10.1353/lan.2006.0081
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0081 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations for constructions. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.49–69). Oxford. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Carlquist, J.
    (1996) De fornsvenska helgonlegenderna. Källor, stil och skriftmiljö. Samlingar utgivna av svenska fornskrift-sällskapet. [The Old Swedish Saints’ lives. Sources, style and literacy], part 262, vol.82. Stockholm.
  15. Cederschiöld, G.
    (1911) Om svenskan som skriftspråk. Lund: Gleerup.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Coussé, E.
    (2018) Grammaticalization, host-class expansion, and category change. InK. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp.93–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.20.04cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.04cou [Google Scholar]
  17. Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J.
    (2018) Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. Opportunities, challenges, and potential incompatibilities. InE. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar (pp.1–23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c1 [Google Scholar]
  18. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. De Smet, H.
    (2014) Does innovation need reanalysis?InE. Coussé & F. von Mengden (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change (pp.23–48). Amseterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2017) Entrenchment effects in language change. InH.-J. Smid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning (pp.75–100). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ebert, K. H.
    (2000) Progressive markers in Germanic languages. InÖ. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp.605–653). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ekberg, L.
    (1993) Verbet ta i metaforisk och grammatikaliserad användning. Språk och stil, 3, 105–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Francis, E. J., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2003) Mismatch. Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar. Stanford: CSLI publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Henriksson, H.
    (2006) Aspektualität ohne Aspekt? Progressivität und Imperfektivität im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hesse, A.
    (2009) Zur Grammatikalisierung der Pseudokoordination im Norwegischen und in den anderen skandinavischen Sprachen. Tübingen & Basel: A. Francke Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hilpert, M.
    (2012) Diachronic constructional analysis: How to use it and how to deal with confounding factors. InK. Allan & J. Robynson (Eds.), Current methods in historical semantics (pp.133–160). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2013) Constructional change in English. Studies in allomorphy, word formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoffman, T., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Holm, G.
    (1958) Syntaxgeografiska studier över två nordiska verb. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet, Institutionen för nordiska språk.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hopper, P.
    (1987) Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139–157. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. Closs
    (2003) Grammaticalization. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jespersen, O.
    (1895) En sproglig værdiforskydning. Og = at. Dania, 3, 145–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Josefsson, G.
    (1991) Pseudocoordination – a VP + VP coordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 47, 130–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2014) Pseudocoordination in Swedish with ‘go’ and the “surprise effect”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 93, 26–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kinn, T., Blensenius, K., & Andersson, P.
    (Submitted). Posture, location, and activity in Mainland Scandinavian pseudocoordinations.
  37. Kinn, T.
    (2018) Pseudocoordination in Norwegian. Degrees of grammaticalization and constructional variants. InE. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar (pp.75–106). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c4 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kjeldahl, A.
    (2010) The syntax of quirky verbal morphology. (Dissertation.) Aarhus: University of Aarhus, Dept. of English.
  39. Kvist Darnell, U.
    (2008) Pseudosamordningar i svenska. Särskilt sådana med verben sitta, ligga och stå. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet, Institutionen för lingvistik.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Lehmann, C.
    (2015) Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edition. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_603353
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603353 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lemmens, M.
    (2005) Aspectual posture verb constructions. Dutch Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17(3), 183–217.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lødrup, H.
    (2002) The syntactic structure of Norwegian pseudocoordinations. Studia Linguistica, 56(2), 121–143. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00090
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00090 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2014) There is no reanalysis in Norwegian pseudo-coordinations (except when there is). InH. P. Helland & C. Meklenborg Salvesen (Eds.), Affaire(s) de grammaire. Mélanges offerts à Marianne Hobæk Haff à l’occasion de ses soixante-cinq ans (pp.43–65). Oslo: Novus.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. 10.1515/cogl.2004.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ottelin, O.
    (1900) Studier öfver Codex BureanusI. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Persson, P.
    (1918) Syntaktiska anmärkningar. InStudier tillegnade Esaias Tegnér den 13 januari 1918 (pp.444–454). Lund: C. W. K. Gleerups.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Ross, B. H., & Makin, V. S.
    (1999) Prototype versus exemplar models. InR. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp.205–241). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. SAG = Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., & Andersson, E. (1999) Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. SAOB = Ordbok över svenska språket utgiven av Svenska Akademien. Lund 1897– (In addition to the online version: saob.se)
  51. Schmid, H.-J., & Küchenhoff, H.
    (2013) Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring: Theoretical premises, practical problems, and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577. 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0018 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2017) A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. InH.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning (pp.9–36). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  54. Sundén, D. A.
    (1931) Svensk språklära i sammandrag för allmänna läroverken, kommunala mellanskolor m.m.28 ed.Stockholm: J. Beckman.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Söderwall, K. F.
    (1884–1953) Ordbok Öfver svenska medeltids-språket [Dictionary of Swedish language in the Middle Ages], volumeI–III. Supplement, volumeIV–V. Lund: Svenska fornskriftsällskapet.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Thorell, O.
    (1951) Fem moseböcker på fornsvenska – en språklig undersökning på grundval av de bevarade handskrifterna. Uppsala: Svenska fornskriftssällskapet.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Wiklund, A.-L.
    (2007) The syntax of tenselessness. Tense/mood/aspect-agreeing infinitivals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197839
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197839 [Google Scholar]
  59. (2009) The syntax of surprise: Unexpected event readings in complex predication. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 84, 181–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Östergren, O.
    (1901) Är sammanfallet af och och att att hänföra till fornsvensk tid?Språk och stil, 1, 82–108.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): exemplar model; item-based analogy; mismatch; pseudo-coordination
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error