A Norwegian Progressive Marker and the Level of Grammaticalization

Abstract

In this paper it is shown that parallel concordancing represents an efficient means of explicating the grammaticalization level of linguistic forms. One progressive form in Norwegian and the progressive in Spanish are found to be translationally equivalent in some contexts but not in others. In addition, the degree of overlap of the two constructions is seen to vary with the direction of the translation, i.e. the Norwegian progressive is more often translated by a Spanish progressive than vice versa. These results correspond neatly to the part of grammaticalization theory which emphasizes the relation between the general meaning of a form, the widening of distribution and the increase in frequency.; The general meaning of the Spanish progressive gives it a wider distribution and a higher frequency than the Norwegian progressive. Corresponding results are also found in a test case comparing the Norwegian and the English progressives. Parallel concordancing thus strengthens the claim based on monolingual studies that this Norwegian progressive is partially but not totally grammaticalized. The parallel concordancing method has the additional advantage that the contexts determining when the forms are translationally equivalent can be read off directly from the concordances.

Progressive Attraction: On the Use and Grammaticalization of Progressive Aspect in Dutch, Norwegian, and German

“…From a semantic point of view, it has been claimed that the meaning of the verb in the first conjunct is somewhat bleached. This has been observed by a number of linguists with respect to pseudo-coordination in Scandinavian generally (Vannebo 1969, Tonne 1999 for Norwegian).…”

“…This syntactic difference has been described for Norwegian in Tonne 1999, for Danish in Bjerre & Bjerre 2007, and for Swedish in Telemann et al 1999. Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish do not differ on this point.…”

“…With respect to Norwegian, to our knowledge there have been no controlled elicitation studies of the use of aspectual constructions. Tonne (1999, 2006, 2007) divides the available constructions in Norwegian into two subgroups: One type of constructions contains two tensed verbs linked by the coordinator og ‘and’, that is, the pseudocoordination , as in sitter og strikker ‘sits and knits’. The other type of constructions consists of a tensed verb with a preposition followed by the infinitive, as in holder på å vaske ‘holds on to wash’.…”

“…This latter group of forms has been termed prospective , or the prospec group (Tonne 1999, 2007), as it is held to have two meanings—either the subject referent is in the midst of a situation, or the subject referent is in progress toward a point of change (Tonne 2006:175). In the latter case, the event is seen at a stage before the termination or resultant state, often with the implicature that this resultant state will not obtain.…”

Pseudocoordination with posture verbs in Mainland Scandinavian: A grammaticalized progressive construction?

“…For example, Kuteva (2001:46) says that 'we cannot speak of a very high degree of grammaticalization of this structure'. Tonne (1999: 157) says that it is 'grammaticalized to some extent', but she also uses the term 'pre-grammaticalization' (Tonne 1999(Tonne , 2001).…”