Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:26:38.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Topic-marking prepositions in Swedish: A corpus-based analysis of adpositional synonymy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2014

Anton Granvik  and
Susanna Taimitarha
Anton Granvik
Affiliation:
Centre for Languages and Business Communication, Hanken School of Economics, P.O. Box 479 (Arkadiagatan 22), FI-00101 Helsingfors, Finland. anton.granvik@hanken.fi
Susanna Taimitarha
Affiliation:
Department of Finance and Statistics, Hanken School of Economics, P.O. Box 479 (Arkadiagatan 22), FI-00101 Helsingfors, Finland. susanna.taimitarha@hanken.fi
Get access

Abstract

This study analyses the relationship between four near-synonymous Swedish prepositions, namely angående, beträffande, gällande and rörande, which are used to establish what we call a topic-marking relation, as in statens avtal angående finansieringen ‘the agreement of the state regarding the financing’. By focusing on a single, loosely defined genre consisting of the written texts included in the Swedish PAROLE corpus, we address the question of what differences there are among these four prepositions, which intuitively seem highly similar and mutually interchangeable. In order to find out which contextual and grammatical factors might influence the choice of one preposition over the others, two complementary analyses were performed. First, a so-called collostructional analysis (see Stefanowitsch & Gries 2003, Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004) was performed on 791 cases of these prepositions found in the PAROLE corpus. Secondly, the corpus examples were annotated according to ten syntactic and four semantic criteria and a multinomial logistic regression analysis was performed on the annotated data set. The results show some tendencies pointing to differing usage patterns of the four prepositions. Beträffande stands out as the most frequent of them all and is also preferably used when no explicit head element is present, typically in sentence-initial position. Angående prefers words of communication while rörande is used when another topic-marking preposition is also present. On the other hand, neither of the two analyses leads to a clear distinction among the four prepositions, thus pointing to the fact that these topic-marking prepositions indeed constitute a fairly good case of adpositional synonymy, with few distinguishing factors separating one from the other.

Keywords

collostruction analysiscorpus-based analysisnear-synonymyquantitative analysisSwedish prepositions
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 2: Corpus Linguistics and the Nordic Languages , October 2014 , pp. 257 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arppe, Antti. 2006. Complex phenomena deserve complex explanations – choosing how to think in Finnish. Presented at the QITL2 Conference, Osnabrück, Germany, 2 June 2006.Google Scholar
Arppe, Antti. 2008. Univariate, Bivariate, and Multivariate Methods in Corpus-based Lexicography – a Study of Synonymy. Helsinki: Publications of the Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Arppe, Antti & Järvikivi, Juhani. 2007. Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3 (2), 131–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalker, Sylvia. 1990. English Grammar: Word by Word. London: Nelson ELT.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, D. Alan. 2008. Lingüística cognitiva [Cognitive Linguistics, Spanish edition]. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Desagulier, Guillaume. 2014. Visualizing distances in a set of near-synonyms: Rather, quite, fairly and pretty. In Glynn & Robinson (eds.), 145–178.Google Scholar
Dirven, René. 1993. Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. In Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), 73–97.Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2 (1), 23–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, John R. 1968. Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–59. Edited by Palmer, F. R.. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2010. Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2010. Testing the hypotheses: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In Glynn & Fisher (eds.), 239–269.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2014. Polysemy and synonymy: Corpus method and cognitive theory. In Glynn & Robinson (eds.), 7–38.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan & Fisher, Kerstin (eds.). 2010. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven Approaches. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, Dylan & Krawczak, Karolina. Forthcoming. Operationalising construal. Of/about prepositional profiling for cognition and communication predicates. In Callejas, Carmen Bretones & Sinha, Chris (eds.), Construals in Language and Thought: What Shapes What? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan & Robinson, Justyna (eds.). 2014. Corpus Methods for Semantics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Granvik, Anton. 2012. De de: Estudio histórico-comparativo de los usos y la semántica de la preposición de en español [On de: A historical-comparative study of the uses and semantics of the preposition de in Spanish]. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. [Ph.D. dissertation]Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Hampe, Beate & Schönefeld, Doris. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16 (4), 635–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Hampe, Beate & Schönefeld, Doris. 2010. Converging evidence II: More on the association of verbs and constructions. In Rice, Sally & Newman, John (eds.), Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/functional Research, 59–72. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Otani, Naoki. 2010. Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal 34, 121–150.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1), 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3, 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Jane & Wiktorsson, Maria. 2009. Formulaic language and the relater category: The case of about. In Corrigan, Roberta, Moravcsik, Edith A., Ouali, Hamid & Wheatley, Kathleen (eds.), Formulaic Language, 77–96. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura & Solovyev, Valery. 2013. What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of Russian words for SADNESS and HAPPINESS. In Janda, Laura A. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn. The Essential Reader, 295–324. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klavan, Jane. 2012. Evidence in Linguistics: Corpus-linguistic and Experimental Methods for Studying Grammatical Synonymy. Tartu: University of Tartu Press. [Ph.D. dissertation]Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1992. Prepositions as grammatical(izing) elements. Leuvense Bijdragen 81, 287–309.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstromberg, Seth. 2010. English Prepositions Explained, revised edn.Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Dilin. 2010. Is it a chief, main, major, primary, or principal concern? A corpus-based behavioral profile study of the near-synonyms. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15 (1), 56–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Dilin. 2013. Salience and construal in the use of synonymy: A study of two sets of near-synonymous nouns. Cognitive Linguistics 24 (1), 67–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martola, Nina. 2007. Konstruktioner och valens. Verbfraser med åt i ett jämförande perspektiv [Construction and valency: The preposition åt in Swedish]. Helsingfors: Institution för nordiska språk och nordisk litteratur, Helsingfors universitet. [Ph.D. dissertation]Google Scholar
PAROLE corpus: http://spraakbanken.gu.se/korp/#.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York & London: Longman.Google Scholar
SAG = Ulf Teleman, Staffan Hellberg & Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik [Grammar of the Swedish Academy], vol. 2. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek & Rice, Sally. 1995. Network analysis of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist's or the language user's? Cognitive Linguistics 6, 89–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2010. Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In Glynn & Fisher (eds.), 101–133.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Küchenhoff, Helmut. 2013. Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics 24 (3), 531–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SLAF = Svenskt lagspråk i Finland. Föreskrifter, anvisningar och rekommendationer från statsrådets kansli [Swedish legal language in Finland: Norms, instructions and recommendations from the Prime Minister's Office] http://vnk.fi/julkaisut/listaus/julkaisu/sv.jsp?oid=296071 (accessed 16 December 2013).Google Scholar
Ssb = Svenska språknämnden. 2003. Svenskt språkbruk. Ordbok över konstruktioner och fraser [Swedish language usage: Dictionary of constructions and phrases]. Norstedts.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2), 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John. 2002. Near synonyms as co-extensive categories: ‘High’ and ‘tall’ revisited. Language Sciences 25 (3), 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thuilier, Juliette & Danlos, Laurence. 2012. Semantic annotation of French corpora: Animacy and verb semantic classes. http://www.lreconf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/pdf/552_Paper.pdf (accessed 21 December 2012).Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvyan. 2003. Semantics of English Prepositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhatalo, Ulla. 2002. «Naiset motkottaa aiheesta ja nalkuttaa syystä» Kyselytestit verbien semanttisten sisältöjen arvioinnissa [Using questionnaires to assess semantic content of verbs]. Virittäjä 3/2002, 330–353.Google Scholar
Vanhatalo, Ulla. 2003. Kyselytestit vs. korpuslingvistiikka lähisynonyymien semanttisten sisältöjen arvioinnissa – Mitä vielä keskeisestä ja tärkeästä? [Evaluating the semantic content of near-synonyms: Population tests versus corpus linguistics]. Virittäjä 107 (3), 351–369.Google Scholar
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, Cornelia (ed.). 1993. The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar