Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:59:01.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A corpus-based analysis of the Swedish passive alternation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2014

Ludovic De Cuypere ,
Kristof Baten  and
Gudrun Rawoens
Ludovic De Cuypere
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Linguistics Department, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. Ludovic.DeCuypere@UGent.be
Kristof Baten
Affiliation:
Ghent University/Research Foundation Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen), Linguistics Department, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. Kristof.Baten@UGent.be
Gudrun Rawoens
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Linguistics Department, Scandinavian Linguistics, Rozier 44, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. Gudrun.Rawoens@UGent.be
Get access

Abstract

This article presents a corpus-based investigation of the motivations behind the use of the s-passive and the bli-passive in contemporary written Swedish. Following a probabilistic approach to language variation and building on observations in the literature, we examine the simultaneous effects of semantic and syntactic factors by means of a multivariate statistical analysis. Our corpus sample includes 1,197 passive sentences of three Swedish verbs, which alternate in their use of the passive (acceptera ‘accept’, behandla ‘treat’ and välja ‘choose’). The results suggest that the choice of passive form is significantly associated with five predictor variables: Subject Animacy, Subject Number, Modal Verb, Av-phrase (‘by’-phrase) and Aktionsart. Among these, Subject Animacy and Modal Verb appear to yield the strongest impact effect on the choice of passive form. The study adds to earlier research in that it allows for a more accurate analysis of the simultaneous effect and relative strength of each factor on the speaker's choice of one of the passive forms.

Keywords

morphological vs. periphrastic passivemultivariate statistical analysispassive alternationSwedish
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 2: Corpus Linguistics and the Nordic Languages , October 2014 , pp. 199 - 223
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

Åfarli, Tor. 2006. Passive and argument structure. In Abraham, Werner & Leisiö, Larisa (eds.), Passivization and Typology: Form and Function (Typological Studies in Language 68), 373–382. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askedal, John Ole. 2010. Germanic passive constructions. In Askedal, John Ole, Roberts, Ian & Matsushita, Tomonori (eds.), Noam Chomsky and Language Descriptions, 75–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Molnár, Valéria. 2003. The passive in Icelandic – compared to Mainland Scandinavian. In Hetland, Jorunn & Molnár, Valéria (eds.), Structures of Focus and Grammatical Relations (Linguistische Arbeiten 477), 231–260. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.). 2003. Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, Sam & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base, 77–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, Harald. 2007. Predicting the Dative Alternation. In Boume, Gerlof, Kraemer, Irene & Zwarts, Jan (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86 (1), 186–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1999. The choice between bli-passive and s-passive in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. Ms., Göteborg University. http://www.svenska.gu.se/digitalAssets/1336/1336829_engdahl-nordsem-passivechoice-1999.pdf (accessed 15 December 2013).Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 2001. Valet av passivform i modern svenska. Svenskans beskrivning 24, 81–90. [Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings, http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/006/007/ecp00607b.pdf, accessed 15 December 2013]Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 2006. Semantic and syntactic patterns in Swedish passives. In Lyngfelt, Benjamin & Solstad, Torgrim (eds.), Demoting the Agent: Passive, Middle and Other Voice Phenomena, 21–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2001. Om s-passivens relasjoner til modalitet, aspekt og kasus. Tijdschrift voor Skandinavistiek 22 (2), 411–133.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Ford, Marilyn & Bresnan, Joan. 2013. Using convergent evidence from psycholinguistics and usage. In Krug, Manfred & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Research Methods in Language Variation and Change, 295–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8 (15), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, John & Weinberg, Sanford. 2011. An R Companion to Applied Regression, 2nd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hansen, Eskil. 1991. Passiv i moderne norsk. I: Språknytt. Språkrådet. [http://www.sprakradet.no/Toppmeny/Publikasjoner/Spraaknytt/Arkivet/Eldre/Passiv_i_moderne_norsk, accessed 14 May 2014]Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Grammatik over det Danske Sprog, vols. I–III. Odense: Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab (DSL) og Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2008. Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues, a Study with Special Reference to the French Phasal Adverbs. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Harrell, Frank E. Jr. 2013. rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. R package version 4.0–0. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rms.Google Scholar
Heltoft, Lars 1994. S-modus og perifrastisk modus. In Jörgensen, Nils, Platzack, Christer & Svensson, Jan (eds.), Språkbruk, grammatik och språkförändring. En festskrift till Ulf Teleman, 155–165. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Heltoft, Lars & Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster. 1996. Danish passives and subject positions as a mood system: A content analysis. In Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Fortescue, Michael, Harder, Peter, Heltoft, Lars & Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster (eds.), Content, Expression and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar, 199–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, David W., Hosmer, Trina, le Cessie, Saskia & Lemeshow, Stanley. 1997. A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Statistics in Medicine 16, 965–980.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husband, Edward Matthew. 2012. Some structural analogies between existential interpretation and telicity. In Cuervo, María Cristina & Roberge, Yves (eds.), The End of Argument Structure? (Syntax and Semantics 38), 105–129. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirri, Arto. 1975. Studier över passivkonstruktioner i nysvenskt skriftspråk (Meddelanden från Institutionen för nordisk filologi vid Helsingfors universitet. Serie A, nr. 2). Helsingfors: Helsingfors universitet.Google Scholar
Laanemets, Anu. 2004. Dannelse og anvendelse af passiv i dansk, norsk og svensk (Nordistica Tartuensia 11). Tartu: Tartu University.Google Scholar
Laanemets, Anu. 2009. The passive voice in written and spoken Scandinavian. In Fryd, Marc (ed.), The Passive in Germanic Languages, GAGL 49, 144–166. Groningen: University of Groningen, Center for Language and Cognition Groningen.Google Scholar
Laanemets, Anu. 2012. Passiv i moderne dansk, norsk og svensk. Et korpusbaseret studie af tale- og skriftsprog. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
Larsson, Ida. 2012. Inte helt passiv: konstruktion med få + particip i tal och skrift. Språk och stil NF 22 (2), 26–56.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin. 2010. En akademiledamot pensioneras inte – om konstruktioner med s-verb i svenskan. In Jóhannesson, Kristinn, Larsson, Ida, Magnusson Petzell, Erik, Malmgren, Sven-Göran, Rogström, Lena & Sköldberg, Emma (eds.), Bo65. Festskrift till Bo Ralph, 178–192. Göteborg: Meijerbergs arkiv för svensk ordforskning.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Kristian. 1911. Dansk Ordföjningslære. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed 5 November 2013).Google Scholar
Rawoens, Gudrun & Johansson, Annika. 2014. A corpus-based contrastive study of impersonal passives in Swedish and Dutch. Ms., Ghent University and Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Silén, Beatrice. 1997. Agentadverbialet i modern svenska (Studier i nordisk filologi 76). Helsingfors: Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland. [Ph.D. dissertation]Google Scholar
Sundman, Marketta. 1983. Control, subject and voice in Swedish. In Karlsson, Fred (ed.), Papers from the Seventh Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 101–112. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik, vol. IV. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Thorell, Olof. 1973. Svensk grammatik. Stockholm: Esselte Studium.Google Scholar
Western, August. 1921. Norsk riksmåls-grammatikk for studerende og lærere. Kristiania: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Zola Christensen, Robert & Christensen, Lisa. 2005. Dansk Grammatik. Odense: Syddansk universitetsforlag.Google Scholar