Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T13:21:54.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Value of Cognitive Grammar in Typological Studies: the Case of Norwegian and Russian Passive, Middle and Reflexive1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

Hans-Olav Enger  and
Tore Nesset
Hans-Olav Enger
Affiliation:
Department of Scandinavian Languages, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm. E-mail: Hans_Olav.Enger@nordiska.su.se.
Tore Nesset
Affiliation:
Department of Russian, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø. Email: Tore.Nesset@hum.uit.no
Get access

Abstract

This paper shows that Cognitive Grammar is valuable for typological studies. The Norwegian and Russian reflexive-middle-passive systems are analysed comprehensively and compared. Whereas Cognitive Grammar is compatible with the typological tradition (represented by Kemmer), it needs amendment in certain important respects. The main theoretical contribution of the paper is that the Cognitive Grammar notions of “instantiation”, “prototype”, “entrenchment” and “extension” are useful; without these notions, interesting generalizations about the Norwegian and Russian systems are inexpressible. The main empirical contribution of the paper is that a full-fledged analysis of the Russian system is presented. In addition, Kemmer's analysis of Norwegian is improved upon, partly because findings from the generative tradition are incorporated.

Type
Review Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , June 1999 , pp. 27 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

Bauer, L. 1988. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Berkov, V. P. 1989. Die Reflexiva in den skandinavischen Sprachen. In Walter, E. & Mittelstädt, H. (eds), Altnordistik: Vielfalt und Einheit. Erinnerungsband fülr Walter Baetke. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 144–160.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1994. Inflection Classes, Gender and the Principle of Contrast. Language 70, 737–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language. Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Westport/ London: Praeger.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö., Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 1992. Language Typology around the Baltic Sea: a Problem Inventory. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M. 1993. The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.-M., Williams, E. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. 1996. Verb Semantics, Diathesis and Aspect. Doctoral dissertation, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Dyvik, H. 1980. Har gammelnorsk passiv? In Hovdhaugen, E. (ed), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 81–107.Google Scholar
Enger, H.-O. 1998. The Classification of Strong Verbs in Norwegian with Special Reference to the Oslo Dialect. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S., Vannebo, K. I. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G., Sag, I. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Geniušiene, E. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Grayter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and Economic Motivation. Language 59, 781–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heggstad, K. 1982. Norsk frekvensordbok. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Hellan, L. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht/ Providence: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hestvik, A. 1992. LF Movement of Pronouns and Antisubject Orientation. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 557–594.Google Scholar
Isačenko, A. V. 1982. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Formenlehre. Munich: Max Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. 1993. Cognitive Linguistics as a Continuation of the Jakobsonian Tradition. The Semantics of Russian and Czech Reflexives. In Maguire, R. A. & Timberlake, A. (eds), American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists. Bratislava, August-September 1993. Literature, Linguistics, Poetics. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 310–319.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knudsen, T., Sommerfelt, A. 1937–1957. Norsk riksmålsordbok. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landrø, M., Wangensteen, B. 1986. Bokmålsordboka. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991a. Concept, Image, and Symbol. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Manney, L. 1998. The Reflexive Archetype and its Various Realizations in Modern Greek. Studies in Language 22, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Marie, J. 1988. On the Role of Semantics in Productivity Change. In Booij, G. & van Marie, J. (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1988. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 139–154.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1993. Grammatical Theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mugdan, J. 1986. Was ist eigentlich ein Morphem? Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39, 29–43.Google Scholar
Nesset, T. 1998a. Russian Conjugation Revisited. A Cognitive Approach to Aspects of Russian Verb Inflection. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Nesset, T. 1998b. Affiks eller klitikon? Om elementet -sja i moderne standard russisk. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 16, 185, 206.Google Scholar
Pederson, E. W. 1991. Subtle Semantics: Universals in Polysemy of Reflexive and Causative Constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sandra, D., Rice, S. 1995. Network Analyses of Meaning: Mirroring Whose Mind - the Linguist's or the User's? Cognitive Linguistics 6, 89–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoorlemmer, M. 1997. Russian sja and the affix-clitic distinction. In Lindseth, M. & Franks, S. (eds), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Indiana Meeting, 1996. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, 253–274.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ureland, P. S. 1977. Some Comparative Aspects of Pronominal Cliticization in the Baltic Language Area. In Drachmann, G. (ed), Salzhurger Frühlingstagung für Linguistik 2. Tübingen: Verlag Gunter Narr, 301–319.Google Scholar
Ušakov, D. N. (ed). 1935. Tolkovyj slovar' russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Sovetskaja ènciklopedija.Google Scholar
Vestbøstad, P. 1989. Nynorsk frekvensordbok. Bergen: Alma Mater.Google Scholar
Williams, A. 1993. The Argument Structure of Sja-Predicates. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1, 167–190.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. 1989. Andrew Carstairs: Allomorphy in Inflection [book review]. In Booij, G. & van Marie, J. (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1989. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 205–227.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. 1990. Gedanken zu Suppletion und Natürlichkeit. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 43, 86–91.Google Scholar