Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Matlock, Teenie
2022.
Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond.
Vol. 9,
Issue. ,
p.
109.
Article contents
Virtual and Actual Existentials in English, Swedish and Icelandic1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 December 2008
Abstract
The focus of my analysis is the so-called existential construction. The languages examined are English, Swedish and Icelandic. The present article assumes the perspective of Ronald W. Langacker's cognitive grammar as the theoretical background. First of all, the assumption is that the unstressed, initial pronoun there, or its Scandinavian equivalents, are semantically definable as abstract-setting subjects of their respective sentences, with, possibly, the exception of Icelandic það. Secondly, the conceptualization of the existential scenes in the three languages is a dynamic process in each case. The dynamicity of the semantics of existential scenes is the result of assuming two planes, the actual and a virtual one, and establishing correspondences between them. The actual plane reflects our direct apprehension of reality. A virtual plane consists in the dynamic re-assignment of roles to the actual elements introduced by means of the virtual abstract-setting subject.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000
References
REFERENCES
Askedal, J. 1982. On the Syntactic Representation of So-Called ‘Existential-Presentative Sentences’ in Norwegian and German. A Contrastive Analysis. In Fretheim, Th. & Hellan, L. (eds.), Papers from the Sixth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Røros, 06 19–21, 1981. Trondheim: Tapir, 11–25.Google Scholar
Clark, E. 1978. Locationals: Existential, Locative, and Possessive Constructions. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 4, Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 85–126.Google Scholar
Erdmann, P. 1976. There. There Sentences in English. A Relational Study Based on a Corpus of Written Texts. Munich: tuduv-Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Falk, C. 1987. Subjectless Clauses in Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 32, 1–26.Google Scholar
Falk, C. 1989. On the Existential Construction in the Germanic Languages. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44, 45–59.Google Scholar
Falk, C. 1993. Non-Referential Subjects in the History of Swedish. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Lund.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Ph. & Hinchliffe, I. 1994. Swedish. A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. [Reprinted in 1963]Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, R. 1979. The Problem of Presentative Sentences in Modern Dutch. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1986. Abstract Motion. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 12, 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1995. Possession and Possessive Constructions. In Taylor, J. & MacLaury, R. (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 51–79.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1997. A Dynamic Account of Grammatical Function. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to T. Givón. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1998. Conceptualization, Symbolization, and Grammar. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1–39.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1999. Virtual Reality. Unpublished ms., Department of Linguistics, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1967. A Note on Possessive, Existential and Locative Sentences. Foundations of Language 3, 390–396.Google Scholar
Maling, J. 1987. Existential Sentences in Swedish and Icelandic: Reference to Thematic Roles. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 28, 1–21.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. 1996. Subjective Motion and English and Japanese Verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 7, 183–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Ch. 1983. Existential Sentences in English, German, Icelandic and Swedish. In Karlsson, F. (ed.), Papers from the Seventh Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 80–100.Google Scholar
Platzack, Ch. 1987. The Scandinavian Languages and the Null-Subject Parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 377–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1996. Fictive Motion in Language and ‘Ception.’ In Bloom, P. et al. (eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 211–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by