Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:25:18.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Actants and aktionsart: The Norwegian verb få as the dynamic counterpart to ha / Actants et mode d'action : le verbe norvégien få comme contrepartie dynamique de ha

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2019

Madeleine Halmøy
Madeleine Halmøy*
Affiliation:
Sogn og Fjordane University College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following Denis Bouchard's neo-Saussurean Sign Theory of Language, with a focus on the notion of Grammar Semantics, this article sketches a proposal for a unified understanding of the most multifunctional among Norwegian verbs, namely få ‘get’. Based on Bouchard's analysis of French être ‘be’ and avoir ‘have’ and corresponding signs in other languages, I propose that få is the dynamic version of ha ‘have’, which is a bivalent transitive copula. This abstract semantic value is shown to form the basis for the many contextual interpretations få receives, in its use both as a main verb and as an auxiliary. To my knowledge, a monosemic, unified understanding of få that covers all its uses and interpretations has not yet been proposed, especially not one that highlights its relationships with være ‘be’, ha ‘have’ and bli ‘be, become, get’. The study also includes a contrastive analysis of få and the English verb get.

Résumé

Le présent article, axé sur la notion de sémantique de la grammaire, s'inscrit dans le cadre de la théorie néo-saussurienne du signe linguistique de Denis Bouchard et propose une analyse unifiée du verbe få, ‘recevoir, obtenir’, le plus multifonctionnel des verbes norvégiens. L'analyse prend pour point de départ les travaux de Bouchard sur les verbes français être et avoir et leurs équivalents dans d'autres langues. Je propose de trouver en få la contrepartie dynamique de ha ‘avoir’, qui est une copule transitive bivalente. On verra que ce verbe a une valeur sémantique abstraite, qui est à la base des multiples interprétations qu'il est susceptible de recevoir selon les contextes, qu'il fonctionne comme verbe principal ou comme auxiliaire. À ma connaissance, personne n'a proposé à ce jour une analyse monosémique unifiée de få qui couvre tous ses emplois et toutes ses interprétations et qui mette en lumière ses relations avec les verbes være ‘être’, ha ‘avoir’ et bli ‘être, devenir’. Le présent article comporte également une analyse contrastive de få et du verbe anglais get.

Keywords

Norwegian verb fåEnglish verb getvalencyaktionsartmonosemyle verbe norvégien fåle verbe anglais getvalencemode d'actionmonosémie
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 64 , Issue 2: Les signes, leur combinaison et les propriétés fondamentales du langage : un hommage à Denis Bouchard / Signs, their combination, and the fundamental properties of language: A tribute to Denis Bouchard , June 2019 , pp. 216 - 280
Copyright
© Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

Kristin Eide, Tore Nesset and Bruce Morén-Duolljá have provided valuable feedback on a previous version of this article. I am also indebted to three anonymous reviewers who provided thorough comments. I would like to take this opportunity to also thank Denis Bouchard for everything I have learned from him, for his intellectual and personal openness and generosity, and for his insightful theory.

*

At the final stages of the publication of this issue, we learned with great sadness that Madeleine Halmøy had passed away on June 20, 2018. She will be greatly missed.

References

References / Références

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2005. A note on non-canonical passives: The case of the get-passive. In Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, ed. Broekhuis, Hans, Corver, Norbert, Huybregts, Riny, Kleinhenz, Ursula, and Koster, Jan, 13–21. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Askedal, John Ole. 2012. Norwegian få ‘get’: A survey of its uses in present-day Riksmål/Bokmål. Linguistics 50(6): 1289–1331.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The semantics of syntax. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2002. Adjectives, number, and interfaces: Why languages vary. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2013. The nature and origin of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hillary. 1980. Is the get-passive adversative? Papers in Linguistics 13(3): 411–452.Google Scholar
Coto Villalibre, Eduardo. 2015. Is the get-passive really that adversative? Miscelánea. A Journal of English and American Studies 51: 13–26.Google Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1962. Elementær dansk grammatik [Elementary Danish grammar]. København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Ebeling, Signe Oksefjell. 2003. The Norwegian verbs bli and få and their correspondences in English: A corpus-based contrastive study. Acta Humaniora 170. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum. 2005. Norwegian modals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein, and Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk [Norwegian reference grammar]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy, and Yang, Lynne. 1994. The rise of the English get-passive. In Voice: Form and function, ed. Fox, Barbara and Hopper, Paul J., 119–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gosselin, Laurent. 1996. Sémantique de la temporalité en français. Louvain-la-Neuve : Duculot.Google Scholar
Gronemeyer, Claire. 1999. On deriving complex polysemy: The grammaticalization of get. English Language and Linguistics 3(1): 1–39.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1985. The get-passive and Burzio's generalization. Lingua 66(1): 53–77.Google Scholar
Halmøy, Madeleine. 2016. The Norwegian nominal system – a neo-Saussurean perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hansen, Aage. 1967. Moderne dansk III [Modern Danish III]. København: Grafisk forlag.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2004. Wanting, having and getting. Linguistic Inquiry 35(2): 355–392.Google Scholar
Heggstad, Kolbjørn. 1982. Norsk frekvensordbok [Norwegian frequency dictionary]. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K., eds. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2001. The syntax of complex tenses. The Linguistic Review 18(2): 125–167.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lie, Svein. 1976. Innføring i norsk syntaks [Introduction to Norwegian syntax]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 1996. The theory of complex predicates and the Norwegian verb få ‘get’. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 76–91.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2005. The semantic and syntactic decomposition of get: An interaction between verb meaning and particle placement. Journal of Semantics 22(4): 401–438.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2014. Fear and loathing of the English passive. Language and Communication 37: 60–74.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2001. An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1): 183–192.Google Scholar
Riegel, Martin, Pellat, Jean-Christophe et Rioul., René 2009. Grammaire méthodique du français (4e édition). Paris : Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1967. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris : Payot [1916].Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 2002. Écrits de linguistique générale, sous la direction de Simon Bouquet et Rudolf Engler avec la collaboration d'Antoinette Weil. Paris : Gallimard.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 2010. Unintentionally out of control. In Argument structure and syntactic relations: A cross-linguistic perspective, ed. Duguine, Maia, Huidobro, Susana, and Madariaga, Nerea, 283–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris : Éditions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Toyota, Junichi. 2008. Diachronic change in the English passive. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
van Voorst, Jan. 1988. Event structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar