The aim of this dissertation is to give a detailed analysis of the Dutch verb komen ‘come’ and the Swedish verb komma ‘come’ based on a systematic comparison. Focus has been placed on grammatical polysemy and the study is written within the framework of cognitive linguistics. Both verbs can be defined as corresponding to a complex category consisting of a prototypical meaning and other meanings which can be central or peripheral in relation to the prototype.

Two monolingual corpora consisting of newspaper texts were used as sources of data: INL 27 Miljoen Woorden Krantencorpus 1995 and Press 95, 96, 97 Concordances in Göteborg University’s Bank of Swedish. A sample of 1,490 tokens of komen and 1,518 tokens of komma was taken from the two corpora. When analyzing the two verbs and their context the following ten variables were taken into consideration: 1) physical movement, 2) animate or inanimate subject, 3) adverbial, 4) future reference 5) bounded or unbounded aktionsart, 6) ingressive meaning, 7) accidentality, 8) infinitive marker, 9) predictive and/or intentional meaning, and 10) causativity.

The results indicate that komen and komma have the same prototypical meaning. However, the semantic extensions from the prototype differ between the two verbs. If we consider the two verbs in a network, the meanings of komen and komma occupy different positions relative to the prototype. On the one hand, when Dutch komen is a copulative verb and/or occurs in lexicalized verb phrases, the resultative meaning is more central, while the aspectual meaning is peripheral. On the other hand, the temporal meaning of Swedish komma, as a future auxiliary verb, holds a more central position than the resultative meaning which is more peripheral. Nevertheless, Dutch komen, which is not considered a future auxiliary verb, but is rather an aspectual auxiliary verb shows similarities in the present tense (komen te + V2) with the Swedish kommer att construction (a true future auxiliary verb). That is, Dutch komen can have clear future reference, but in a limited context. Whereas Dutch komen is categorized as a copulative verb, the Swedish komma is not considered a copulative verb. Nevertheless, it is clear from the corpus that Swedish komma has a copula-like function, but in a limited context. Finally, it has become clear that komen and komma have undergone somewhat different grammaticalization processes even though both verbs contain similar meanings.

This paper considers the translation of picture books. It explores how multimodal analysis as proposed by Kress & Van Leeuwen (2006) can be integrated into a descriptive model for translation analysis as proposed by Toury (1995). As picture book texts combine both visual and verbal means of expression, a study of the two semiotic modes must be included in a translation analysis of these texts. Because translated picture books are printed in coproduction, visual text components of the source text are combined with new verbal components in the target text. It has been argued that the co-printing of picture books leads to an amalgamate market avoiding culture-specific elements in the images. This view however only takes into consideration the physical appearance of the images and thus ignores the semiotic content that these images get when placed within the context of a text. By using a multimodal analysis as part of a translation analysis not only the changing semiotic interplay between the verbal and the visual can be studied, it also allows the study of how the semiotic content of images changes when placed into a new textual and socio-cultural context.

This paper treats the reception in the Swedish literary field of the group of poets in Dutch literature known as ‘De Vijftigers’ and of some other authors of the same generation (the 1950’s). The model used was created by the French cultural sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. As the literary field is developing constantly, I am also indebted to views of the Israeli scholar Itamar Even-Zohar who created the term ‘polysystem’, meaning field wherein several paradigms coexist. According to his theory, the succes of reception in a foreign field should be due to the need and receptivity of the receiving polysystem. But this is not enough as an explanation. I would like to add the notion of hazard. There must be a suitable constellation of enthusiastic and gifted missionaries and helpers at the psychological moment. Those actors should have a certain status or prestige in the fields concerned, such as the literary field, the academic field, or the political field.