Gram - SEAS

178 7 Grammaticalization across clauses
This can fu rther be elaborated by specification in terms of combinations of the
features ±dependent, ±embedded: I
parataxis
-dependent
-embedded
> hypotaxis
+dependent
-embedded
> subordination
+dependent
+embedded
In establishing these three cluster points, we preempt and redefine the terminology
of two traditions, and expand two overlapping pairs into a three-way distinction.
One pair-parataxis versus hypotaxis -derives from a primarily nineteenth-century
tradition in which parataxis was understood to include all kinds of juxtaposition,
and hypotaxis to include all kinds of dependency. The other pair - coordination
versus subordination and especially embedding - derives from more recent traditions,
in which coordination and embedding are defined formally in terms of
constituent structure.
The minimal process in clause combining is unification and bonding, at least
pragmatically. Such bonding is often, most especially in the case of subordination,
accompanied by hierarchical downgrading and desententialization (c. Lehmann
1988), hence decategorialization of one member of the complex structure into a
margin. A nucleus canonically contains a finite verb. Therefore decategorialization
typically entails reduction of the finiteness of the verb. OfparLicular interest to us is
the extent to which the cline of dependency matches up with a cline of grammatical
integration, for example, finiteness on the left and non-finiteness on the right of the
cline, expressed by clausal remnants such as infinitives and participles. A special
case of integration is that in which bonding brings about what C. Lehmann calls
"interlacing": the sharing of participants (e.g., same subject), or of tenses and
moods, and also the interweaving of originally separate clauses into the surface
structure of the matrix (in She seems to be smart, she appears in the matrix but
is actually the subject of the embedded clause, as shown by It seems that she is
smart).
The question is whether the ditl'erent types of clause combining are motivated,
and if so, by what. Giv6n has suggested that there is a cognitive form-function
parallelism of the fo llowing type: "The more two events/states are integrated semantically
or pragmatically, the more will the clauses that code them be integrated
grammatically" (Giv6n 1990: 826). This is a statement about diagrammatic iconicity
as it pertains to the overt form that a clause takes, not its covert, abstract structure,
and can be illustrated by the various forms of complementation in English. Under
most current syntactic analyses, the four sentences in (3) involve a "matrix" and
a "subordinate" clause at some level of syntactic abstraction; however, they also
show increasing degrees of overt morphosyntactic integration. From a discourse
perspective they can also be seen to represent increasing degrees of connectedness