Gram - SEAS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

182 7 <strong>Gram</strong>maticalization across clauses clauses is a nucleus containing the fu ll range of verbal markers for tense, aspect, mood, and so on. If the language is verb-final (OV), the fully marked verb is the last in the series. (And at least in some verb-initial African languages, this verb is lhe first in the series; see Longacre 1990.) Often the verbal inl1ections in the chained clauses (margins) are restricted to carrying information aboul the participants, not temporality. This is especially true of New Guinea languages, where the inlerior verbs (known as "medial" verbs) are suffixed with indicators of the person and number of the subject of the following verb but not for tense, aspect or mood. The following is an example from Hua with a medial (MED) ending -galla lhat signals switch reference (SW) (i.e. that the subject of the second verb is not the same as that of the first): (12) Minaroga rmu-gana baie. down:lhere go:down-MED:SW stay:3SG:NON-FUT '\ went down there and he stayed After/because \ went down there. he stayed.' (Haiman 1984: 68) Hypotaxis is not limited to clause chaining. Among other hypotactic constructions are appositional relatives in English. These are semantically and even syntactically equivalent to appositional (parenthetical, c1arificational) structures, and even to coordinate clauses. For example, (13a) is equivalent to (13b): (13) a. Bill Smith, who is our president, would like to meet with you. b. Bill Smith would like to meet with you. By the way, he is our president. Furthermore, the matrix NP and the relative can be reversed in order, with only minor pragmatic ditTerences: (13) c. Our president, Bill Smith, would like to meet with you. Appositive relatives can even carry their own iIIocutionary force. that is, they can fu nction as speech acts independent of the speech act of the matrix clause. This means that they can function as questions or imperatives within statements, something which canonically embedded clauses cannot do. An example from Latin is: (14) Perutiles Xenophontis Iibri highly-useful Xenophon's books studiose! studiously sunt. quos legite quaeso. are, which read-IMP/PL ask-ISG. 'Highly useful are Xenophon's books; please read them thoroughly.' (c. 40 BC. Cic.Cat.M.59; cited in C. Lehmann 1988: 194) Other hypotactic constructions include adverbial clauses, including temporals ('when' -clauses), causals ('because' -clauses), conditional ('if' -clauses), and
7.2 A cline of clause-combining constructions 183 concessives ('although' -clauses). Example (7) contains two nuclei, and is paratactic. In other, more formal or "literate," registers, the same relationship may be indicated with explicit morphology: ( 1 5) If you keep smoking those cigarettes, you're going to start coughing again. In (15) the if- clause cannot stand on its own. Traditional grammars have treated adverbial clauses as subordinate or embedded. But as Matthiessen and Thompson (1988) show, the relationship of dependency is different from that of the prototypical cases of embedding. Specifically, there is a semantic difference. For example, in (16), befo re leaving is equivalent to befo re his departure, a nominalization that presents an event as an entity, not to befo re noon, which is an adverbial phrase with a noun: (16) Before leaving Krishnapur, the Collector took a strange decision. (Matthiessen and Thompson 1988: 180) As we will see below, adverbial clauses actually arose out of the reanalysis of adverbial phrases as adverbial clauses; however, they have not reached the level of incorporation that, for example, complements have done. Adverbial clauses themselves show a continuum oflooser-to-tighter integration, a continuum that correlates with their function. Thus an explanatory causal can have independent illocutionary force, as in (17a), while a causal giving the grounds for the consequent cannot do so (I7b): ( 17) a. The Knicks are going to win. because who on earth can stop Bernard? (G. Lakoff 1984: 474) b. 'The Knicks are going to win because do they have the best players? Z2.3 Subordination Subordinate clauses are dependent on their matrix clauses in various ways. For one, they cannot have different iIlocutionary force from the matrix. For another, they are equivalent to the constituents they express. In addition, they typically are interlaced in some way. In the following example of an English restrictive relative, who just walked out of the store is structurally equivalent to nominal modifiers such as the. Furthermore, it is surrounded by material ti'om the matrix clause (/ think the guy . .. resembles the photo): (18) I think the guy who just walked out of the store resembles the photo in the postoffice window. In the following example of a Latin conjunct participial construction, the predicative adjective phrase patria pulsul1l is equivalent to a modifier of Aristides. The
Page 2 and 3:
Grammaticalization Second Edition T
Page 4 and 5:
Grammaticalization Second Edition P
Page 6 and 7:
In memory of Dwight Bolinger 1907-1
Page 8 and 9:
x Contents 3.3 Reanalysis 50 :'1.3.
Page 10 and 11:
XII Contents 8.3 Implications of pi
Page 12 and 13:
Tables ::1.1 Grammaticalization of
Page 14 and 15:
xvi Preface and acknowledgments gra
Page 16 and 17:
Abbreviations Linguistic terms ABL
Page 18 and 19:
xx Abbreviations Srel relative clau
Page 20 and 21:
2 I Some preliminaries recurring co
Page 22 and 23:
4 J Some preliminaries 1.2 What is
Page 24 and 25:
6 J Some preliminaries relationship
Page 26 and 27:
8 I Some preliminaries tendencies.
Page 28 and 29:
10 J Some preliminaries 1.3. 1 Lets
Page 30 and 31:
12 J Some preliminaries form of us.
Page 32 and 33:
14 I Some preLiminaries (23) Me-gbb
Page 34 and 35:
16 1 Some preliminaries 1.4 Grammat
Page 36 and 37:
18 I Some preliminaries same way. F
Page 38 and 39:
20 2 The history of grammaticalizat
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
26 2 The histOlY of gramm atica liz
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
30 2 The histOlY of grammaticalizat
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
36 2 The history ojgrammaticalizati
Page 56 and 57:
38 2 Th e history of grammaticaliza
Page 58 and 59:
40 3 Mechanisms: reanalysis and ana
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
48 3 Mechanisms: reanaLysis and ana
Page 68 and 69:
50 3 Mechanisms: reanalysis and all
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
60 3 Mechanisms: reallalysis and an
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
66 3 Mechanisms: reanalysis an.d an
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
72 4 Pragmatic factors speakers tak
Page 92 and 93:
74 4 Pragmatic fa ctors based on me
Page 94 and 95:
76 4 Pragmatic factors (e.g., Traug
Page 96 and 97:
78 4 Pragmatic fa ctors established
Page 98 and 99:
80 4 Pragmatic fa ctors Ty pically
Page 100 and 101:
82 4 Pragmatic fa ctors (1975) in c
Page 102 and 103:
84 4 Pragmatic factors A second que
Page 104 and 105:
86 4 Pragmatic fa ctors apply to th
Page 106 and 107:
88 4 Pragmatic factors the non-ling
Page 108 and 109:
90 4 Pragmatic factors could no lon
Page 110 and 111:
92 4 Pragmatic factors relevance of
Page 112 and 113:
94 4 Pragmatic factors 4.5 Pragmati
Page 114 and 115:
96 4 Pragmatic/actors Perhaps the m
Page 116 and 117:
98 4 Pragmatic fa ctors The process
Page 118 and 119:
100 5 The hypothesis of unidirectio
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
104 5 The hypothesis of ttllidirect
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
110 5 Th e hypothesis of unidirecti
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
I 14 5 The hypothesis oj unidirecti
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151: 132 5 The hypothesis of unidirectio
Page 158 and 159: 6 Clau se-internal morphological ch
Page 160 and 161: 142 6 Clause-internal morphological
Page 164 and 165: 146 6 CLause-internaL morphoLogical
Page 168 and 169: 150 6 CLause-internaL morphoLogicaL
Page 192 and 193: 174 6 Clause-internal 17lorphologic
Page 194 and 195: 176 7 Grammaticalization across cla
Page 198 and 199: 180 7 Grammaticalizatioll across cl
Page 228 and 229: 210 7 GrammaticaLizatiolZ across cl
Page 230 and 231: 8 Grammatica lization in situations
Page 232 and 233: 214 8 Situations of extreme languag
Page 234 and 235: 216 8 Situations 0/ extreme languag
Page 242 and 243: 224 8 Situations of extreme Languag
Page 250 and 251:
232 9 Summary alld suggestions fo r
Page 252 and 253:
Notes Some preliminaries I. We foll
Page 254 and 255:
236 Notes to pages 152-226 2. The d
Page 256 and 257:
238 References the Linguistic Codin
Page 258 and 259:
240 References Breal, Michel. 1991
Page 260 and 261:
242 Refe rences Chafe, Wallace L. 1
Page 262 and 263:
244 References Dietrich, W. 1973. D
Page 264 and 265:
246 References Genetti, Carol 1991.
Page 266 and 267:
248 Refe rences Halpern, Aaron. 199
Page 268 and 269:
250 References Hopper, Paul. 1987.
Page 270 and 271:
252 References Kemenade, Ans van. I
Page 272 and 273:
254 References Lambrecht, Knud. 199
Page 274 and 275:
256 References Los, Beuelou. 1999.
Page 276 and 277:
258 References Ohori . Toshio, ed.
Page 278 and 279:
260 References Sankoff, Gillian. 19
Page 280 and 281:
262 References Ti mberlake. Alan. 1
Page 282 and 283:
264 References Wi scher, lise, and
Page 284 and 285:
266 Index a/ names Couper-Kuhlen. E
Page 286 and 287:
268 Index a/ names Meillet, Antoine
Page 288 and 289:
Index of languages Akkadian 190. 19
Page 290 and 291:
General index abduction 41-3, 72, 7
Page 292 and 293:
274 General index grammatical word
Page 294:
276 General index universals 17, 27
show all

Gram - SEAS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?