Dik Like any other type of constituent, clauses may be attached to hosts at any one of these levels.
Gast, Volker [WorldCat Identities]
In other words, research on complex sentences has increasingly been parameterized. The most comprehensive and, in a way, so far most radical proposal in this direction was made in a programmatic paper by Lehmann Lehmann distinguishes three major dimensions along which combinations of clauses may differ: i autonomy vs. Each of these dimensions comprises two sub-parameters cf. Diagram 1. Note that all of these param- eters are relevant to all type of subordinate clause, i.
Still, the multi-dimen- sional space that Lehmann creates goes way beyond traditional approaches to clause linkage and opens up new horizons, and raises new questions. Autonomy vs.
Clauses are embedded when they form part of another con- stituent. We will only illustrate one of the intermediate types. There is one complete independent clause C2 containing a pronominal element tunbesi which serves as a place holder for an adjacent wh-clause C1. The man I love will come to me. Lehmann distinguishes two major types of clause linkage: i attachment of a subordinate clause to some other category, and ii complex predicate formation.
Within i , a subordinate clause may be located a outside the main clause, b at the margin of the main clause, c inside the main clause, or d inside the VP. For case ii , Lehmann distinguishes a verb serialization, b auxiliary periphrasis, and c verbal derivation. An example of a subordinate clause that is located outside the main clause — the highest level of linking, i. Bickel This applies to conditionals at the speech act level cf.
As Schackow et al. This difference is reflected in the compatibility of the relevant constructions with different types of focus markers. Distributional differences are not always obvious and we often have to use language-specific diagnostics. Section 2.
It should be borne in mind, however, that oper- ator scope should not be used as the only diagnostic for the level of linking, as scope properties may vary from one operator to another, and also among constructions cf.
Bickel and Section 4. Expansion vs. TAM, person, case, etc. Given that central aspects of finiteness were discussed in Section 2 already, we will here focus on an aspect of desententialization that has been largely neglected in the finiteness discussion, i. In English as well as in many other languages participles or converbs do not have a structural position at their left margin which can be used for information structurally privileged material, e.
For instance, a wh-question corresponding to the sentence John sat at the table, reading [a magazine]F can only be formed with the wh-pronoun remaining in situ note that extraction across the clause boundary is not possible in this case; cf. Section 4. John sat at the table [reading what ]?
Unlike their English counterparts, Lithuanian agreeing participles as described by Arkadiev this volume exhibit a relatively elaborate clause structure with a left-peripheral slot for wh-elements. There are thus clear structural differences between the two major nonfinite clause types of English, i. It seems to us that the non- availability of such information structurally relevant slots present another interesting parameter of cross-linguistic and cross-constructional variation which deserves more attention than it has received so far. Junctures at low levels of sentence structure often develop into grammatical constructions, e.
For example, constructions in which the main verb exhibits indications of grammaticalization may differ in the division of labour in the expression of morphosyntactic categories, i. In most European languages, the former main verb — i. He [is going to]aux.
- Stanford Libraries?
- kəsilmək - Wiktionary.
- Product description;
- Clause linkage in cross-linguistic perspective : data-driven approaches to cross-clausal syntax?
In other languages, at least some of the morphosyntactic information is encoded only on the former dependent verb, e. Isolation vs. On one end of the scale there are instances of clause combining with a maximally explicit — ideally, monosemous — linking element, e. As Palancar this volume points out, asyndetic linkage is often regarded as a typical feature of coordination, but a syndeticity is in fact independent of the coordination vs. Palancar makes this point using data from San Ildefonso Otomi.
Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective
Like many other native American languages, San Ildefonso Otomi does not make extensive use of explicit subordinators and uses different means to identify inter-clausal relations. Intonation plays an important role, e. Coordinate clauses are separated from the attachment category by a boundary signal.
While the bracketed part of 23a is interpreted as a semantically subordinate purpose clause, the one in 23b is rendered using a coordinating conjunction in the English translation. The only example discussed by Lehmann is Port. These elements are primarily used in relative clauses and comple- ment clauses. This marker is used for all major types of subordinate clauses distinguished in Table 1 Section 2. More complex subordinators e. Note moreover that the amount of information associated with a given subordinator correlates negatively with its phonological substance.
Except in research on complex sentences e.
Kortmann , they have also widely been studied in grammaticalization research. As will be seen in the next section, many contributions to this volume contain interesting obser- vations relating to interlacing. For a comprehensive parametric typology of clause linkage such cross-clausal dependencies provide an invaluable source of insight, and mapping the space of variation in this domain should, in our view, be one of the main priorities in the typological study of com- plex sentences.
We will start with the former in Section 4. Argument-related dependencies The sharing of participants is not only one of the most frequent symptoms but also an important indicator of clause linkage. Specific types of subordi- nate clauses necessarily share an argument with their attachment category. Most obviously, this applies to relative clauses. They typically contain either a gap or a relative pronoun cf.
Lehmann for a comprehensive struc- tural typology of relative clauses. In specific cases, resumptive pronouns i. As is well known, there is a clear correlation between the accessibility of an argument and the use of resumptive pronouns in relative clauses cf. Nefedov this volume. A pertinent example is given in For example, complements of verbs of wanting and purpose clauses typically, but not necessarily, have a subject argument that is coreferential with the matrix subject cf.
Haspelmath , Schmidtke-Bode Such tendencies may be more or less strictly grammaticalized. The asyndetic purpose construction of San Ildefonso Otomi mentioned in Section 3. In cases of non- coreferentiality, a different construction has to be used. The sharing of arguments is thus a necessary condition and, together with the absence of an intonational break, an indicator of the purposive sense of such sentences. This is what we typically find in European languages, e.
However, the opposite situation can also be found. In San Ildefonso Otomi, the category of number is sometimes expressed in only one of the clauses involved. In this case, the relevant markers enclitics can only be omitted in the main clause and have to appear in the subordinate clause cf.