1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 13, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates the formal and functional properties of so-called semi-insubordination (SIS), i.e. complex sentences with an ‘incomplete’ matrix clause (e.g. ), on the basis of corpus data. It is shown that SIS differs in its function from the structurally related constructions -extraposition and exclamatives, exhibiting its own functional profile: viz. expressing a subjectivizing speaker evaluation which is non-exclamative, deictically anchored, and relates to a non-presupposed proposition. Given these functional idiosyncrasies it is argued that SIS is best analysed as a construction in its own right (in terms of Construction Grammar) rather than simply an incomplete elliptical structure.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00049.kal
2021-08-02
2023-12-03

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.00049.kal
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aelbrecht, L.
    (2006) IP-ellipsis in Dutch dialects: X + that-clause. InJ. Van de Weijer & B. Los (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006 (pp.1–14). Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ariel, M.
    (2008) Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beijering, K.
    (2017) Semi-insubordinate dat-constructions in Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 22(3), 333–357. 10.5117/NEDTAA2017.3.BEIJ
     https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2017.3.BEIJ [Google Scholar]
  4. Beijering, K. & Norde, M.
    (2019) Adverbial semi-insubordination constructions in Swedish: Synchrony and diachrony. InK. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. S. Sansiñena (Eds.), Insubordination: Theoretical and empirical issues (pp.79–106). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110638288
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110638288 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beyssade, C. & Marandin, J.-M.
    (2006) The speech act assignment problem revisited: disentangling speaker’s commitment from speaker’s call on addressee. InO. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, 6, 37–68. www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/index_en.html
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolinger, D. L.
    (1977) Meaning and form. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Boogaart, R. & Verheij, K.
    (2013) Als dát geen insubordinatie is! De pragmatiek van zelfstandige conditionele zinnen. InT. Janssen & J. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Honderd jaar taalewetenschap. Artikelen aangeboden aan Saskia Daalder bij haar afscheid van de Vrije Universiteit (pp.13–28). Nodus Publikationen.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bos, G.
    (1963) Een verwaarloosd zinstype, InA. W. De Groot & H. Schulting (Eds.), Studies op het gebied van het hedendaagse Nederlands (pp.174–194). The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cappelle, B.
    (2017) What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions?InI. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp.115–151). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_8 [Google Scholar]
  11. Collins, P.
    (1994) Extraposition in English. Functions of Language, 1(1), 7–24. 10.1075/fol.1.1.03col
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.1.1.03col [Google Scholar]
  12. (2005) Exclamative clauses in English. Word, 56(1), 1–17. 10.1080/00437956.2005.11432550
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2005.11432550 [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  15. D’Hertefelt, S.
    (2018) Insubordination in Germanic: A Typology of Complement and Conditional Constructions. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110548686
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110548686 [Google Scholar]
  16. D’Hertefelt, S. & Verstraete, J.-C.
    (2014) Independent complement constructions in Swedish and Danish: Insubordination or dependency shift?Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 89–102. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  17. Davies, M.
    (2004–) British National Corpus (fromOxford University Press). Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/
  18. (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One billion words, 1990–2019. Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
  19. (2011–) Corpus of American Soap Operas: 100 million words. Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/soap/
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Diessel, H.
    (2019) The grammar network. How language structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Evans, N.
    (2007) Insubordination and its uses. InI. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness. Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp.366–431). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Fillmore, C.
    (1982) Toward a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. InR. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp.31–59). J. Wiley and Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Finkbeiner, R.
    (2019) Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 11(2) (Special issue: On the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar), 171–192. 10.1075/cf.00027.fin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00027.fin [Google Scholar]
  24. Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O.
    (2004) Construction Grammar: a thumbnail sketch. InM. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp.11–86). Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2 [Google Scholar]
  25. Garrett, E. J.
    (2001) Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Unpublished Phd dissertationUniversity of California, Los Angeles. (available athttps://linguistics.ucla.edu/general/dissertations/GarrettEdwardDissertationUCLA2001.pdf)
  26. Ginzburg, J. & Kolliakou, D.
    (2009) The emergence of fragments in child language. Journal of Linguistics, 45(3), 541–673. 10.1017/S0022226709990053
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990053 [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. (2009) The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127. 10.1515/COGL.2009.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.005 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2019) Explain me this. Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Goldberg, A. E. & Perek, F.
    (2019) Ellipsis in Construction Grammar. InJ. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmer Timmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis (pp.188–204). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hall, A.
    (2019) Fragments. InJ. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmer Timmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis. Oxford University Press, 605–623.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Huddleston, R.
    (1984) Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165785
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165785 [Google Scholar]
  35. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kaltenböck, G.
    (2003) On the syntactic and semantic status of anticipatory it. English Language and Linguistics, 7(2), 235–255. 10.1017/S1360674303001096
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674303001096 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2005) “It-extraposition in English: a functional view.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 119–159. 10.1075/ijcl.10.2.02kal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.2.02kal [Google Scholar]
  38. (2016) Semi-insubordination im Englischen und Deutschen: zur Verwendung einer kommentierenden Konstruktion. Paper given atSymposium ‘Die kommentative Funktion’, Université de Lille, 4–5 November 2016.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (2019) Delimiting the class: A typology of English insubordination. InK. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. S. Sansin͂ena (Eds.), Insubordination: theoretical and empirical issues (pp.167–168): De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110638288‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110638288-006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C.
    (1970) Fact. InM. Bierwisch & K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in Linguistics: A collection of Papers (pp.143–173). The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783111350219.143
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111350219.143 [Google Scholar]
  41. König, E. & Siemund, P.
    (2007) Speech act distinctions in grammar. InT. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1. Clause structure (pp.276–324). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.005 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lambrecht, K.
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  43. Levinson, S. C.
    (2006) Deixis. InL. R. Horn & G. L. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of Pragmatics (pp.87–120). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756959.ch5
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch5 [Google Scholar]
  44. Merchant, J.
    (2019) Ellipsis. A survey of analytical approaches. InJ. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmer Timmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis (pp.19–45). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2001) Exclamative constructions. InM. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals2. (pp.1038–1050). Walter De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K.
    (1996a) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 73(2), 215–247. 10.2307/416650
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
  47. (1996b) The exclamative sentence type in English. InA. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp.375–390). CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Mithun, M.
    (2016) How fascinating! Insubordinate exclamations. InN. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination (pp.367–392). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.115.14mit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.14mit [Google Scholar]
  49. Morel, M.-A.
    (1995) L’intonation exclamative dans l’oral spontane. Faits de Langues, 6, 63–70. 10.3406/flang.1995.1006
     https://doi.org/10.3406/flang.1995.1006 [Google Scholar]
  50. Newmeyer, F. J.
    (2003) Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language, 79, 682–707. 10.1353/lan.2003.0260
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0260 [Google Scholar]
  51. Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H. & Gibson, E.
    (2012) The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122, 280–91. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  52. Postal, P. M.
    (1974) On Raising. M.I.T. Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Prince, E. F.
    (1981) Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. InP. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp.223–255). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Progovac, L., Paesani, K., Casielles, E. & Barton, E.
    (Eds.) (2006) The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives. John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.93
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.93 [Google Scholar]
  55. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Ramat, P., & Ricca, D.
    (1998) Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. InJ. van der Auwera & D. P. Ó Baoill (Eds.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe (pp.187–273). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110802610.187
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802610.187 [Google Scholar]
  57. Riddle, E.
    (1975) Some pragmatic conditions on complementizer choice. Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting. April 18–20, 1975. Linguistic Society, 467–474.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Sadock, J. & Zwicky, A.
    (1985) Speech act distinctions in syntax. InT. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1. Clause structure (pp.155–196) Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Sansiñena, M. S.
    (2015) The multiple functional load of que. An interactional approach to insubordinate complement clauses in Spanish. University of Leuven dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Shannon, C. E.
    (1993) C. E. Shannon: Collected papers. John Wiley and Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Siemund, P.
    (2015) Exclamative clauses in English and their relevance for theories of clause type. Studies in Language, 39(3), 697–727. 10.1075/sl.39.3.06sie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.3.06sie [Google Scholar]
  62. Traugott, E. C.
    (forthc.). The development of metatextual connectors in English. A historical constructionalist perspective on pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G.
    (2010) Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?InE. C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp.19–44). Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  65. Van linden, A. & Van de Velde, F.
    (2014) (Semi-)autonomous subordination in Dutch: Structures and semantic-pragmatic values. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 226–250. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.022
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.022 [Google Scholar]
  66. Verhagen, A.
    (2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Zanuttini, R. & Portner, P.
    (2003) Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language, 79(1), 39–81. 10.1353/lan.2003.0105
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0105 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00049.kal
Loading
Funny you should say that
Constructions and Frames 13, 126 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00049.kal
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00049.kal
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00049.kal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constructional network; ellipsis; exclamative; it-extraposition; semi-insubordination

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error