Structure preservation in complex prefields: A note on Müller (2018)

This corpus-based study examines the functions of the conditional converb in Forest Enets and investigates the differences in its use between two generations of Enets speakers. In line with the previous descriptions, independent clauses with conditional converbs are used as self-addressed questions (yes/no, special, and alternative questions). The conditional converb of the verb ɛ ‘be’ when used with numerals is developing into a marker of approximation. Dependent clauses with conditional converbs include protases of conditional and concessive conditional constructions as well as complement clauses. This study discusses the diachronic relation between independent clauses with conditional converbs and the protasis of conditional constructions and concludes that either of the two directions of development is possible. Complement clauses with conditional converbs include, first, irrealis complements to negative propositional attitude predicates (dʲɔxara ‘not know’, dʲurta ‘forget’), which, showing signs of relatively recent grammaticalization, have hitherto received scant attention by scholars, and, second, sentential subjects in modal constructions with such predicates as sɔjza ‘good’, bɔɔ ‘bad’ etc. To compare the use of the Enets conditional converb across types of clauses and generations of speakers, this paper analyses the occurrence of the future tense marker on the converb, the order of clauses in multi-clause constructions, the range of verbs in the main and in the dependent clauses. Many of these parameters can be interpreted as the signs of the growing level of clause integration in the process of grammaticalization of polypredicative constructions.

Editors' note . The discourse function of conditionals is a major concern in virtually every paper in this volume. Ford and Thompson's contribution is, however, the only one which analyses actual, rather than constructed or experimental, data. It sets out to test Haiman's (1978) hypothesis that conditionals are topics, and to ascertain similarities and differences in the function of conditionals depending on clause order. INTRODUCTION The literature on natural language conditionals, including many of the contributions to this volume, has contributed much to our understanding of the internal structure of conditional sentences and of their ‘meanings’. What has been less well discussed is the discourse function of conditionals. Two grammars of English are exceptions: Modern English by Marcella Frank (1972) and The grammar book by Marianne Celce-Murcia and Diane Larsen-Freeman (1983), both of which begin to characterize conditionals with reference to their patterns of occurrence in discourse. Mead and Henderson (1983) also provide an enlightening discussion of conditionals in a particular context, looking at how they function in an economics textbook. Winter (1982) discusses some of the general factors involved in the positioning of various adverbial types, including conditionals. Linde looks at some of the factors which play a role in the positioning of if -clauses either before or after a main clause. Her basic finding is that, with the exception of certain irrealis if -clauses, the order of clauses does not ‘reverse the order of events in real time’ (Linde 1976: 280).

Instances of verb-clitic order in Galician and European Portuguese main clauses are taken in recent work to be the product of overt verb and clitic movement to a position high in the clause. The verb and clitic move to Co according to Madeira (1992) and Manzini (1994), and to Uriagereka’s (1988) F node according Uriagereka (1995a, 1995b), while Martins (1994) proposes that the verb moves to Laka’s (1990) Σ node and the clitic to the highest Infl head. Assuming that any of these is correct, the alternation in languages such as Spanish and Standard Italian between [cl-V] order in fmite clauses and [V-cl] in infmitivals, as well as the alternation between [cl-V] in fmite clauses and [V-cl] in gerunds in Standard Italian and Greek, might be due to the features on the verb to be checked against C, Σ, or F being strong on infinitival verbs (and gerunds), but weak on fmite verbs. Or the alternations in Spanish, Standard Italian, and Greek might reflect an Infl-orientation of the clitic, realised in the Minimalist framework of Chomsky (1993, 1995a, 1995b) as a need for the clitic to check agreement N-features against an inflectional head, with the alternation resulting from different orders of adjunction of V and the clitic to I in finite clauses versus infinitives (and gerunds) along lines laid out in Madeira (1992) and Manzini (1994); specifically, these alternations might reflect an Agro-orientation of the clitic, realised as a need for the clitic to check agreement N-features against Agro.2

Non-verbal predicates without any copula occur at a high frequency in Awetí discourse. Especially numerous are action nominals as heads of action nominal constructions (ANCs) with the structure of possessive NPs. There is evidence that in this Tupian language action nominals of a specific type have lost their pragmatic markedness and undergone a reanalysis as nuclei of main clause predicates. This tendency of a reanalysis of nominalizations has been observed in a variety of South American language families. As monoclausal constructions, ANCs have properties and possibilities which are absent in clauses with finite verbs. One of them is their consistent ergative person-marking and ordering of constituents, compared to Awetí finite verbs with their asymmetrical indexing pattern, and a constituent order in clauses with finite verbs which is motivated by discourse-pragmatic principles. Another is the possibility of a change in perspective in 3rd person arguments marked by an ‘antipassive’ on an action nominal, while 3rd person reference on finite verbs is determined by a person-animacy hierarchy.

The extraposition of a relative clause creates a discontinuous dependency between the relative clause and its host noun phrase, as in A man just entered the bank who claimed to have a gun. Since discontinuous dependencies are known to increase processing effort, a key question is why speakers produce them in the first place. Some factors known to affect extraposition – for example, the length of the relative clause and the main verb phrase – have received processing-based explanations, but others haven’t. We focus on two factors described by previous research: verb type and the grammatical function of the noun phrase hosting the relative clause. Specifically, extraposition from grammatical subjects is more common with unaccusative and passive verbs in English; further, extraposition is more common from grammatical objects than subjects in Dutch and German. We replicate these findings using corpus data from Persian. Further, we propose that verb type and grammatical function can be linked to a single underlying notion: argument structure. We demonstrate that argument structure modulates the likelihood of extraposition in Persian. We suggest that this occurs because speakers choose to extrapose relative clauses in order to keep the main clause verb close to its internal arguments. This explanation extends previous findings in psycholinguistics on the role of argument structure in speech planning during language production.

Reviewed by: Swedish: A comprehensive grammarby Philip Holmes and Ian Hinchliffe Katrin Hiietam Swedish: A comprehensive grammar. 2ndedn. By Philip Holmes and Ian Hinchliffe. London: Routledge, 2003. Pp. xii, 614. ISBN 0415278848. $48.95. This book is an excellent overview of the contemporary language aimed at nonnative learners of Swedish. Since both of the authors are English-speaking, the book is intended primarily for those learners of Swedish whose first language is English; there are plenty of examples and parallels drawn between these two languages. The data used in this book is a mix of especially constructed and adapted naturally occuring examples that have been verified by native speakers. Several examples from the first edition have been changed in order to simplify the argumentation and avoid repetition. In their approach, the authors have tried to retain traditional linguistic terminology and structure as much as possible and pair it with actual contemporary language use. The result is a good account of standard up-to-date Swedish. In addition to the changes in examples, the second edition differs from the first in several ways. First, the numbering is different; second, there is an additional chapter on word formation (Ch. 11). Third, two chapters on nouns and nouns with articles have been merged to form an overview chapter on nouns (Ch. 1), and the noun declension classification in Ch. 1 has been revised to tie in with the 1999 grammar by the Swedish Academy. Finally, Ch. 10 includes an additional section on phrases. In what follows, each chapter is summarized individually. The first nine chapters deal with major and minor categories. Ch. 1 focuses on nouns, gender rules, plurals, and genitive forms, but also on forms for indefinite and definite articles and their use. Ch. 2 discusses the form and order of adjectives, the indefinite [End Page 461]and definite declension, and comparison of adjectives. Ch. 3 gives an overview of different types of pronouns, such as subject and object pronouns, reflexives, emphatics, possessives, demonstratives, determinatives, indefinites, interrogatives, and relatives. Ch. 4 shows how cardinal and ordinal numerals and fractions are used, and how to express dates and time. Ch. 5 outlines the forms of verbs with attention to tenses, modality, transitivity, and reflexivity, morphological and periphrastic passive forms, and compound formations. Ch. 6 discusses the form and function of adverbs, and sets location apart from movement, while Ch. 7 outlines the use of simple and compound prepositions. Coordinating and subordinating conjunctions and other coordinators are discussed in Ch. 8, and Ch. 9 focuses on interjections. Ch. 10 moves on to sentence structure and word order. The authors first divide sentences into identifiable units and discuss phrases, and then they consider word order in main and subordinate clauses. Following that is a section concentrating on order within positions, main clause transformations, and subordinate clauses, and ending with brief accounts of prominence and ellipsis. In Ch. 11 the authors turns to word-formation processes, such as affixation, compounding, expressive formation, and abbreviation, but they also include a section on foreign influences on Swedish and conversion. Finally, Ch. 12 outlines the symbols and sounds of Swedish, and its orthographic rules (spelling and use of small and capital letters), and Ch. 13 concludes with notes on punctuation. The book is also equipped with a glossary of linguistic terms used, a short bibliography on Swedish and English grammar, and a helpful index of English key words and Swedish examples. Katrin Hiietam Manchester, United Kingdom Copyright © 2007 Linguistic Society of America

This paper is organized into five sections. In the first section, I introduce and discuss the particular construction which this investigation will concentrate on: the cases of verb-third order in matrix clauses in Old High German (OHO henceforth). In SECTION 2 OHO data will be compared with Old English (OE) data (cf. Kemenade (1987)). The third section is devoted to the presentation and discussion of two alternative analyses of these verb-third word order pat terns already proposed in the literature: that in Lenerz (1985), and that in Kemenade (1987). Finally, in the last two sections, I will propose a partially new analysis, which will lead us to discuss two important issues: the clitic head relation and the wk-construction.

Word order in Old English has some properties in common with those in other Germanic languages, such as V2 in a main clause and Vf-final order in a subordinate clause. However, it had idiosyncratic traits that led to word order changes in the later stages of English. Focusing on the word order of three-verb clusters (modal+have/be+participle) in Old English, this paper argues that the rise of functional projections with the head in its initial position shaped changes in word order in the history of English.

This article critically assesses Lightfoot's (1991, 2006) ‘degree-0 theory’ of language change, specifically the use that Lightfoot makes of empirical data from Old English (OE) and Middle English (ME). This is followed by the presentation of a recent analysis of word order in a variety of OE and ME sources. It is argued that data from these periods do not support the ‘degree-0 theory’. Rather, the data demonstrate that verb-final and object–verb order were less dominant in OE subordinate clauses than previously assumed, and that the shift to SV order was fairly gradual. There is also little in the data to suggest that subordinate clauses and main clauses developed in radically different manners or at radically different speeds. The article highlights the importance of careful data usage, both with respect to type and scope of material, and the interpretation of data collected and categorised by others.

In Bech (2001a, 2001b), I took issue with the oft-repeated claim that Old English conjunct main clauses are commonly verb-final, and disproved it. However, the myth persists. In the meantime, theYork–Toronto–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose(YCOE, Tayloret al.2003) has been created, so the time has come to revisit this topic and consider it in light of new, extensive and generally accessible data. Using the YCOE corpus, I confirm and expand on Bech's (2001a, 2001b) empirical findings, showing that (i) OE conjunct clauses are neither typically verb-final nor verb-late, but they are more frequently verb-final and verb-late than non-conjunct clauses are; and (ii) verb-final and verb-late clauses are typically conjunct clauses. These two perspectives must be kept apart: in the first, the starting point is the entire body of conjunct clauses, and in the second it is the entire body of verb-final/verb-late clauses. I propose that the failure to distinguish between the two perspectives, i.e. whether it is conjunct clauses or word order that constitutes the point of departure, is the origin of the misconception concerning conjunct clauses and word order. In order to establish whether this distinction has been fuzzy all along, or whether it must be ascribed to distorted referencing in the course of a century of research, I trace the research on this topic back to the end of the nineteenth century. I show that the alleged verb-finality of conjunct clauses may be ascribed to awhisper-down-the-laneeffect – the retelling of the story has changed the story.

This article examines word order in negative clauses in Breton across two generations separated by a gap in language transmission. It might be expected that the V2 constraint in Breton matrix clauses would be subject to change in light of immense influence from French and this transmission gap. An examination of original fieldwork data indicates that there is little change between the older (65+) and younger (children/adults aged 20–30) speakers, but that there is variation among younger speakers currently in Breton-medium education. All speakers use the expected V2 in utterances with a pronominal subject. With lexical subjects, it seems that the key factor is the amount of Breton input children receive. Children in bilingual schooling with no additional Breton input use exclusively SVO order, whereas children in immersion schooling or with further Breton input pattern with older speakers and young adults using V2 with complex verbs, and both SVO and V2 with simple verbs. The implications of this for the continued maintenance of the V2 constraint in Breton are discussed, and the overriding factor is argued to be the continuation of Breton input as children grow older.

A complex sentence consists of a principal clause and one or more subordinate clauses. The latter are clauses introduced by a relative pronoun or by a subordinating conjunction. This chapter discusses syntactic structure of complex sentences in Old English covering punctuation, subordination and hypotaxis, correlation and anticipation, the order and arrangement of clauses, semi-subordination, and the position of subordinate clauses.

syntax-although perhaps a meaningful endeavor for the linguist-rather irrelevant to practical classroom teaching. This is not surprising, however, since most of the work done by transformational linguists is replete with arcane algebraic and logical formulae as well as a multitude of trees and other graphic representations. If the syntactic analyses of transformational linguists are to be more than a form of mental gymnastics, they must be (a) utilized for the understanding of human language in general and (b) applied to actual language teaching and learning experience. It is specifically the second task which I would like to pursue in this paper. It is my contention that syntactic research undertaken by linguists is indeed relevant to foreign language teaching, and should be applied wherever possible. Transformational linguists have recently presented a number of arguments for the fact that German is an SOV language, i.e. the basic order of a German sentence is subject, object, verb.2 This implies, of course, that for the German speaker the dependent clause word order is basic and not the main clause word order, which is normally SVO, i.e. Subject, Verb, Object. In transformational terms the main clause order is the derived order. This fact can be described easily enough.

German, which has verb-second as its basic word order in independent sentences, requires final position of the finite verb in clauses. Thus, adverbial clauses introduced by subordinate conjunctions, such as WEIL (because) and OBWOHL (although) according to German grammar display verb-final ordering (e.g. geh jetzt nach Hause, weil ich mude bin; esse kein Fleisch, obwohl ich's eigentlich gern mag). German thus provides a clear signal for the grammatical incorporation of one clause into another.[3] However, during the last ten to fifteen years, in spoken colloquial German as well as in certain written genres that reproduce colloquial language (e.g., interviews, dialogues in advertisement), speakers are tending more and more to use main clause order (and thus verb-second-position)[4] in final adverbial clauses introduced by WEIL and OBWOHL.[5]