Adverbial Clauses in Cross-Linguistic Perspective 9783110409857, 9783110342604

Citation preview

Katja Hetterle Adverbial Clauses in Cross-Linguistic Perspective

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs

Editor Volker Gast Editorial Board

Walter Bisang Jan Terje Faarlund Hans Henrich Hock Natalia Levshina Heiko Narrog Matthias Schlesewsky Amir Zeldes Niina Ning Zhang Editor Responsible for this volume Volker Gast

Volume 289

Katja Hetterle

Adverbial Clauses in Cross-Linguistic Perspective

ISBN 978-3-11-034260-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-040985-7 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-040996-3 ISSN 1861-4302 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com



To Marcus

Acknowledglements This book is a slightly revised version of my PhD thesis, submitted to the Friedrich Schiller University of Jena in 2012. It could not have been written without the constant support and encouragement of many people. First of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Holger Diessel. I had a crush on languages ever since I started to learn English, but it was Holger who, when we first met in a typology class in 2004, awakened in me the great enthusiasm to not just learn languages, but to study them scientifically, and I have been in love with language ever since. Holger accompanied me through the years, and although he constantly encouraged me to independently work my way through the linguistic jungle, he was always there to provide support, professional advice, and a great deal of encouragement. I am very grateful for having been able to be a PhD student under Holger’s wings! I am also grateful to my second supervisor Volker Gast who functioned as an ad-hoc advisor on a variety of specific issues. Special thanks goes to Volker for his very generous and extremely valuable assistance and communication in the editing process of the book. I am grateful to all the linguists with whom I discussed, at various stages in the writing process, questions via email or in person around the world: JeanChristophe Verstraete, Suzanne Wash, Anna Martowicz, Asuka Matsumoto, Linda Konnerth, Ayten Babaliyeva, Misa Moroi, and Kyoto Maezono. Thanks also to the people from the Institut für Anglistik/Amerikanistik at FSU Jena for providing a great intellectual environment for developing the dissertation. In particular, I thank Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, who has been great company since the beginning of my academic career. Karsten and I spent countless days discussing subordinate clauses in the languages of the world, and I am enormously grateful for his ever-open ears and professional advice, for his comments and suggestions, and for the last-minute proof-readings of parts of the dissertation, all of which have been invaluable to me. Special thanks also goes to Martin Schäfer for his patient and witty proof-reading of one of the longer chapters, as well as a number of experts in statistics with whom I discussed various statistical challenges: Daniel Wiechmann, Jens Schumacher, Wolfhard Kaus, and Gerald Lackner. Organizational support was provided by Simone Bahlmann-Schulze, and Julia McMillan and Erica Haas helped me with the intricacies of the English language. I would also like to thank Julie Miess and Nancy Christ from De Gruyter for their patient assistance and help.

viii  Acknowledglements Furthermore, I would like to thank the Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes for financial and moral support. Specifically, I am indebted to Dr. Pascal Pilgram and Dr. Peter Antes for leading me through the organizational labyrinth and to my liaison professor Prof. Dr. James Beck for accompanying me all this time. Research prior to the dissertation project was carried out on the typology of causal clauses at the University of California at Berkeley. I am thankful to the University of Jena for the grant that allowed me to undertake a one-year program as a visiting student researcher and to the lecturers of Dwinelle Hall and beyond, who took part in shaping this young linguist’s ideas about the nature of language: George Lakoff, Johanna Nichols, Lynn Nichols, Sharon Inkelas, Andrew Garrett, and many others. Thanks also to Belén Flores for making my stay organizationally possible to begin with and for welcoming me so kindly and warm-heartedly. My greatest gratitude, however, is for my husband: Marcus, without you at my side, I could never have completed this enormous project! Thanks to my kids Moritz and Matheo for being just the way they are, and to my parents and parents-in-law, who I could always count on in difficult times. And finally, to Susi: Susi, once again, I have no words…

Contents Acknowledglements  vii List of tables  xiii List of figures  xv List of abbreviations  xvi 1 1.1 1.2

Introduction  1 Overview  1 Outline of the Study  5

2 2.1 2.2 2.2.1

Theoretical and Methodological Preliminaries  8 Introduction  8 The Functional-Typological Approach  9 Cross-linguistic comparison, universals of language, and linguistic diversity  9 Usage-based typological explanations  14 The Notion of Adverbial Clause  22 Subordination and adverbial clauses  23 The formal approach to the definition of subordination  23 The functional approach to the definition of subordination  30 Cognitive asymmetry, assertiveness, and adverbial clauses  34 Towards a comparative concept of adverbial clauses  37 Definitions of the individual semantic types  46 Temporal clauses  47 Conditional clauses  48 Concessive clauses  50 Causal clauses  51 Purpose clauses  51 Result clauses  52 The modal relations  53 Methodological Preliminaries  54 Language sampling  55 Scope of the analysis  62

2.2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.1.1 2.3.1.2 2.3.1.3 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.2 2.3.3.3 2.3.3.4 2.3.3.5 2.3.3.6 2.3.3.7 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2

x  Contents 3 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3 4.3.1

The Structure of Adverbial Clauses in Cross-Linguistic Perspective  67 Introduction  67 TAM Marking  68 Tense and aspect  69 Fixed tense-aspect marking and individual adverbial clause types  74 Mood  79 The Categorial Status of the Verb  82 Nominalizations  83 Infinitives  87 Participles  89 Converbs  90 The Coding of the Arguments  94 Argument indexation  94 Argument coding as possessor or oblique  95 Subject expression under coreference  98 The Clausal Linkage Device  106 Mechanisms of clause linkage  106 Position of the clausal linker  114 Aspects of Linear Order  121 Position of the adverbial clause  121 Clause-internal word order change and word order restrictions  127 Negation  131 The ability to be independently negated  132 Special negation marking  134 Negative polarity marking in before-clauses  136 Other Variables  141 Concluding Remarks  145 The Downgrading Hierarchy of Adverbial Clauses  147 Introduction  147 New Perspectives on the Downgrading Hierarchy  148 A four-way distinction in the system of English clause combining  148 Distinct degrees of downgrading in other languages  158 A Downgrading Hierarchy of Adverbial Clauses  167 Method  167

Contents  xi

4.3.1.1 4.3.1.2 4.3.2 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.5 5

Variables and their relation to the downgrading status of a clause  167 Procedure  171 Results  173 Discussion  184 Justification, concession and result  184 Time, content-level cause, and purpose  189 Condition  193 The modal relations  194 Conclusion  195

5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 5.6

The Intra-Categorial Conceptual Space of Adverbial Clauses: The Multifunctionality of Adverbial Relations  197 Introduction  197 Methodological Issues  198 Sampling  198 Definitions and scope  201 Data  205 Multifunctionality in the Context of Adverbial Relations  211 Degrees of multifunctionality and explicitness in the individual adverbial relations  212 Individual patterns of multifunctionality  218 Visualizing the Multifunctionality Data of Adverbial Relations: An MDS Approach  231 Semantic maps and MDS in linguistic typology and the context of adverbial relations  231 An MDS map of adverbial relations  235 Multidimensional Scaling as a typologist’s tool  246 Explanation and Discussion: Relatedness at the Conceptual and the Diachronic Level  248 Cognitive centrality and level of informativeness  249 Usage-related aspects and grammaticalization  252 Cognitive relatedness and metaphorical/analogical change  258 Conclusion  261

6

Conclusions and Outlook  263

5.1 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.5

xii  Contents References  271 Appendices  289 Index of authors  311 Index of languages  315 Index of subjects  317

List of tables Tab. 1: Semantic types of interclausal relation  3 Tab. 2: Sampling recommendations (adapted from Nichols 2004: 10)  57 Tab. 3: Number of languages per macro-area  58 Tab. 5: Number of constructions per adverbial clause type  65 Tab. 6: The coding of TA marking  69 Tab. 7: Fixed tense and aspect marking in purpose clauses  75 Tab. 8: Fixed tense and aspect marking in causal clauses  75 Tab. 9: Fixed tense and aspect marking in result clauses  76 Tab. 10: Fixed tense and aspect marking in clauses of anteriority  77 Tab. 11: Fixed tense and aspect marking in clauses of posteriority  78 Tab. 12: Special mood forms in conditional and purpose clauses  81 Tab. 13: Nominalized verbs  84 Tab. 14: Infinitival verbs  88 Tab. 15: Participial verbs  91 Tab. 16: Converbs  93 Tab. 17: The coding of the subject under coreference  101 Tab. 18: Same-subject constructions (with subject deletion)  102 Tab. 19: Constructions with no deletion in same-subject contexts  104 Tab. 20: Type of clausal linkage device  113 Tab. 21: Position of the clausal linker  117 Tab. 22: Position of adverbial clauses (all constructions)  122 Tab. 23: Position of adverbial clauses (absolute frequency)  124 Tab. 24: Characteristics of the (more) rigidly verb-final languages  128 Tab. 25: Interpersonal parameters, semantics, and functional characteristics of clause combinations in English  152 Tab. 26: Characteristics of the two sets of adverbial relations  156 Tab. 27: Parameters of downgrading  169 Tab. 28: Downgrading indices of adverbial clause constructions in Cavineña (Tacanan)  172 Tab. 29: Degrees of downgrading of adverbial relations  173 Tab. 30: Degrees of downgrading of two causal relations and two purposive relations  178 Tab. 31: Degrees of downgrading of preposed versus postposed and flexible adverbial clauses  182 Tab. 32: Number of languages per macro-area in the multifunctionality sample  198 Tab. 33: The multifunctionality sample  199 Tab. 34: Semantic relations of the multifunctionality study  202 Tab. 35: Multifunctionality data of Barbareño Chumash  206 Tab. 36: Multifunctionality data of Malayalam (extract) 207 Tab. 37: Total number of monofunctional and multifunctional adverbial linkers  208 Tab. 38: Types of multifunctionality  209 Tab. 39: Frequencies of markers of the individual relations  210 Tab. 40: Comparison of monofunctionality and multifunctionality across adverbial relations  213 Tab. 41: Degrees of explicitness of adverbial relations (proportions)  216 Tab. 42: Degree of explicitness of adverbial relations (counts and mean values)  217

xiv  List of tables Tab. 43: Multifunctionality patterns of SIMULTANEITY OVERLAP  219 Tab. 44: Multifunctionality patterns of SIMULTANEITY DURATION  220 Tab. 45: Multifunctionality patterns of ANTERIORITY  221 Tab. 46: Multifunctionality patterns of POSTERIORITY  222 Tab. 47: Multifunctionality patterns of TERMINUS AD QUEM  223 Tab. 48: Multifunctionality patterns of TERMINUS A QUO  223 Tab. 49: Multifunctionality patterns of CONDITION  224 Tab. 50: Multifunctionality patterns of CAUSE  225 Tab. 51: Multifunctionality patterns of CONCESSION  226 Tab. 52: Multifunctionality patterns of RESULT  226 Tab. 53: Multifunctionality patterns of PURPOSE  227 Tab. 54: Multifunctionality patterns of MANNER/INSTRUMENT  228 Tab. 55: Multifunctionality patterns of SIMILARITY/COMPARISON  229 Tab. 56: Excerpt from the dataset (The morphosyntactic structure of advercial clauses), Part 2  296–297 Tab. 57: Excerpt from the dataset (The morphosyntactic structure of advercial clauses), Part 2  298–299 Tab. 58: Pairwise comparisons of non-adjacent clause types  301 Tab. 59: Pairwise comparison of groups of non-adjacent clause types (12 relations)  302 Tab. 60: Pairwise comparison of groups of non-adjacent clause types (14 relations)  303 Tab. 61: Parameters of reduction and parameters of nominalization  304 Tab. 62: Degrees of reduction  305 Tab. 63: Degrees of nominalization  306 Tab. 64: Excerpt from the dataset (Multifunctionality of adverbial relations)  308−309 Tab. 65: Network-internal semantic overlap (four temporal versus four logical relations)  310

List of figures Fig. 1: Semantic map of indefinite pronouns (Haspelmath 1997: 4) — 11 Fig. 2: The sample — 61 Fig. 3: Distribution of derivational morphemes in function of clausal linker — 109 Fig. 4: Position and form of clausal linker (initial and final linkers) — 118 Fig. 5: Position of linker and order of V and O — 119 Fig. 6: Position of the clausal linker and clause order patterns — 120 Fig. 7: Clause order and order of V and O — 123 Fig. 8: Position of adverbial clauses — 125 Fig. 10: The Downgrading Hierarchy of Adverbial Relations (14 relations) — 178 Fig. 11: A downgrading hierarchy of postposed and flexible adverbial clauses — 180 Fig. 12: A downgrading hierarchy of preposed adverbial clauses — 181 Fig. 13: Degrees of downgrading of preposed versus postposed/flexible adverbial clauses — 183 Fig. 15: Scale of proportions of monofunctional and multifunctional adverbial linkers — 214 Fig. 16: Semantic map of indefinite pronouns (Haspelmath 1997: 4) — 232 Fig. 17: An MDS map of adverbial relations — 236 Fig. 18: Stress values and Shepard diagram for MDS solution (full data matrix) — 237 Fig. 19: An MDS map of adverbial relations (with additional information) — 241 Fig. 20: Stress values and Shepard diagram for MDS solution (11 relations) — 242 Fig. 21: An MDS map of adverbial relations (11 relations) — 243 Fig. 22: A SMACOF MDS map of adverbial relations (full data matrix) — 244 Fig. 23: Stress values and Shepard diagram for SMACOF MDS solution — 246 Fig. 25: A reduction hierarchy of adverbial clauses — 306 Fig. 26: A nominalization hierarchy of adverbial clauses — 307

xvi  List of abbreviations

List of abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in the interlinear glosses of the examples. They are standardized based of the Leipzig Glossing Rules (Comrie et al. 2008). Slight modifications to the notational conventions were undertaken in some cases to suit the particular needs of this study. The degree of detail chosen is dependent on the conventions in the source. A

subject of a transitive verb

COP

copula

ABL

ablative

CONV

converb

ABS

absolutive

CRS

currently relevant state

ACC

accusative

DAT

dative

ACT

active

DEB

debitive

ADN

adnominal

DEF

definite

adverb/adverbial/

DEM

demonstrative

adverbializer

DEP

dependent marker

ALL

allative

DET

determiner

ANOM

action nominal

DIM

diminutive

ANT

anterior aspect

DIS

distal

AOR

aorist

DTR

detransivization

ART

article

DYNM

dynamic

ASRT

assertive

EMPH

emphatic

AUG

augmentative

ERG

ergative

AUX

auxiliary

EVID

evidential

AV

actor voice

EXTRAL

extralocal

C

common gender

FAM

familiar

CAUS

causative

FEM

feminine

CMPL

completive aspect

FM

formative

CNT

counterfactual

FOC

focus

COM

comitative

FREM

far remote

COND

conditional

FT

factive

CONJ

conjunction

FUT

future

CONN

connector

GEN

genitive

CONT

contemporative mood

HAB

habitual

HOD

today’s past tense

PROG

progressive

IMM

imminent aspect

PROL

prolative case

IMP

imperative

PRS

present

IMPV

imperfective aspect

PRTV

partitive

IND

indicative

PST

past

INESS

inessive

PTC

participle

ADV

List of abbreviations  xvii

INF

infinitive

PURP

purposive

INTR

intransitive NOM nominative

Q

question marker

IRR

irrealis

RDP

reduplication

LIM

limiter

REC

recent

LOC

locative

REFL

reflexive

MASC

masculine

REITER

reiterative

MOT

motion (cum purpose)

REM

remote

MSD

masdar motion

REP

reportative evidential

NARR

narrative

RL

realis

NEG

negative

S

subject of an intransitive verb

NEUT

neutral

SA

solicit agreement (in Chinese)

NFUT

nonfuture

SBDIR

subdirective case

NH

non-human

SBEL

subelative case

NOML

nominalization/nominalizer

SBJV

subjunctive

NONLOCUT

non-locutor person marker

SEQ

sequential

NPST

nonpast

SG

singular

OBJ

object

SIM

simultaneity

PART

participial mood

SUBJ

subject

PERF

perfect

SV

serial verb

PERS

personal

TNS

tense

PERSMKR

person marker

TOP

topical

PFV

perfective

TOP.NON.A/S

topical non A or S

PL

plural

VCLF

verbal classifier in

POESS

postessive case

POSS

possessive

POSTR

posterior

=

clitic boundary

POT

potential mode

>

inter-clausal argument

PREFL

reflexive possessive

Gooniyandi

tracking

xviii  List of abbreviations

Other symbols and abbreviations Adverbial relations are referred to by the terms from Kortmann (1997). Whenever the semantic concepts that they encode or the typological labels of the adverbial relations are referred to, they are written in SMALL CAPITALS. In addition, in order to enhance fluid readability of the text, some relations are commonly referred to by the respective placeholders from English in small capitals (e.g., the relation of SIMILARITY DURATION is referred to as WHILE, the relation of SIMULTANEITY OVERLAP is referred to as WHEN, etc.). However, capitals will not be used when the term is part of a more complex noun phrase (e.g., causal clauses, clauses of similarity/ comparison, etc.). In the tables and figures, some easily accessible abbreviations are used (TEMP = temporal clauses, CAU = causal clauses, CONC = concessive clauses, COND = conditional clauses, PURP = purpose clauses, RES = result clauses, MAN/INSTR = clauses of manner/instrument, SIMIL/CMPR = clauses of similarity/comparison). In addition to that, the following abbreviations occur: MCP

main clause phenomenon

ndo

no dominant order (referring to the order of V and O)

NSM

Natural Semantic Metalanguage

OE

Old English

SoA

state of affairs

TAM

tense, aspect, and mood

WALS

World Atlas of Language Structure (Haspelmath et al. 2005)

1 Introduction 1.1 Overview This study investigates adverbial clauses from a cross-linguistic perspective. In line with other recent typological research in the context of complex sentences and clause-linkage (e.g., Cristofaro 2003, Bickel 2005, 2010a, Schmidtke-Bode 2009, 2014), it proceeds from a detailed, multivariate analysis of the morphosyntactic characteristics of the phenomenon under scrutiny. In particular, twelve adverbial relations will be systematically investigated across 45 languages in regard to a variety of morphosyntactic characteristics and central semantic issues. Following the research program of influential previous work (e.g., Cristofaro 2003), the study aims to come to a better understanding of the unity and diversity in the cross-linguistic coding of adverbial relations. In doing so, the focus is not only on the characteristics of adverbial clauses as a class and on the coding properties of the individual semantic types of clause, but also on a comparison of the latter. The analysis is divided into three major parts. First, the analysis concentrates on the documentation and description of the parameters by which adverbial clauses are cross-linguistically characterized. Specifically, these are aspects relating to the marking of tense, aspect, and mood; the categorial status of the verb; the coding of the arguments; and the clausal linkage device, as well as issues concerning linear order and negative polarity. Second, the analysis concentrates on a specific aspect in the morphosyntax of adverbial clauses: the differential potential of adverbial clauses to be expressed by fully clausal or by strongly reduced, tightly integrated constructions (cf. Cristofaro 2003). Based on the assumption of gradience between subordination and coordination (cf. Lehmann 1988), it will be shown that adverbial clauses may exhibit different degrees of clausal downgrading, and by means of the empirical data, a Downgrading Hierarchy of Adverbial Relations on will be established. Third, the focus is on patterns of multi-functionality of the adverbial clause linkers, specifically on the semantic overlaps that are attested between the individual adverbial relations (cf. Kortmann 1997). The focus is not only on the degrees to which adverbial relations avail themselves to being multifunctional, but also on the structure of the entire semantic space of adverbial relations, to be established by means of precise statistical methods. Based on these three aspects, the morphosyntactic and semantic structure of adverbial clauses will systematically be mapped out. Following traditional approaches to cross-linguistic comparison and recent trends in usage-based linguistics, the patterns uncovered will be related to

2  Introduction functional principles as well as historical developments which result from the ways in which language is used and which are, ultimately, grounded in principles of human cognition. This research program necessarily requires the adoption of a comparative concept for the definition of adverbial clauses (cf. Haspelmath 2010). The variation space encompassed here is delimited primarily by semantic aspects so as to allow capturing the whole range of structural diversity that is to be found ‘out there’, but it also relies on some unambiguous structural concepts that prevent the scope from being too wide. In particular, I define adverbial clauses as clausal entities that modify, in a very general sense, a verb phrase or main clause and explicitly express a conceptual-semantic concept such as SIMULTANEITY, ANTERIORITY, POSTERIORITY, CAUSALITY, or CONDITIONALITY. As will be argued in § 2.3.2, this definition distinguishes adverbial clauses not only from relative and complement clauses, but also from coordinate clauses that express other semantic relations (i.e., conjunction, disjunction, and adversative coordination) and from semantically non-specific types of clause-linkage such as asyndetic coordinate clauses, general converbs, or cosubordinate clauses. It does not, for instance, exclude coordinate clauses that do express one of the particular semantic relations studied. Specifically, twelve semantic types of adverbial clause are focused on, and they are depicted in Table 1. The terminological conventions are based on Kortmann (1997). The formal means that languages use to express the distinct interclausal relations are heterogeneous, ranging from fully clausal constructions that do not differ from independent main clauses to constructions that are tightly reduced in clausal properties and/or strongly nominalized, and they are marked not only by structural means that are specific to (adverbial) clause linkage (such as conjunctions, converbs, nominalized verbs, or subjunctives, to name but a few), but also by material from outside the specific domain of subordination. Examples (1) to (4) give a brief illustration of the structural diversity that is found in adverbial clauses across languages. Example (1) shows a result clause from Mayogo (Niger-Congo/Ubangi: Angola) that is introduced by the clausal linker amba ’so that’. When the linker is disregarded, the clause is structurally identical to an independent clause in isolation. (1)

Mayogo (Niger-Congo/Ubangi: Congo; Sawka 2001: 152) Yi pʉ́

lɨ

kpadjɨ inde

[amba yi

2PL

on

road

so.that 2PL arrive

FUT.follow

this

kolo

‘You should follow this road so that you arrive quickly.

magala]. quick

Overview  3

Tab. 1: Semantic types of interclausal relation Semantic class

Semantic types of interclausal relation

Temporal relations

SIMULTANEITY OVERLAP (‘when’)

SIMULTANEITY DURATION (‘while’) ANTERIORITY (‘after’)

POSTERIORITY (‘before’)

TERMINUS AD QUEM (‘until’)

Logical relations

CONDITION (realis, irrealis/hypothetical, counterfactual) CONCESSION

CAUSE (cause, reason, explanation)

PURPOSE (general purpose, motion-cum-purpose) RESULT

Modal relations

manner per se/instrument similarity/comparison

Example (2) shows a causal clause from Evenki (Altaic/Tungusic: Russia). It is characterized by a specific derived verb form, the perfect participle, as well as ablative case marking that signals the causal meaning. (2) Evenki (Altaic/Tungusic: Russia; Nedjalkov 1997: 53) Tar atyrkan

bali:-re-n

[songo-no-duk-pi ilmakta-du-vi].

that old.woman get.blind-NFUT-3SG cry-PTC-ABL-PREFL young-DAT-PREFL ‘That old woman went blind because she had wept when she was young.’ CAUSE is also expressed by the construction in example (3) from Gooniyandi (Australian/Bunuban: Western Australia), but here, the interclausal relation is indicated exclusively by intonation and a specific constellation of tense/aspect and mood marking. To signal the causal relation, subjunctive mood combines with the past tense. (3) Gooniyandi (Australian/Bunuban: Western Australia; McGregor 1990: 434) Gamba-ya gard-ya-wani

nyiminbani.

water-LOC fall-SBJV-(PST.)(3SG.)NOM.VCLF

he.drowned

‘Because he fell in the water, he drowned.’ In example (4) from Japanese (isolate: Japan), POSTERIORITY is expressed by a construction that is obligatorily negated syntactically. It includes the clausal

4  Introduction linker uti (ni), which is multifunctional and expresses (‘while’) in syntactically affirmative contexts.

SIMULTANEITY DURATION

(4) Japanese (isolate: Japan; Kuno 1973: 154) Kuraku naranai

uti ni

darkly become.NEG before

kaerimasyoo. let’s.go.home

‘Let’s go home before it gets dark.’ It will be argued in this study that the diversity in the cross-linguistic coding of adverbial relations is not random, but highly systematic. Methodologically, the study proceeds from the analysis of a genealogically and areally balanced sample of 45 languages that provide a total of 756 adverbial clause constructions. Descriptive parameters were developed inductively during the process of data collection in order to capture all possible structural configurations (cf. Bickel & Nichols 2002, Bickel 2007, 2010a, Schackow et al. 2012). Whenever appropriate, the data are submitted to statistical analyses that help uncover systematic correlations between structural parameters and similarities or differences between the semantic types of clause. Of course, this study did not develop in a vacuum. On the one hand, studies investigated isolated structural aspects of adverbial clauses across a handful of semantic types (e.g., Diessel 2001, Cristofaro 2003). On the other hand, there are cross-linguistic studies focusing on isolated clause types scrutinized for several features (e.g., Schmidtke-Bode 2009 on purpose clauses). In between these poles, Verstraete (2008) studies purpose, reason, and intended endpoint clauses across two related parameters (use of mood markers and type of conjunctions) in a small cross-linguistics sample. Hengeveld (e.g., 1996, 1998) studies the correspondence between functional-semantic characteristics of a number of adverbial clause types and the use of dependent and independent verb forms in the European languages. Kortmann (1997) addresses the form and function of adverbial subordinators, expressing as many as 32 interclausal relations in the European languages, and Martowicz (2011) studies similar aspects with respect to four relations in a cross-linguistic sample. Diessel & Hetterle (2011) study the correspondence between linear order and the form of the verb in causal clauses in a 60-language sample, and Crevels (2000) addresses the correspondence between the semantics of concessive clauses and various structural aspects in 30 languages. Dixon (2009) and Aikhenvald (2009) put forward a number of tentative generalizations based on the data from their clause linking volume (Dixon & Aikhenvald 2009). In addition, there is a substantial number of single-language studies that are concerned with

Outline of the Study  5

(adverbial) subordination in particular languages (e.g., McGregor 1988, Wash 2001, Lichtenberk 2009, Dench 2009) or with specific adverbial relations (e.g., Haeyeon 1994, Eifring 1995, Hara 2008), supplementing the breadth of information that is found in descriptions of adverbial clauses in a reference grammars. Finally, valuable insights can be gained from studies in related disciplines such as corpus linguistics and discourse analysis, mostly from language-specific literature (e.g., Thompson 1985, Ramsay 1987, Ford 1993, Ford & Mori 1994, Couper-Kuhlen 1996, Couper-Kuhlen & Thompson 2000, Verstraete 2004, Wang 2006, Diessel 2005, 2008). However, what unites all of these studies is the fact that they are concerned either with individual structural and semantic aspects, individual clause types, or individual languages. There is not yet an attempt in the literature to combine the study of an array of structural and semantic aspects in a variety of clause types across a broad language sample, providing a holistic picture of the system of adverbial clauses and coming to a better understanding of the behavior of the individual adverbial clause types with respect to each other. This is precisely the gap that the present study seeks to fill.

1.2 Outline of the Study The study is organized as follows. It starts out, in Chapter 2, with the presentation of the theoretical background and the methodology that was applied. The reader will be introduced to the basic assumptions and analytic tools of the functional typological approach to the study of language as well as a selection of usage-based principles that functional typologists commonly use to explain the observed patterns. Linguistic diversity, it will be argued, has to be investigated by means of small-scaled descriptive variables that are developed bottom-up on the basis of the observed linguistic data. This is the methodological approach that the present study takes. In order to develop a cross-linguistically applicable definition of adverbial clauses, the notion of subordination will be discussed in great detail, leading to a scalar view of the distinction between coordination and subordination. The comparative concept of adverbial clauses that will be developed is consistent with the idea of gradience in clausal downgrading, considering the category of adverbial clauses as a network of related constructions with prototypical and peripheral representatives. One component of the definition is semantic explicitness, so that Chapter 2 also includes a section that defines the twelve semantic types of adverbial clause that are studied. Finally, the 45-language sample that forms

6  Introduction the basis of the present study will be presented and discussed, and the scope of the project will be delineated. Chapter 3, the first analytical chapter, is first and foremost descriptive in that it is devoted to the precise examination of the morphosyntactic characteristics that adverbial clauses exhibit cross-linguistically. It seeks to answer the question, “Which morphosyntactic properties characterize adverbial clauses as a class and which ones characterize the individual semantic types?” From § 3.2 to § 3.8, I will walk the reader through structural parameters such as tense, aspect, and mood marking; the categorial status of the verb; the coding of the arguments; the clause linkage device; aspects of linear order; and issues of negative polarity marking. On the one hand, the focus is on a detailed presentation of the range of morphosyntactic means that languages use to express adverbial relations between clauses. Given that the variable catalogue was developed inductively, it comprises parameters that have never before received much attention in the cross-linguistic study of adverbial clauses, let alone been investigated systematically and in a quantitative manner. On the other hand, a central goal is the qualitative and quantitative comparison of the individual semantic types of clause with respect to each of the parameters. It will be shown that the morphosyntactic make-up of adverbial clause constructions differs substantially across clause types; that is, that the intracategorial structural diversity is immense. It is not random, though, and the observed patterns will be linked to usage-based principles that motivate them. Based on these findings and in keeping with previous work in the context of subordination (Cristofaro 2003), Chapter 4 studies the individual types of adverbial clause by analyzing their divergent behavior with respect to the issue of clausal downgrading, but as will be discussed in more detail below, the present work deviates from previous work in scope and method of analysis. In Chapter 4, the question to be answered is, “To what degree are the individual adverbial clause types downgraded?” I will start from the observation that the distinct adverbial clause types in English are associated with divergent degrees of downgrading (cf. desententialization à la Lehman 1988) based on their grammatical behavior and interactional function (Verstraete 2007) and the claim that the functional principles on which the distinct degrees of downgrading are based are presumably universal. The hypothesis will be developed that the same associations between clause type and degree of downgrading can be observed cross-linguistically. After illustrating distinct degrees of downgrading qualitatively in non-European languages, the hypothesis will be tested quantitatively against the data that were described in Chapter 3. Therefore, I will first present the variables that are relevant for

Outline of the Study  7

determining the downgrading degree of a construction and the procedure of the analysis. The results will be presented, and a downgrading hierarchy of 14 adverbial relations will be proposed. In addition, a number of related observations will be addressed. After that, the findings will be discussed and related not only to principles of interactional function (Verstraete 2007), but also to principles of discourse organization and information structure, specific semantic characteristics, the ability of clauses to be construed as a nominal entity, the iconic correspondence between conceptual and structural integration, and the principle of linguistic economy (Cristofaro 2003). Chapter 5 turns to semantic issues. Specifically, the chapter is concerned with the meaning of the individual clausal linkers, irrespective of the constructions they occur in, and the goal is to shed light on the patterns of multifunctionality in which the individual adverbial relations are involved. In particular, I look at the patterns of overlap within the semantic domain of adverbial relations, and the leading question is, “What does the semantic space of adverbial relations look like?” It will at first be necessary to clarify some methodological aspects, because the dataset used for the multifunctionality study is not the same dataset like the one on which Chapter 3 and 4 are based. The first objective of Chapter 5 is to examine the differential degrees to which the individual adverbial relations are polysemous within the domain of interclausal adverbial relations. For this purpose, two hierarchies are established that arrange the semantic types of linker with respect to their propensity for being multifunctional and explicit (the Multifunctionality Scale of Adverbial Relations and the Explicitness Scale of Adverbial Relations). Then, the focus of attention is narrowed down to the multifunctionality patterns of the individual adverbial relations, in order to subsequently be extended to a visualization of the semantic space of adverbial relations. For this purpose, a semantic map has been developed by using Multidimensional Scaling, a statistical method for pattern discovery in larger datasets. Therefore, the reader is first introduced to the goals and gains of Multidimensional Scaling. After that, a semantic map of adverbial relations is established, and it is discussed and evaluated in great detail. In order to understand the findings, I will continue by critically discussing the impact of functional factors such as cognitive centrality and level of informativeness as opposed to usage-related aspects and phenomena of grammaticalization, specifically the conventionalization of pragmatic implicatures and metaphorical change. Chapter 6, finally, summarizes the major findings of the study and points out promising areas for future research.

2 Theoretical and Methodological Preliminaries 2.1 Introduction This chapter will introduce the reader to the theoretical and methodological background of this study, as well as to the major theoretical concepts that are relevant to the typological study of adverbial clauses. It is divided into three major parts. In § 2.2, I will introduce the theoretical framework this study is situated in, notably the functional-typological approach to the study of language. In § 2.2.1, the field of linguistic typology will be characterized, with particular focus to the issues of cross-linguistic comparison, universals of language, and the nature of linguistic diversity. After that, § 2.2.2 will familiarize the reader with usage-based explanations of the typological distributions that will be drawn on in the analysis of adverbial clauses, specifically addressing functional factors (economy, iconicity, discourse function), processing, and the role of language change. In § 2.3, I will expound in considerable detail the notion of adverbial clause. Specifically, § 2.3.1 will provide a detailed discussion of past approaches to the notion of subordination, showing that both strictly formal and strictly functional approaches fail to meet the requirements of a cross-linguistic investigation of adverbial clauses. Therefore, as § 2.3.2 will show, using a comparative concept is crucial for the definition of the domain under scrutiny, and a definition of this kind will be provided for adverbial clauses. The domain under investigation will be delineated by clear criteria, and it will be argued that the distinction between subordination and coordination as scalar rather than as dichotomous. In § 2.3.3, definitions of the individual semantic types of adverbial clause that this study focuses on will be provided, and in § 2.4, methodological aspects of data collection will be addressed. This subsumes, in § 2.4.1, issues on language sampling and, in § 2.4.2, issues relating to the scope of the analysis. As § 2.4.1 will show, a cross-linguistic investigation of the variation space of adverbial clauses can only succeed if a representative sample of the world’s languages is chosen: one that adheres to the general sampling principles of areal and genealogical stratification. The genetically and areally controlled convenience sample of 45 languages that provides the basis for this study will be presented. Finally, § 2.4.2 discusses issues relating to the selection of the constructions that were analyzed and introduces the dataset.

The Functional-Typological Approach  9

2.2 The Functional-Typological Approach 2.2.1 Cross-linguistic comparison, universals of language, and linguistic diversity Since the pioneering work of Greenberg (1963), the functional-typological approach to the study of language has been concerned with the cross-linguistic comparison of linguistic structures and the functional factors by which linguistic variation can be explained. It is an empirical science that proceeds from the examination of linguistic structure in a large number of languages, aiming to describe the breadth of variation that linguistic forms exhibit crosslinguistically and to detect the systematic patterns by which they are characterized. A major assumption is that linguistic structure varies in countless ways, but that the variation is highly systematic, reflecting universal properties of human communication, cognition, and social interaction, as well as principles of language change; that is, it ultimately reflects the nature of human language. Given the crucial role of cross-linguistic comparison as the main method of data collection, one of the major prerequisites for sound typological research is the selection of a representative sample of the world’s languages. Out of the approximately 6000–7000 extant languages of the world, typologists choose a subset that, depending on the particular goal of the study, meets the criteria of genealogical and areal independence while capturing the greatest possible variety (e.g., Bakker 2010). Different methods of sample generation allow different kinds of inferences to be drawn (Janssen et al. 2006) about the regularity and distribution of patterns of linguistic variation. Traditionally, typological work has assumed universal limits to the extent of structural variation in languages (e.g., Comrie 1989: 33−34). Different kinds of linguistic universals describe cross-linguistic patterns and the constraints governing them. On the one hand, unrestricted universals state that all languages behave identically with respect to a particular feature. Implicational universals, on the other hand, state that there are correlations between logically independent features, i.e., that the occurrence of one feature is conditioned by the occurrence of another feature (Croft 2003: § 3.2). An example of the latter is the correlation between the order of object and verb in independent declarative clauses and the order of relative clause and noun: (5) If in a language the verb precedes the object, the relative clause will usually follow the head noun (cf. Dryer 2005).

10  Theoretical and Methodological Preliminaries In contrast to unrestricted universals, which posit uniformity across languages with respect to a particular set of features, implicational universals only restrict the possible patterns of variation in that they rule out one of four logically available types. With respect to the example in (5), this means that there are languages in which both the object and the relative clause follow the verb and the noun, respectively; languages in which they both precede the verb and the noun, respectively; and languages in which the object precedes the verb but the relative clause follows the noun. The option that is ruled out is that the object follows the verb but the relative clause precedes the noun. Situated between unrestricted and implicational universals, biconditional universals rule out two of the four logically available types, as in the following example from the famous Greenbergian word order correlations (1963): (6) If a language has prepositions, the genitive almost always follows the governing noun. By contrast, if a language has postpositions, the genitive almost always precedes the governing noun. However, these kinds of generalizations are not the only forms universals can take. Typologists also use typological hierarchies and semantic maps in order to describe linguistic distributions. Hierarchies represent an ordered ranking of grammatical phenomena and can be thought of as a chain of implicational universals (e.g., Croft 2003: § 5.1). An example from morphology is the structural coding of the category of number. Typically, the singular is coded with a lower number of morphemes than the plural, which is in turn coded with fewer morphemes than the dual (cf. Croft 2003: 126−127): (7) Singular