The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar [Illustrated] 0198755104, 9780198755104

Citation preview

Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics

Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics   Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics Online Publication Date: Mar 2020

(p. ii)

Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics

Recently published The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar Edited by Ian Roberts The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society Edited by Ofelia García, Nelson Flores, and Massimiliano Spotti The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity Edited by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa deMena Travis The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes Edited by Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, and Devyani Sharma The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis Edited by Michael Fortescue, Marianne Mithun, and Nicholas Evans The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality Edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning Edited by James W. Tollefson and Miguel Pérez-Milans The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics Edited by Anousha Sedighi and Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi

Page 1 of 2

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages Edited by Kenneth L. Rehg and Lyle Campbell The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis Edited by Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Tanja Temmerman The Oxford Handbook of Lying Edited by Jörg Meibauer The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language Edited by Keith Allan The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory Edited by Jenny Audring and Francesca Masini The Oxford Handbook of Reference Edited by Jeanette Gundel and Barbara Abbott The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics Edited by Chris Cummins and Napoleon Katsos The Oxford Handbook of Event Structure Edited by Robert Truswell The Oxford Handbook of Language Attrition Edited by Monika S. Schmid and Barbara Köpke The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova For a complete list of Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics please see pp. 825–7.

Page 2 of 2

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Copyright Page

Copyright Page   Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics Online Publication Date: Mar 2020

(p. iv)

Copyright Page

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © editorial matter and organization Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova 2020 © the chapters their several authors 2020 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2020 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

Page 1 of 2

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Copyright Page 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2019933026 ISBN 978–0–19–875510–4 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Page 2 of 2

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements   Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics Online Publication Date: Mar 2020

(p. v)

Acknowledgements

There are many people who have helped shape the present volume, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. First and foremost, we would like to thank our contributors for their in­ spiring work and their patience with the revision process. We are also enormously indebt­ ed to them for reviewing contributions to the handbook other than their own. Without their expertise and dedication a volume like this could not have come into being. We would also like to thank the colleagues who refereed individual chapters for us. Their scholarship, careful engagement with the rationale of the volume, as well as their con­ structive and detailed feedback were invaluable and given selflessly. We are also extreme­ ly grateful to colleagues at Oxford University Press and to the production team for their professional help and patience during the gestation of the volume. Bas Aarts Jill Bowie Gergana Popova

Page 1 of 1

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of figures and tables

List of figures and tables   Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics Online Publication Date: Mar 2020

(p. x)

(p. xi)

List of figures and tables

Figures 2.1 Lumping of nouns and pronouns 27 2.2 Reassignment of adjunctizers to the preposition class 32 3.1 Three illustrations of the types of information available from acceptability judge­ ments 43 3.2 The visual logic of 2 × 2 factorial designs, illustrated using the whether-island ef­ fect design 47 4.1 Three types of evidence 62 4.2 The 3A perspective in corpus linguistics 69 4.3 Example of a Key Word in Context concordance for the lexical item school in ICEGB, showing adjacent word class labels 71 4.4 A Fuzzy Tree Fragment for an adjective phrase (AJP) containing a general adjec­ tive head (AJHD, ADJ(ge)) with at least one premodifier (AJPR) and one postmodifier (AJPO) 74 4.5 A simple grammatical concordance 74 4.6 Examining any line in the concordance displays the sentence and phrase struc­ ture tree, showing how the FTF matches a tree in the corpus 75 4.7 Comparing frequency distributions over different time periods 81 4.8 FTF for retrieving a positive (‘¬neg’ = not negative) auxiliary verb, verb or VP (‘∨’ = ‘or’), followed by a tag question with a negative auxiliary or verb 82 7.1a Dependency representation of in the kitchen 125 7.1b Dependency tree diagram of in the kitchen 125 7.2 Stemma representing the structural order of (1) 127 7.3a Phrase structure (constituent structure) of (2) 128 7.3b Dependency stemma of (2) 128 7.3c Dependency representation of (2) 128 7.4 Dependency stemma of (3) 129 (p. xii) 7.5 Representation of transfer in the case of de Pierre and Pierre’s 129 Page 1 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of figures and tables 7.6 Stemma for Then she changed her mind 130 7.7 Dependency representation of ditransitive give in Word Grammar 132 7.8 Dependency representation of coordination in Word Grammar 132 7.9 Semantic dependency of Leo sent a letter to Alan 133 7.10 Syntactic and semantic dependencies of complements and modifiers of w1 134 7.11a Analysis of grammatical non-projective structure That pizza I will not eat with crossing lines 135 7.11b Analysis of That pizza I will not eat involving rising 135 7.12a Analysis of (7) without rising 136 7.12b Analysis of (7) with rising 136 7.13 The ditransitive construction 150 10.1 Structure of whose book everyone said they had enjoyed 205 10.2 Diagrams of NPs with Determiner-Head and Modifier-Head function fusion 218 10.3 Diagram of a fused relative NP with Head-Prenucleus function fusion 219 10.4 Diagram of the noun phrase this once which contains a fused Modifier-Head 219 18.1 The basic structure of clause types 379 22.1 Lambrecht’s (1994) assumed mental representation of discourse referents (al­ ternative terms by Prince and Chafe in brackets) 464 23.1 Network of choices associated with her 494 24.1 Inverted T-model 517 24.2 A partial schema network for a verb (adapted from Taylor 2002: 184) 521 27.1 The grammaticalization chain for the modal idiom (had) better in the Late Mod­ ern Period 592 27.2 Being to V and semi-modal having to V (frequency per million words) in the OBP corpus 596 27.3 Proportion of periphrastic constructions and mandative subjunctives in the Brown family of corpora 597 27.4 Diachronic development of core modals in the Brown-family of corpora 598 27.5 Diachronic development of semi-modals in the Brown-family corpora 600 28.1 Morphosyntactic distinctions along a continuum of ‘individuality’ 612 28.2 Correspondences between non-standard and standard tense use 614 (p. xiii) 28.3 Map ‘Give it me’, taken from An Atlas of English Dialects by Clive Upton and J. D. A. Widdowson (1996: 52) 625 29.1 Global network for the entire WAVE feature set (N = 235) 635 29.2 Tense and Aspect network in WAVE 638 29.3 NeighborNet clustering of L2 varieties in WAVE 645

Tables 4.1 Contingency table of frequencies exploring the interaction between the polarity of question tags and the polarity of preceding verb phrases, extracted with FTFs and then manually reviewed. The verb phrase and tag never both have a negative polari­ ty in all 716 cases 83 14.1 Word class and feature matrix 292 Page 2 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of figures and tables 18.1 The major clause types 377 18.2 Clause types, meanings, and literal forces 386 19.1 Simple and progressive forms of the ‘tenses’ 400 19.2 Vendler’s Aktionsart classes and their defining features 412 21.1 Main functions of finite subordinate clauses 442 21.2 Main functions of non-finite subordinate clauses 447 21.3 Coordination in and of phrases 452 22.1 Prince’s (1992) model of hearer-status and discourse-status and correspon­ dences with Lambrecht (1994) and Prince (1981a) 466 24.1 Word class-phonology generalizations (adapted from Monaghan et al. 2005: 144–5) 513 27.1 Inflectional paradigm for OE bīdan ‘await’ (based on Hogg and Fulk 2011: 214) 585 27.2 Full-verb, mixed, and auxiliary syntax of dare in interrogative and negated sen­ tences in the Brown-family corpora of American and British English (AmE and BrE) 589 28.1 Logical types of universal statement (following Greenberg), taken from Evans and Levinson (2009: 437) 608 28.2 Asymmetrical paradigms (adapted from Anderwald 2002: 199) 619 29.1 Seventy-six varieties in WAVE: world regions 633 29.2 Domains of grammar covered in WAVE (235 features in all) 634 29.3 Geographical composition of the clusters in the global network 636 29.4 Vernacular angloversals: top 6 (≥ 80%) 639 29.5 Vernacular angloversals: top runners-up (≥ 70%) 640 29.6 Top diagnostic features of L1 varieties (AR ≥ 60%, AR difference ≥ 40%), sort­ (p. xiv)

ed by AR difference 641 29.7 Top diagnostic features of traditional L1 varieties (AR ≥ 60%, AR difference ≥ 40%), sorted by AR difference 642 29.8 Top diagnostic features of high-contact L1 varieties (AR ≥ 60%, AR difference ≥ 40%), sorted by AR difference 643 29.9 Top diagnostic features of L2 varieties (AR ≥ 60%, AR difference ≥ 40%), sort­ ed by AR difference 644 29.10 The most diagnostic features of English-based pidgins and creoles (AR of P/Cs ≥ 75%, AR difference ≥ 40%), sorted by AR difference 645 29.11 Diagnostic morphosyntactic features per Anglophone world region (AR differ­ ence region – rest of world ≥ 60%; * for medium-frequency features, ** for high-fre­ quency/pervasive features) 648 29.12 Top distinctive features for the British Isles 649 29.13 Top distinctive features for Africa 649 29.14 Top distinctive features for the Australia Pacific region 649

Page 3 of 3

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors

List of contributors   Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics Online Publication Date: Mar 2020

(p. xv)

List of contributors

Bas Aarts

is Professor of English Linguistics and Director of the Survey of English Usage at Uni­ versity College London. His publications include: Syntactic Gradience (2007, OUP), Oxford Modern English Grammar (2011, OUP), The Verb Phrase in English (2013, edited with J. Close, G. Leech, and S. Wallis, CUP), Oxford Dictionary of English Gram­ mar (edited with S. Chalker and E. Weiner, 2nd edition 2014, OUP), How to Teach Grammar (with Ian Cushing and Richard Hudson, 2019, OUP), as well as book chap­ ters and articles in journals. He is a founding editor of the journal English Language and Linguistics (CUP).

Ash Asudeh

is a Professor in the Department of Linguistics and the Director of the Center for Lan­ guage Sciences at the University of Rochester. He has held positions at Carleton Uni­ versity, in the Institute of Cognitive Science, and at Oxford University, where he was Professor of Semantics in the Faculty of Linguistics, Philology, and Phonetics and a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College. His research interests include syntax, se­ mantics, pragmatics, language and logic, and cognitive science. He has published ex­ tensively on the syntax–semantics interface, particularly in the frameworks of Lexical Functional Grammar and Glue Semantics.

Page 1 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors Laurie Bauer

FRSNZ is Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. He is the author of more than twenty books on linguistic topics, particularly on morphology and word-formation. He was one of the inaugural editors of the jour­ nal Word Structure. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, which he cowrote with Rochelle Lieber and Ingo Plag, received the Linguistic Society of America’s Leonard Bloomfield Prize in 2015. In 2017 he was awarded the Royal Soci­ ety of New Zealand’s Humanities medal.

Robert D. Borsley

is Professor Emeritus at the University of Essex, where he worked from 2000 to 2017, and Honorary Professor at Bangor University, where he worked from 1986 to 2000. He has published extensively on the syntax of English and Welsh, and on other lan­ guages, including Breton, Polish, and Arabic. He has worked mainly within the Headdriven Phrase Structure Grammar framework and has made a variety of contributions to its development. He was a Journal of Linguistics Editor from 1994 to 2016.

Jill Bowie

is an Honorary Research Fellow at the Survey of English Usage, University College London, where she previously worked on the AHRC-funded projects ‘The changing verb phrase in present-day British English’ and ‘Teaching English grammar (p. xvi) in schools’, led by Bas Aarts. She holds a PhD from the University of Reading and a BA and MA from the University of Queensland. Her research interests include recent change in English and the grammar of spoken discourse. She has co-authored papers with Survey colleagues on clause fragments and on changes in the English verb phrase.

Ian Cushing

Page 2 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors is a lecturer in the Department of Education at Brunel University London. He has a broad range of teaching and research interests, including applied cognitive linguis­ tics (especially in educational contexts), critical language policy, and pedagogical grammar. He is the author of Text Analysis and Representation (2018, CUP), Lan­ guage Change (2019, CUP), and a co-author of How to Teach Grammar (2019, OUP, with B. Aarts and R. Hudson), as well as various journal articles and book chapters.

Ilse Depraetere

is Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Lille. She is a member of the research group Savoirs, Textes, Langage (UMR 8163 STL). She has published widely on tense, aspect, and modality, the semantics/pragmatics interface being in the fore­ ground of her publications. She is the co-author with Chad Langford of Advanced English Grammar: A Linguistic Approach (2019 (2nd edn), Bloomsbury) and she coedited with Raphael Salkie Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line (2017, Springer).

Heidrun Dorgeloh

is Senior Lecturer in English Linguistics at the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf with a specialization in syntax, discourse analysis, and professional varieties of Eng­ lish. She wrote her dissertation on English word order, notably subject–verb inversion as it is used in different genres, followed by a series of research on the function and meaning of grammatical constructions in professional contexts. Her research inter­ ests include the interrelationship of non-canonical syntax and discourse, the evolution of genres, and registers and genres of various professions, such as science, medicine, and law.

Patrick Duffley

is Professor of English Linguistics at Université Laval in Quebec City. He has pub­ lished monographs on the infinitive, the gerund-participle, and complementation in English, as well as a number of articles on modal auxiliaries, wh-words, negative po­ larity, and indefinite determiners. His work utilizes concepts inspired by cognitive grammar and Guillaumian psychomechanical theory in order to develop a semantico-

Page 3 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors pragmatic approach to grammar and syntax. He recently published a monograph with John Benjamins applying this approach to the phenomenon of subject versus non-sub­ ject control with non-finite verbal complements in English.

Thomas Egan

is Emeritus Professor of English Linguistics at Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences. His research interests encompass topics within the areas of corpus linguis­ tics, contrastive linguistics, cognitive linguistics, and historical linguistics, including grammaticalization. He is the author of a monograph on complementation, entitled Non-Finite Complementation: A Usage-Based Study of Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English (2008, Rodopi). More recently he has (co-)authored some dozen articles (p. xvii) contrasting various prepositional constructions in English and French and/or Swedish and Norwegian.

Liliane Haegeman

is Professor of English Linguistics at Ghent University in Belgium and is a member of the DiaLing—Diachronic and Diatopic Linguistics research group. From 1984 to 1999, she was Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Geneva (Switzerland), and between 2000 and 2009 she was Professor of English Linguistics at the Universi­ ty of Lille III. Haegeman has worked extensively on the syntax of English and Flemish and has also written a number of textbooks for generative syntax. Her latest mono­ graph is Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and the Composition of the Left Periphery with Oxford University Press.

Sam Hellmuth

is Senior Lecturer in Linguistics in the Department of Language and Linguistic Science at the University of York. Sam earned her MA and PhD at SOAS University of London, and specializes in the study of prosody (stress, rhythm, and intonation), and the modelling of variation in prosody within and between speakers, dialects, lan­ guages, and contexts, in a laboratory phonology approach (using quantitative and qualitative methods, on both naturally occurring and experimental data).

Page 4 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors

Thomas Herbst

is Professor of English Linguistics at the Friedrich-Alexander Universität ErlangenNürnberg (FAU). He studied English and German at the Universities of ErlangenNürnberg and Oxford (St. Edmund Hall). He has taught at the universities of Read­ ing, Augsburg, and Jena. The focus of his interests and of his publications lies in the fields of valency theory, collocation studies, cognitive and constructionist theories of language, pedagogical construction grammar, and linguistic aspects of film dubbing. He is one of the editors of the Valency Dictionary of English (2004) and co-editor of Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik and Lexicographica.

Martin Hilpert

is Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Neuchâtel. He holds a PhD from Rice University. His interests include cognitive linguistics, language change, construction grammar, and corpus linguistics. He is the author of Germanic Future Constructions (2008, John Benjamins), Constructional Change in English (2013, Cam­ bridge University Press), and Construction Grammar and its Application to English (2014, Edinburgh University Press). He is Editor of the journal Functions of Language and Associate Editor of Cognitive Linguistics.

Willem B. Hollmann

is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Lancaster. His research focuses on cognitivetypological linguistic theory and methodology, language change, and dialect gram­ mar. These areas frequently overlap and interact in his work, especially in his publica­ tions in the nascent area of cognitive sociolinguistics. He is currently Chair of the na­ tional Committee for Linguistics in Education (CLiE), which reflects and is part of his keen interest and engagement in language teaching in primary and secondary educa­ tion.

(p. xviii)

Rodney Huddleston

Page 5 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors

earned his BA at the University of Cambridge and his PhD in Applied Linguistics at the University of Edinburgh. He is a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. He taught at Edinburgh, London, and Reading before moving in 1969 to spend the major­ ity of his career in the Department of English at the University of Queensland. He has published numerous books and papers on English grammar, the most significant work being The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002, with Geoffrey K. Pul­ lum), which won the Linguistic Society of America’s Leonard Bloomfield Book Award in 2004.

Marianne Hundt

is Professor of English Linguistics at Zürich University. Her corpus-based research fo­ cuses on variation and grammatical change in contemporary and late Modern Eng­ lish. Her publications cover both first- and second-language varieties of English, no­ tably in the South Pacific and South Asia. She has been involved in the compilation of various corpora and has explored the use of the World Wide Web as a corpus. Her publications include English Mediopassive Constructions (2007, Rodopi) and New Zealand English Grammar: Fact or Fiction? (1998, John Benjamins). She is co-author of Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study (2009, CUP) and co-editor of English World-Wide.

Lesley Jeffries

is Professor of Linguistics and English Language at the University of Huddersfield, UK, where she has worked for most of her career. She is the co-author of Stylistics (2010, CUP) and Keywords in the Press (2017, Bloomsbury) and author of a number of books and articles on aspects of textual meaning including Opposition in Discourse (2010, Bloomsbury), Critical Stylistics (2010, Palgrave) and Textual Construction of the Female Body (2007, Palgrave). She is particularly interested in the interface be­ tween grammar and (textual) meaning and is currently working on a new book inves­ tigating the meaning of contemporary poetry.

Gunther Kaltenböck,

Page 6 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors

who previously held a professorship at the University of Vienna, is currently Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Graz. His research interests lie in the areas of cognitive-functional grammar, corpus linguistics, pragmatics, phonetics, variation and change, as well as Thetical Grammar. Apart from numerous book chapters and contributions to international journals, his publications include a monograph on It-Ex­ traposition and Non-Extraposition in English (2004, Braumüller) and several co-edit­ ed volumes, such as New Approaches to Hedging (2011, Emerald), Outside the Clause (2016, John Benjamins), and Insubordination: Theoretical and Empirical Issues (2019, de Gruyter).

Evelien Keizer

is Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Vienna. She obtained her PhD in English Linguistics from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in 1992; since then she has held positions at the University of Tilburg, University College London, and the University of Amsterdam. She has published widely on the noun phrase in English (e.g. The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization, 2007, CUP) and Dutch (Syntax of Dutch: The Noun Phrase, Vol. 1, 2012, (p. xix) Amsterdam Uni­ versity Press). She is also the author of A Functional Discourse Grammar for English (2015, OUP) and co-editor of several edited volumes and special issues.

Ekkehard König

was educated at the Universities of Kiel, Edinburgh, and Stuttgart. After holding pro­ fessorial positions in Germany and other European countries, he retired in 2009 from the Freie Universität Berlin and is now Adjunct Professor at the Albert-Ludwigs-Uni­ versität Freiburg. In addition to directing a variety of research projects in Germany, he was Programme Director of the ESF-funded project ‘Typology of Languages in Eu­ rope’. His current duties include the editorial responsibility of the international jour­ nal Studies in Language (together with Lindsay Whaley).

Bernd Kortmann

Page 7 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors is Full Professor of English Language and Linguistics at the University of Freiburg, Germany, and since October 2013 Executive Director of FRIAS, the Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies. He has widely and extensively published in English linguistics, notably on the grammar of standard and non-standard varieties of English, and is coeditor of the international journal English Language and Linguistics as well as of the book series Topics in English Linguistics and Dialects of English.

Terje Lohndal

is Professor of English Linguistics at NTNU The Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim and holds an Adjunct Professorship at UiT The Arctic Uni­ versity of Norway. Together with Marit Westergaard, he directs the AcqVA (Acquisi­ tion, Variation, Attrition) research group. Lohndal works on syntax and its interfaces from a comparative perspective, drawing on data from both monolingual and multilin­ gual individuals. He has published articles in journals such as Linguistic Inquiry, Jour­ nal of Linguistics, Journal of Semantics, and several books, among others, Phrase Structure and Argument Structure with Oxford University Press and Formal Grammar with Routledge.

J. Lachlan Mackenzie

is Emeritus Professor of Functional Linguistics at VU Amsterdam, having previously been Full Professor of English Language there. With a PhD from the University of Ed­ inburgh (1978), his career was in the Netherlands, working closely with Simon Dik, Kees Hengeveld, and many others on the development of Functional Grammar and Functional Discourse Grammar. He is an Editor of the journal Functions of Language and his research interests range from functional linguistics to pragmatics, discourse analysis, and the expression of emotion. Key publications include Functional Dis­ course Grammar (2008, OUP) and Pragmatics: Cognition, Context and Culture (2016, McGraw Hill). See www.lachlanmackenzie.info

Gergana Popova

Page 8 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors works at Goldsmiths, University of London. She obtained her MA from the University of Sofia and her PhD from the University of Essex. Her interests are in theoretical lin­ guistics and linguistic theory, morphology, and the interface between morphology and syntax and morphology and lexical semantics. She is currently working on periphrasis (with Andrew Spencer). A further interest is how (p. xx) corpora and corpus-analytic techniques can be used in the study of linguistic phenomena, including the study of language use and discourse.

Geoffrey K. Pullum

is Professor of General Linguistics in the School of Philosophy, Psychology, and Lan­ guage Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. He is a Fellow of the British Academy, the Linguistic Society of America, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He previously taught at University College London; the University of Washington; Stanford University; the University of California, Santa Cruz; and Brown University. In addition to more than 250 scholarly publications on linguistics, he has written hun­ dreds of popular articles and blog posts. He co-authored The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002) with Rodney Huddleston.

Doris Schönefeld

is a Professor of Linguistics at the Institute of British Studies at the University of Leipzig (Germany). She works in the field of usage-based (cognitive) linguistics with a special focus on Construction Grammar. In addition to research into particular con­ structions of English (such as copular GO constructions), she is interested in more general linguistic issues, such as the relationship between lexicon and syntax (Where Lexicon and Syntax Meet, 2001, Mouton de Gruyter) and methodologies in empirical linguistic research (co-authored articles (2005, 2010), and an edited book on Con­ verging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research, 2011, John Benjamins).

Carson T. Schütze

Page 9 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Los Angeles, where he has taught since 1997. His research spans topics in syntax, morphology, first language ac­ quisition, language processing, and linguistic methodology, often focusing on Ger­ manic languages. His monograph The Empirical Base of Linguistics (1996, reprinted 2016) is often cited as a catalyst for the recent eruption of empirical and philosophi­ cal work on acceptability judgements.

Peter Siemund

has been Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Hamburg since 2001. He pursues a crosslinguistic typological approach in his work on reflexivity and selfintensifiers, pronominal gender, interrogative constructions, speech acts and clause types, argument structure, tense and aspect, varieties of English, language contact, and multilingual development. His publications include, as author, Pronominal Gender in English: A Study of English Varieties from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective (2008, Routledge), Varieties of English: A Typological Approach (2013, CUP), and Speech Acts and Clause Types: English in a Cross-Linguistic Context (2018, OUP), and, as Ed­ itor, Linguistic Universals and Language Variation (2011, Mouton de Gruyter) and For­ eign Language Education in Multilingual Classrooms (with Andreas Bonnet; 2018, John Benjamins).

Andrew Spencer

retired from the Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, in 2016, where he had taught for twenty-five years. He is the author of Morphological Theory (1991), Phonology (1996), Clitics (2012, with A. Luís), Lexical Relatedness (2013), and Mixed Categories (in press, with I. Nikolaeva). His interests are (p. xxi) in theoretical morphology and in morphology and its interfaces with syntax and the lexi­ con. He is currently working on periphrasis (with G. Popova) and on a cross-linguistic study of deverbal participles.

Jon Sprouse

Page 10 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors is an associate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Con­ necticut. His research focuses on experimental syntax—the use of formal experimen­ tal measures to explore questions in theoretical syntax—with a particular focus on ac­ ceptability judgements. He is the Editor of the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Ex­ perimental Syntax, and Co-Editor of Experimental Syntax and Island Effects (with Norbert Hornstein, 2013, Cambridge University Press).

John R. Taylor

is the author of Linguistic Categorization (3rd edn, 2003, OUP); Possessives in Eng­ lish: An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar (1996, OUP); Cognitive Grammar (2002, OUP); and The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind (2012, OUP). He edited The Oxford Handbook of the Word (2015) and co-edited Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World (1995, Mouton de Gruyter). He is a member of the editorial board of Cognitive Linguistics Research series (Mouton de Gruyter) and is an Associate Editor of the journal Cognitive Linguistics.

Margaret Thomas

is Professor in the Program of Linguistics at Boston College. Most of her current re­ search is in the history of linguistics, especially in the United States, with additional interests in second language acquisition and in Japanese psycholinguistics. She is the author of Fifty Key Thinkers on Language and Linguistics (2011, Routledge), and For­ malism and Functionalism in Linguistics: The Engineer and the Collector (2019, Rout­ ledge). She serves on the editorial boards of several journals, and as the reviews edi­ tor for Second Language Research and for Language and History.

Anastasios Tsangalidis

is Professor of Syntax and Semantics at the School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. His main research interests are in the area of syntactic and semantic description and the relevance of grammar to language teaching, focusing on the de­ scription of the verb in English and Modern Greek—and especially the interaction of tense, aspect, mood, and modality. Most recently he has co-edited (with Agnès Celle)

Page 11 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors a special issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics on The Linguistic Expression of Mirativity.

Sean Wallis

is Principal Research Fellow and Deputy Director of the Survey of English Usage at University College London. His publications include Exploring Natural Language (2002, with G. Nelson and Bas Aarts, John Benjamins), The English Verb Phrase (2013, edited with J. Close, G. Leech, and Bas Aarts, CUP), as well as book chapters and articles in journals across a range of topics from artificial intelligence and com­ puting to statistics and corpus research methodology. He runs a blog on statistics in corpus linguistics, corp.ling.stats (http://corplingstats.wordpress.com).

Anja Wanner

is Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she teaches syntax and grammar in use and directs the ‘Grammar (p. xxii) Badgers’ out­ reach project. Trained as a generative linguist, she became interested in syntactic variation and genre after studying the representation of implicit agents and changing attitudes towards the use of the passive voice in scientific writing. Additionally, she has published on the relationship between verb meaning and syntactic behaviour, the role of prescriptive grammar in language change, and the grammar of persons diag­ nosed with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Debra Ziegeler

attained her PhD from Monash University, Melbourne, in 1997: Aspects of the Gram­ maticalisation of Hypothetical Modality, published in 2000 as Hypothetical Modality: Grammaticalisation in an L2 Dialect (John Benjamins, SILC series). A second study, In­ terfaces with English Aspect (2006, John Benjamins, SILC series), looked at the rela­ tionship between modality and aspect in English. In other publications, she has fo­ cused on the semantics of modality associated with proximative meaning (in Journal of Pragmatics 2000, 2010, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2016) as well as the di­

Page 12 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

List of contributors achronic grammaticalization of the semi-modals, e.g. be supposed to, be able to, and have to (e.g. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2001, 2010).

Page 13 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Introduction

Introduction   The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics Online Publication Date: Mar 2020

1 Introduction THIS volume aims to provide an authoritative, critical survey of current research and knowledge in the field of English grammar, where ‘grammar’ is used in the sense which encompasses morphology (the principles of word formation) and syntax (the system for combining words into phrases, clauses, and sentences). This handbook is not, however, intended to be a grammar of English. While it includes de­ scriptive coverage of core topics in English grammar, it differs from a typical grammar in several ways, and casts its net much wider. First, it devotes considerable attention to ri­ val analyses of particular areas of grammar, and the evidence and arguments for these analyses. Second, it addresses foundational areas of research methodology and different theoretical approaches to grammar, enabling readers to take a more informed and critical approach to grammatical descriptions and current research. Third, it covers important ar­ eas of extension beyond ‘core’ grammar: the relationship of grammar to other areas of the language (lexis, phonology, meaning, and discourse); and grammatical variation over time, across genres, and among regional dialects and World Englishes. We discuss the ra­ tionale for our approach in more detail in the next section.

2 Rationale Ever since William Bullokar’s Pamphlet for Grammar was published in 1586, countless grammars have been produced, with eighteenth-century authors being particularly pro­ ductive (Linn 2006). Each of these grammars is in many ways unique. Thus while Bullokar (1586: 53) opined that English did not have much grammar (‘As English hath few and short rules for declining of words, so it hath few rules for joining of words in (p. xxiv) sen­ tence or in construction’; cited in Michael 1987: 324), other grammarians struggled with the question of how many word classes to recognize. This led to accounts in which there were only two or three word classes, and others in which there were many, such that by 1800 there were fifty-six different systems of word classes (Michael 1970). What we find, then, from early times, is that grammars present very particular, often idiosyncratic, ana­ lytical views of English. This situation has continued right up to the present. One needs only to compare the grammars of Jespersen (1909–1949), Quirk et al. (1985), McCawley (1998), and Huddleston and Pullum (2002), to name but four, to see how the syntax of the same language can be analysed in very different ways. For example, in Jespersen we find very distinctive terminology and a unique analytical framework, many elements of which Page 1 of 4

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Introduction were later adopted by theoretical linguists. We also find novel analyses in Quirk et al. (1972, 1985), and this framework is perhaps the most influential in the field of language teaching. McCawley’s grammar is different again: here it is obvious that the author was a Generative Semanticist, which resulted in analyses that are often surprising, idiosyncrat­ ic, and highly original. Finally, Huddleston and Pullum, like Quirk et al., build on the tra­ dition, but often base their analyses on recent theoretical work in linguistics, especially Chomskyan grammar and phrase structure grammar. Their work is characterized by nu­ merous new analyses in many areas of grammar, such as the treatment of conjunctions and prepositions. Anyone who reads or consults these grammars (and others) could be forgiven for some­ times feeling somewhat bewildered by the different analyses that can be found in the lit­ erature for one and the same phenomenon. As an example, consider the structure of Eng­ lish noun phrases. An ostensibly simple NP like the cats receives quite different analyses in terms of which element is the head. Traditional grammars regard the noun as the head, whereas modern generative work assumes that the determiner is the head (resulting in a DP, rather than an NP). As another example, the treatment of auxiliary verbs in the two most widely used grammars of English, namely Quirk et al. (1985) and Huddleston and Pullum (2002), is radically different. The former regard auxiliaries as ‘helping verbs’ which are dependents of a lexical verb (the so-called dependent-auxiliary analysis), whereas the latter, influenced by early generative work (e.g. Ross 1969, Pullum and Wil­ son 1977), regard auxiliaries as ‘catenative verbs’ with their own complement-taking properties (the so-called catenative-auxiliary analysis). Analytical differences of this kind are quite widespread in these two grammars, despite the fact that they are rather close to each other in conceptual outlook. Differences in approach and analysis are amplified when two different (theoretical) frameworks are involved, for instance Generative Gram­ mar and Cognitive Grammar. The former takes structure as primary (‘autonomous syn­ tax’), whereas the latter takes meaning to be fundamental. Recent work in the various versions of Construction Grammar has resulted in further developments in English gram­ mar. In this handbook we have asked authors to show how approaches to the same set of data depend on the theoretical framework an analyst chooses to deploy. We believe that this book will help readers to come to grips with different treatments of the core areas of Eng­ lish grammar, and thus to develop a more refined and informed knowledge of (p. xxv) the language. It will help to create a generation of linguists who can look beyond the frame­ works that they are familiar with, so as to become more open-minded scholars who are conversant with the rich analytical tradition of English.

3 Organization The handbook is divided into five parts. Parts I and II survey different methodological and theoretical approaches to grammar respectively, providing essential foundations to en­ able readers to take a more informed and critical view of grammatical analyses and re­ search. Page 2 of 4

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Introduction Part I begins with a chapter on the history of English grammar writing since the eigh­ teenth century, providing a broader context for later chapters. This is followed by three contributions on methodological issues pertaining to the contemporary study of grammar. It is important—in a book that aims to offer accounts of rival analyses of particular areas of grammar—to help readers understand which argumentative techniques and research methods can be used to arrive at particular analyses. Part II of the book (‘Approaches to English grammar’) offers readers a concise introduc­ tion to different linguistic frameworks. The chapters in this part provide coverage of the major types of theoretical approach that have been taken to English grammar, and that readers are likely to encounter in the literature. To make Part II more approachable and helpful for readers, we have grouped related frameworks together under one heading. For example, the chapter on dependency approaches covers Valency Grammar and Hudson’s Word Grammar, and the chapter on functional approaches covers e.g. Dik’s Functional Grammar, as well as Hallidayan grammar and its derivatives. Each chapter il­ lustrates how the approach in question is applied to particular areas of English grammar. Included in this part is a chapter which specifically covers different theoretical approach­ es to morphology. Part III of the book complements Part II in covering all the core areas of English gram­ mar, including morphology. Contributors were asked to pay particular attention to major areas of controversy between rival analyses in different frameworks, and to the evidence that has been used to support them. Part IV is about the relationship between grammar and other areas of linguistics, specifi­ cally lexis, phonology, meaning, and discourse. Recent decades have seen innovative and fruitful research in these fields, which deserve coverage in the handbook. This part of the book is intended to benefit readers who would like to find out more about domains of lin­ guistics other than the field they work in. These areas of relationship are sometimes treated in contrasting ways in different theoretical approaches and, in keeping with the overall aims of the handbook, contributors to this part were asked to discuss some of these differences. Part V covers grammatical variation and change, another area that has received increas­ ing attention over recent years. Most of the book is concerned with the common (p. xxvi) core of standard English, as used in countries where English is an official language. How­ ever, this final part of the book looks at variation among different regional dialects and global varieties of English, as well as variation in different genres of English and in litera­ ture. In addition, this part includes a chapter on grammatical change over shorter and longer time periods. This topic is closely related to that of variation, as varieties arise by processes of change, and genres also undergo change over time. Bullokar, William (1586). William Bullokar’s Pamphlet for Grammar. London: Edmund Bol­ lifant.

Page 3 of 4

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Introduction Linn, Andrew (2006). ‘English grammar writing’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 72–92. Michael, Ian (1970). English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Deirdre Wilson (1977). ‘Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries.’ Language 53: 741–88. Ross, John R. (1969). ‘Auxiliaries as main verbs’, in W. Todd (ed), Studies in Philosophical Linguistics (Series 1). Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press (online at http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~jlawler/haj/AuxasMV.pdf).

Page 4 of 4

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of Eng­ lish Grammaticology   Margaret Thomas The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.33

Abstract and Keywords As one way to survey the long and diversified history of the study of English grammar, Chapter 1 presents five case studies of scholars’ different conceptualizations of a funda­ mental matter on which any grammar-writer must take a stand. That matter is the ques­ tion of what language material a grammar must account for, and what a legitimate source of that material is. The case studies span two hundred years of analysis of English, from Lindley Murray through Henry Sweet, Otto Jespersen, and Randolph Quirk to Noam Chomsky—each of whom established a distinctive grammaticological stance, designed to satisfy a distinctive understanding of the identity and provenance of the data a grammari­ an works with. The chapter compares treatment of one particular construction, the Eng­ lish ‘double negative’, as a microcosm of differences across the five case studies. Keywords: history of English grammar, grammaticology, double negative, Lindley Murray, Henry Sweet, Otto Jes­ persen, Randolph Quirk, Noam Chomsky

1.1 Introduction THIS chapter aims to provide readers with insight into the history of English-language grammar writing. It is impossible to survey here the full scope of the topic: English gram­ mars have been published since the late 1500s (Alston 1965), and vary widely in purpose, reception, intended readership, socio-cultural context, and level of detail—among other factors. Instead, I will illustrate some of the range of that variation by focusing on five fig­ ures from the last 200 years whose work is important to English grammaticology, that is, to the study of the principles of grammar writing (Graustein and Leitner 1989: 3–4): Lind­ ley Murray (1745–1826); Henry Sweet (1845–1912); Otto Jespersen (1860–1943); Ran­ dolph Quirk (1920–2017); and Noam Chomsky (b. 1928). These five form a heterogeneous, non-exhaustive, sample of scholars who have made sig­ nificant contributions. Not all can be identified primarily as grammarians, and not all may now have sufficient currency to be cited elsewhere in this handbook. I have selected them Page 1 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology not as the top five names in the recent history of English grammar, but because they ex­ emplify a range of positions on a fundamental, two-pronged issue, namely, conceptualiza­ tion of what counts as the data a grammar of English should analyse, and the source of those data. The issue is germane since, as Graustein and Leitner (1989: 9–15) point out, the totality of a language is too complex and multidimensional for any grammar to treat comprehensively. Rather, grammarians necessarily choose particular domains to address, ‘according to linguistic and user-related criteria’ (Graustein and Leitner 1989: 9), with certain criteria privileging certain sources for (p. 4) those data. For example, some gram­ marians have been concerned exclusively with an educated, prestige-laden, style of Eng­ lish attested in the writings of especially admired authors. Other grammarians have as­ sumed that the evolution of English over time is fundamental to its current structure, so that historical facts guide their selection of material and references to earlier stages of the language suffuse their analysis. Some grammarians have focused on contrasts be­ tween features of English and those of other languages, or those asserted to be shared by all languages. The data on which grammarians base their analyses may derive from writ­ ten records, selected according to the grammarian’s judgement of what counts as appro­ priate models; they may be carried over from earlier grammars; or they may be con­ structed by the grammarians themselves, out of their own intuitions. Another approach is to collect samples of speakers’ or writers’ output, then to induce linguistic generaliza­ tions by inspecting the corpus. To sharpen the characterization of how these five scholars conceptualize the data their grammars address, I will compare their treatments of a single construction in English, the so-called ‘double negative’. Although other chapters in this handbook may not con­ verge on how to analyse double negatives, they exhibit a shared twenty-first-century un­ derstanding of what counts as the data of an English grammar, and they derive those data from a common array of sources. Most modern grammarians prioritize spoken registers of English (more or less idealized) without excluding written texts, and admit many kinds of dialectal and stylistic variation. For the most part, their working methods are induc­ tive, based on data from heterogeneous sources: corpora; constructed examples; histori­ cal evidence; experimental results; speakers’ unguarded slips of the tongue; and the lan­ guage of children, second-language learners, and people living with aphasia and other language disorders. Twenty-first-century grammarians of English might incorporate data derived from any of these sources. That was not necessarily true for their predecessors. However, it is worthwhile keeping in mind that, as Andrew Linn wrote, ‘grammar-writing in the modern age carries its past with it’ (2006: 74).

1.2 Lindley Murray (1745–1826) Little in Lindley Murray’s background anticipates that he would become the nineteenth century’s most widely read grammarian of English. The oldest son of an enterprising mer­ chant of Quaker and Scotch-Irish immigrant background, Murray’s family achieved social and commercial prominence in New York City (Monaghan 1998). His father expected him to join the family business, but under the influence of an education informed by Enlight­ Page 2 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology enment scientific-literary values, Murray resisted. In the end, he prepared for a career in law, although managing his family’s commercial ventures eventually became his major lifework. Just as Murray launched his legal career in 1767, increasing friction between the British government and American colonies disrupted life in New York. Murray’s (p. 5) family tem­ porarily removed to England, then Murray and his father returned to weather the effects of the run-up to the American Revolution on their investments in shipping, industry, and banking. According to Monaghan (1998), Lindley’s Memoirs (1826; Allott 1991) obfuscate whether the family sided with the loyalists or patriots. There is evidence that under cover of Quakerly neutrality, the Murrays profited by sometimes aligning themselves with one side, sometimes the other. Public opinion, however, considered the Murrays loyalists. When the British were driven from New York in 1783, Lindley and his wife fled back to England. Although Murray was probably more sympathetic to the patriots than the loyal­ ists, his voluntary exile helped protect the family’s wealth from confiscation.1 His rela­ tives—including his father, who had more openly supported the British—eventually re-es­ tablished their social positions in New York and re-assumed their commercial activities. Murray and his wife settled reluctantly in Yorkshire, supported by their investments in America. On the basis of Murray’s reputation as a local man of education, teachers at a nearby Quaker school recruited him to tutor them in English grammar (Fens-de Zeeuw 2011: 166). Eventually he put the essentials into writing for students. Murray intended his 1795 English Grammar for the neighbourhood Quaker schools, but it achieved imme­ diate and widespread success in England, with fifty-two editions published by 1832. It was even more successful in America. Murray energetically revised and promoted the text without either pursuing or realizing significant financial gain. From 1797 onward, he published a companion book of exercises, a key to the exercises, and an abridgement of the Grammar. Next came Murray’s English Reader and a French reader (each with ancil­ lary texts), an English spelling book, and a two-volume edition combining the Grammar with the exercises and key (Murray 1808). Murray’s books were translated and multiply reprinted for teaching English in India, Germany, Ireland, France, and Portugal (TiekenBoon van Ostade 1996: 10). Monaghan (1998: 135) estimates that his textbooks sold 15.5 million copies altogether, making him ‘the largest-selling author in the world in the first four decades of the nineteenth century’. The Grammar was widely reviewed, criticized, and imitated, dominating the market until around 1840 (Fens-de Zeeuw 2011: 164). In this way, exiled entrepreneur and lawyer Lindley Murray became the renowned ‘Quak­ er grammarian’ (Fens-de Zeeuw 2011: 13–14). His qualifications for the role came from his education and social standing, not from protracted experience as a teacher or scholar. In this he was not unusual for a grammarian of his time, nor was his work innovative. Murray’s Introduction makes it clear that innovation was not the goal: he described the text as ‘a new compilation…a careful selection of the most useful matter’ which he hoped would achieve the ideal balance between over- and under-explicitness in a book designed ‘for the instruction of youth’ (1795: iii). Murray represented his work as that of ‘selecting and forming [definitions and rules]’ (2nd ed., 1796: v), rather than offering a novel analy­ Page 3 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology sis. From the third edition onward, (p. 6) Murray named the major figures his text drew on, emphasizing that the grammar is ‘a compilation…consist[ing] chiefly of materials se­ lected from the writings of others’ (3rd ed., 1797: 6; 4th ed., 1798: 6; etc.)—which most prominently included Robert Lowth (1710–1786), Joseph Priestley (1733–1804), and Charles Coote (1761–1835). But by modern standards, Murray was lax in identifying his sources. Vorlat (1959) gives a point-by-point exegesis of many definitions Murray took (near-)verbatim from previous grammars, in particular from Lowth’s Short Introduction to English Grammar (2nd ed., 1763). Moreover, Murray copied many of his examples from previous grammars, sometimes with a trivial alteration, as where he recycled Lowth’s il­ lustrations of proper nouns (‘George, London’) versus common nouns (‘Animal, Man’; Lowth 1763: 21) as ‘George, London, Thames’ versus ‘animal, man, tree’ (Murray 1795: 24). Murray sometimes updated the diction, revising Lowth’s ‘unless he wash his flesh’ to ‘unless he wash himself’ (Vorlat 1959: 121). But as with his definitions, Murray’s exam­ ples were mostly carried over from earlier published works. Moreover, Murray’s English Grammar shows little innovation in its organization. The or­ der and substance of its four major sections cleaves to the tradition that goes back to the fourth-century Roman grammarian Aelius Donatus: ‘Of Orthography’, on letters, sounds, and syllables; ‘Etymology’, separately addressing each of the classic parts of speech; ‘Syntax’, which became progressively more elaborate in subsequent editions; and ‘Prosody’, treating inter alia accent, emphasis, and punctuation (with the latter becoming an independent section by the third edition). Sections are sub-divided into units that typi­ cally begin with a definition of the feature under discussion, followed by discussion and examples in smaller type, sometimes with examples of incorrect use. This sketch provides a basis for inferring what Murray conceived to be the relevant data a grammar of English should analyse, and the sources of those data. In concert with the works from which he compiled his grammar, Murray’s target was the formal, literary, ver­ sion of late eighteenth-century English, privileging its written form, while ostensively tak­ ing speech into account as well. Lowth’s Preface adverts to ‘the English language as it is spoken by the politest part of the nation, and as it stands in the writings of our most ap­ proved authors’ (2nd ed., 1763: vii). Murray likewise incorporates speech, writing, and social class into his conceptualization of grammar as ‘the art of speaking and writing the English language with propriety’ (1795: 1). He rarely distinguishes speech from writing, but remarks on the muddled vowels of ‘a person of a poor education’ compared to the ‘distinct, open, specific’ vowels of well-educated people (p. 14). An additional criterion for inclusion in Murray’s grammar is that he rejected material that ‘might have an improper effect on the minds of youth’ so as to ‘advance the best interests of society, by cherishing the innocence and virtue of the rising generation’ (p. v). The English that Murray’s Grammar analyses is thus an educated, primarily written style (which still claims to address speech), expunged of offensive material. Murray’s data are mostly taken from earlier grammars, with minor retouching. However, on one point he de­ parted from dependence on his major source, Lowth (1763). One of Lowth’s trademarks was to cite in footnotes what he perceived as grammatical errors in texts by (p. 7) wellPage 4 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology known writers, giving full attributions to each. His purpose in ‘ransacking the finest liter­ ature for “barbarisms”’ (Pullum 1974: 77) was to counter-exemplify principles of gram­ mar he articulated.2 Murray, however, did not copy this feature of Lowth’s text strictly. The Grammar contains abundant examples of what Murray considered proper usage, alongside illustrations of what he called ‘false grammar’ (1795: iv). But Murray rarely la­ belled counter-examples with their authors’ names, whereas Lowth pointedly called atten­ tion to the discrepant usage of admired stylists such as Shakespeare, Jonathan Swift, and Samuel Johnson. Moreover, in Murray’s Exercises (published together with the Grammar in 1808), he provided more than 200 pages of counter-examples, keyed sub-section by sub-section to the Grammar. The intention was for students to turn from the Grammar to the Exercises for practice identifying errors in sentences like ‘You and us enjoy many privileges’; students then applied the relevant grammatical rules to amend the sentence to ‘You and we…’, checking their output against the key to the exercises. Murray does not indicate the provenance of his counter-examples. He simply states that he ‘collect[ed] and arrange[d]’ them (1808, Vol. 2: 6), again emphasizing exclusion of content that might in­ jure the ‘sensibility of young persons’ (p. 8). Compared to Lowth’s counter-examples culled from classic authors, Murray’s Exercises lack variety of voice and content. Their homogeneous tone and diction—judicious, didac­ tic, sententious; many adopting the oracular voice of proverbs—give them the air of hav­ ing come from the same pen, probably Murray’s.3 The point comes to a head in Murray’s treatment of double negatives (1808, Vol. 2: 119–20), a common but disparaged construc­ tion. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1982: 281–2; 1990: 483) has analysed double negation in eighteenth-century letters, prose, and plays, exemplifying both frequent and rare pat­ terns. Among Murray’s twenty-four examples, only one conforms to a frequent contempo­ rary pattern (‘not…neither’), while twelve of twenty-four are unattested even among rare patterns. This strengthens the inference that Murray constructed (here, mis-constructed), rather than compiled or observed, his examples of ‘false grammar’. Murray’s Grammar addresses a prestigious style of eighteenth-century English, groomed to maintain a high moral tone. Its models of grammatical propriety as well as most defini­ tions and discussion, derive from other published grammars, augmented by counter-ex­ amples in the Exercises that Murray probably constructed. In its conceptualization of the language to be analysed, and in the sources of his data, Murray’s Grammar was unexcep­ tional in his time. Its spectacular reception signals Murray’s success at meeting the needs of a specific readership, at a specific moment in the history of English grammar writing.

(p. 8)

1.3 Henry Sweet (1845–1912)

The bold and fractious British scholar Henry Sweet is best known as a phonetician and philologist. But in the 1870s Sweet’s attention turned to grammar, and he produced the two volumes of A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical (1891, 1898). Unlike Murray’s grammar, Sweet’s did not find a large commercial market. Although at least one contemporary reviewer admired it as a work of ‘solid scholarship…contain[ing] many Page 5 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology acute observations and luminous comments’ (Smith 1900: 115), Hudson (2010b) aptly characterized it as a ‘neglected masterpiece’. Also unlike Murray, Sweet analysed English for an advanced readership. His scientific, rather than normative, goals were ‘founded on an independent critical survey of the latest results of linguistic investigation’ (Sweet 1891: v). Sweet’s starkly different nineteenth-century conceptualization of English gram­ mar provides a revealing parallax to Murray’s eighteenth-century one. Sweet was born and raised in London. From adolescence, when he first started teaching himself Old English and Old Icelandic, he was preoccupied by study of the Germanic lan­ guages. Aged eighteen he spent a year at the University of Heidelberg absorbing German philology first-hand. When he was twenty-four, the same year he belatedly matriculated at Oxford’s Balliol College, Sweet was publishing linguistic-historical research in the Trans­ actions of the Philological Society. His relationship with Oxford proved to be a lifelong, highly-charged, struggle. Sweet rebelled against the institution’s traditions and curricu­ lum, which he claimed to have retarded his self-defined real education (Sweet 1888: vi). Oxford returned his disfavour, branding him with a fourth-class degree on his graduation. As his star nevertheless rose in the world of Germanic philology, Sweet set his sights on raising the level of language scholarship in Britain, especially at Oxford; but his indepen­ dent mindset and contentious disposition led him to be repeatedly denied professorships (once at University College London, twice at Oxford) commensurate with his erudition and originality. He eventually accepted a readership in Phonetics at Oxford, a position that little reflected the esteem with which his contributions were held by his peers out­ side Britain, especially in Germany. Despite Sweet’s alienation and unfavourable institutional status, he produced a steady stream of publications marked by creativity, depth of learning, and intellectual self-confi­ dence. He was adept at writing for both academic and non-specialist readerships, some­ times producing parallel texts on the same topic, one for language scholars, one for the public. Above all, Sweet championed phonetics as the foundation of language study. He invented a two-tiered transcription system that presaged the notion of the phoneme; pro­ posed a new system of shorthand; wrote authoritatively about the history of English (es­ pecially phonetics); contributed to debate about language teaching; and produced a stream of translations, lexicons, and exegeses of Old and Middle English texts. Sweet’s philological interests informed his New English Grammar (1891, 1898). The In­ troduction to Part I comprises a 225-page tutorial in late nineteenth-century linguistics. It begins by distinguishing descriptive from explanatory grammar, with the former estab­ lishing a foundation for the latter. Explanatory grammars, like his own, rely on (p. 9) evi­ dence from either historical, comparative, or general (philosophical) grammar, all of which entail analysis of older versions of the language: whether we try to understand a construction by examining its ancestor forms, by reconstructing its cognates in related languages, or by surveying the histories of unrelated languages for general patterns— every approach requires study of how English developed over time. Thus Sweet’s New

Page 6 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology Grammar starts with a strong statement of the value of historical knowledge to any method of language analysis. Having adopted this perspective, Sweet introduces a basic vocabulary for language analy­ sis, defining and exemplifying ‘qualifier’/‘attribute’; ‘subject’/‘predicate’; ‘derivation’/‘inflection’; ‘logical’/‘grammatical’ (categories); and ‘ellipsis’, ‘intonation’, ‘conversion’, etc. Sweet then breaks into about one hundred pages on the features and sub-categories of the classical parts of speech, with almost all examples taken from con­ temporary English, followed by twenty-five pages on the basic structure of sentences, clauses, and ‘word-groups’ (avoiding the term ‘phrase’). The remainder of the Introduc­ tion returns to general historical issues: how languages evolve over time, emphasizing sound change; social control over language change; historical relationships among lan­ guages; and finally a sketch of how Modern English descended from its ‘Arian’ roots. The remainder of Part I comprises two major sections, ‘Phonology’ and ‘Accidence’. Both are dominated by discussion of how sounds and word-forms developed from Old to Mod­ ern English. Sweet abundantly illustrated his analysis with cogent examples from every­ day speech (e.g. contrasts between ‘gold chain’/‘golden chain’; ‘silky hair’/‘silken hair’ [1891: 63])—unattributed and therefore likely of his own invention. Rarely, he adds quotations from literary sources. In Part II of New English Grammar, ‘Syntax’ (1898), Sweet addresses word order, first as a general linguistic phenomenon, then as it bears on each of the major parts of speech, taking up issues such as the position of adverbs rela­ tive to verbs (‘He never is ready on time’/‘He is never ready on time’, p. 21) and ’s versus of genitives (‘the king’s son’/‘the son of the king’, p. 53). Throughout, Sweet distinguishes written and spoken English, and sometimes adverts to particular registers (narrative his­ torical present tense [1898: 102]), regional dialectal diversity (high front vowels in south­ ern versus northern England [1891: 232]; ‘Scotch’ syntax [1898: 105]) or stylistic varia­ tion (effects of rapid speech on stress [1898: 33]). A striking feature of Sweet’s presentation is that he embeds all facets of the language in historical context. That is, Sweet characteristically indicates the antecedents of the gram­ matical features of modern English, usually by providing equivalents in Old or Middle English or, as relevant, by referring to Latin, Anglo-Frisian, or Early Modern English. He quotes numerous examples of earlier versions of English, usually supplying modern trans­ lations but without citing his sources. Sweet’s implicit stance is that a grammar of Eng­ lish at any specific point in time is a snapshot of an object in motion, the essence of which cannot be captured solely with reference to its present state. The treatment of negation in Part I (pp. 437–8) is representative. Historical facts pervade the exposition: Sweet first introduces the Old English negative preverbal particle ne, which spread by prefixation onto pronouns and adverbs in the same sentence. Where a negated verb lacked words eligible for ne-prefixation, negation (p. 10) was instead strengthened by preverbal nā or naht. In Middle English, nat (a prefixed form of ‘nothing’) supplanted ne as a general negative marker, coming down to us as modern not. However,

Page 7 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology Old English nā has survived, especially before comparatives, in Modern English ‘He is no better’ and ‘No more of this!’. Then Sweet adds: …the influence of Latin grammar led to the adoption of the logical principle that ‘two negatives contradict each other and make an affirmative,’ which is now strict­ ly carried out in the Standard language, spoken as well as written, though the old pleonastic negatives are still kept up in vulgar speech, as in I don’t know nothing about it = the educated I do not know anything about it or I know nothing about it. (Sweet 1891: 438) From this we can infer how Sweet conceptualized the database of a grammar. An earlier passage (1891: 125–7) discussed the position and meaning of negative particles in Mod­ ern English. But to Sweet the historical context of those data is essential to scientific un­ derstanding. ‘Modern English’ is only one point in a developmental stream; a grammar should indicate, for example, that the negators in ‘He is no better’ and ‘I do not know any­ thing about it’ descended from separate sources. Moreover, a grammar should point out that Old and Middle English multiple negators survive in ‘vulgar’ Modern English, even if they have been expunged from educated speech under the influence of an extra-linguistic logical notion. To Lindley Murray, that logical notion (which Murray expressed—borrow­ ing Lowth’s words—as ‘Two negatives, in English, destroy one other’ [1795: 121; Lowth 1763: 139]) legitimates excluding ‘I don’t know nothing about it’ from the grammar of English. Sweet’s historical approach accounts for both the origin of double negatives and for their suppression. It also demonstrates that he conceived of the data for which a grammar is responsible as extending beyond the present state of the language, to its de­ velopment over time.4 On the other hand, Sweet and Murray converge in how they illustrated their grammars, in that both employed examples they apparently constructed themselves, alongside mate­ rial they extracted from written records. The written records Murray used were texts con­ structed by earlier grammarians, or culled by them from literature, whereas Sweet drew on Old and Middle English texts in his discussion of earlier forms of the language. To Murray and to Sweet, these were probably the obvious sources for exemplifying the structure of English. But they do not exhaust all possibilities.

1.4 Otto Jespersen (1860–1943) The Dane Otto Jespersen led a long, productive, and intellectually engaged life. Born in rural Jutland into a family of lawyers and public servants but orphaned by age thirteen, Jespersen worked his way through the University of Copenhagen as a language tutor, (p. 11) and as a stenographer for the Danish Parliament. He would maintain an affiliation with the university for the rest of his life, first as a student of Law before switching to French and comparative-historical linguistics, then as Denmark’s first regular professor

Page 8 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology of English language and literature, as Dean of the Faculty of Arts, and finally as Rector of the university. Despite Jespersen’s institutional stability, and despite the facts that he enjoyed strong col­ legial relationships, closely followed trends in language study throughout Europe (and, to some extent, North America), and contributed to several international collaborative projects, he was a strikingly independent scholar. His work resists categorization into any of the schools of language scholarship that proliferated during his lifetime (the Neogram­ marians; groups of scholars inspired by Ferdinand de Saussure [1857–1913]; the Prague Circle; and even the Copenhagen Circle). Jespersen wrote principally about phonetics and Indo-European historical and descriptive linguistics, especially of the Germanic and Ro­ mance branches. He worked to reform language teaching on a more linguistically sound basis, and participated in attempts to create an auxiliary language. Jespersen was a com­ mitted pacifist who hoped, in vain, that a shared international language would ease inter­ war tensions across Europe. In much of his work, Jespersen championed the belief that language change constitutes neither deterioration from a past golden age, nor either cyclic or random replacement of one construction or word by another. Rather, to Jes­ persen change represents a language’s increasingly efficient adaptation over time to meeting the communicative purposes of its speakers. Among Jespersen’s greatest achievements—and the one most relevant to our concerns here—is his seven-volume Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles (1909–1949). The research and writing of the Grammar extended over almost fifty years, with the last volume assembled posthumously by Jespersen’s former students. Part I covers the sounds and spelling of English; Parts II through V and Part VII, syntactic phenomenon; Part VI, morphology. All parts of the work display Jespersen’s capacity to notice and articulate patterns in language data, his penetrating analysis of the nuances of linguistic forms and meanings, and his encyclopaedic understanding of how English has changed over time. His felicitous powers of observation, broad-mindedness, originality, and erudition—all communicated in an easy and artless prose style—attract admiring readers to this day. In the Foreword to a reprint of Jespersen (1905/1982), Randolph Quirk portrayed him as ‘the most distinguished scholar of the English language who has ever lived’. Breadth and originality also characterize Jespersen’s conceptualization of the language data a grammar should analyse, and the sources of those data. Although none of the grammarians discussed in Chapter 1 derives his data from a single source, Jespersen stands out as especially catholic. His sources are more heterogeneous than Murray’s or Sweet’s, and in this he anticipates the practices of later grammarians. The Grammar cites hundreds of examples taken from written materials. Among them are samples of the an­ cestors of Modern English in all periods of its recorded development, including the clas­ sic texts and authors that Murray and Sweet trafficked in. However, (p. 12) Jespersen also includes in his database many examples taken from contemporary popular literature, la­ belled with author, truncated title, and page number. Even granted the Grammar’s orientation to ‘Historical Principles’, modern sources seemingly prevail: Jespersen cites fewer works by Jonathan Swift or Samuel Johnson than by Arthur Conan Doyle, George Page 9 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology Bernard Shaw, Robert Louis Stevenson, Booth Tarkington, or H. G. Wells—and by other lesser-known then-current writers, social workers, historians, physicians, and so forth. In this sense Jespersen’s grammar is more grounded in the present state of the language than Murray’s or Sweet’s. All three grammarians also extensively mined secondary sources which analyse English, although naturally by the early decades of the twentieth century Jespersen had access to a larger collection of grammars, dictionaries, lexicons, books on dialectology, spelling, etc. In assembling his sources, Jespersen took a methodological cue from the compilers of the New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (Francis 1989). He read extensively, and culled material from his reading by marking with a dot in the margin any particularly striking use of language. He extended that same observational vigilance to speech by writing down on ten-by-eight-centimetre scraps of paper any notable word or construc­ tion he overheard in conversation. Later, he annotated and numbered those slips and drew on them, as relevant, in his writing (1938/1995: 247–51). Jespersen’s habit of col­ lecting first-hand attestations of English is probably responsible for much of the fresh­ ness and authenticity of the data he analyses in the Grammar. For example, in a subsec­ tion on negation in Part V Jespersen introduces an array of contracted negatives in their historical and social contexts, including cou’dn’t, han’t, wo’n’t, amn’t, shatunt, whyn’t, warn’t, mustna, bettern’t (1909–1949, Part V: 429–36). The extent to which Jespersen con­ structed his grammar of English on the foundation of directly observed data departs from the practices of Murray or Sweet, in whose grammars attested data played a minor role. It is also notable that Jespersen was reluctant to employ data that he himself constructed, whereas earlier grammarians felt free to provide their own examples and counter-exam­ ples. In these ways, Jespersen’s work takes a more empirical approach. Still, it is impor­ tant to acknowledge that Jespersen’s data was limited to the intersection of whatever words and constructions he happened to encounter, and his own judgement of what was worth recording. Jespersen’s treatment of double negation (1909–1949, Part V: 449–56) demonstrates the scope of what his grammar accounts for. He establishes a taxonomy that first separates double negation into constructions that communicate weakened affirmation (‘not uncom­ mon’; ‘I do not deny’) versus four subtypes of constructions that communicate negation: negative attraction (‘you won’t lose nothing by it’); resumptive negation (‘I cannot live without you—nor will I not’); paratactic negation (‘You may deny that you were not…’); plus a residue of intractable constructions. Jespersen illustrates his analysis with data culled all the way from Old English texts up to popular literature published in the first decade of the 1900s, alongside a few unattributed examples of vernacular language that Jespersen may first have captured, by hand, on his notecards (‘he cannot sleep, neither at night nor in the daytime’). The exposition of double negation in the Grammar also reveals, in seed form, an­ other conceptualization of what a grammar should address: the features of other lan­ guages, viewed comparatively. Jespersen remarks in passing on the applicability of his taxonomy to negation in Latin, Greek, Slavonic and Romance languages, Magyar, and (p. 13)

Page 10 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology German. He also mentions negation in varieties of English: Irish English, Cockney, and that spoken by ‘Yorkshire men and Americans’ (p. 456). It is salient that during the long interval when he worked on the Grammar, Jespersen also produced an independent vol­ ume, Negation in English and Other Languages (1917/1966), the title of which announces its focus on cross-linguistic comparison. The subsection on double negation (pp. 62–80) presents the same analysis, and cites many of the same sources, as does the Grammar. But the volume expands comparative treatment to negation in eleven languages, by way of testing the adequacy of his taxonomy and situating the specific properties of English. With this Jespersen enlarges the scope of what a particular grammar might claim respon­ sibility for to include not only its own development over time and the usage of speakers across various registers, but also its place in the family of human languages in general.

1.5 Randolph Quirk (1920–2017) Randolph Quirk was born on the Isle of Man, in a farming community where the Celtic language Manx could still be heard, and where ‘Manx values’ (Quirk 2002: 240) mixed with the overlaid cultural influences of England and Scandinavia. He left the island for University College London in 1939 to study Germanic philology, including Old High Ger­ man, Gothic, Old Norse, and Anglo-Saxon. When his classes were relocated to Aberyst­ wyth during the war, Quirk added Welsh. After a hiatus in the Royal Air Force, Quirk re­ turned to London to study under leading post-war linguists Daniel Jones (1881–1967) and J. R. Firth (1890–1960). He obtained a bachelors and a doctoral degree, then accepted a Junior Lectureship at University College London. Quirk wrote that by this time he was ‘hooked on the idea of research’—adding ‘Ah, but in what?’ (2002: 241). He eventually carried out many kinds of language research, in sever­ al institutional contexts, towards many ends, including inter alia old-school Germanic philology (the topic of his dissertation); Middle English lexicography; public lectures about language, broadcast on the BBC; applications of linguistics to literature and speech therapy; and renovation of English language teaching in British schools, prisons, and abroad. In 1951, Quirk spent a year at Yale and the University of Michigan, where he en­ countered the key figures in American post-Bloomfieldian structuralism and acquired a taste for empirical research into the syntax of living languages. From this mix of experi­ ences Quirk’s signature accomplishment emerged: a massive, collaborative, survey of contemporary English, and co-production of English grammars based on the resulting corpus. The project first germinated during an interval teaching at the University of Durham, but attracted more funding and personnel when he (p. 14) returned to University College London in 1960. Quirk was eventually named Quain Professor at University Col­ lege London, and served a term as Vice Chancellor of the University of London. Quirk (1960) presents a forceful and lucid case for the value of his Survey of English Us­ age. He argues that existing grammars lack systematicity, completeness, and authority, because grammarians rely on introspection instead of consulting speakers’ attested us­ age. He evinces scepticism about constructed illustrations of grammatical points, as they Page 11 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology ‘describ[e] primarily what is grammatologically received and what [a grammarian] ex­ pects to find’ (p. 43). Quirk also rejects the tradition of exemplifying usage by citing pas­ sages of high literary value: rather than particularly apt or eloquent use of language, it is ‘actual and normal’ (p. 44) language that demands attention. Moreover, almost all extant grammars focus on written language, not spontaneous speech. Quirk concedes that some modern linguists were beginning to analyse authentic spoken language, but a broader and more consistent initiative was needed to uncover the features of everyday conversa­ tional English. Starting in 1959, Quirk accepted the challenge of creating a more adequate database for a grammar of English. The project absorbed most of his attention in the 1960s into the 1970s, and remains an important resource (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/ index.htm). The Survey amassed a one-million-word corpus of mid-twentieth-century British English, about equally from written and spoken sources. It comprises 200 sepa­ rate texts of 5,000 words each: published and unpublished writings, including instruction­ al manuals, legal documents, newspaper articles, recipes, fiction, letters, and prose read aloud; and spontaneous speech, sometimes conversations, in diverse social contexts. Some of the spoken data derive from interviews broadcast on radio and television. Some was surreptitiously recorded in private or semi-private settings, with the goal of captur­ ing as closely as possible what one project participant labelled ‘the earthy dynamism of unconstrained domestic spontaneous conversation’ (Crystal 2009: 105). The design, col­ lection, and analysis of the corpus was from the start a collaborative effort, involving many of Quirk’s former students and colleagues from Britain, continental Europe, and North America. The written Survey data were analysed and annotated by hand on thou­ sands of individual slips of paper. The spoken data were recorded on reel-to-reel tapes, transcribed, then, like the written data, annotated by hand. Later, linguists at the Univer­ sity of Lund computerized the 500,000-word spoken corpus (adding thirteen additional files), to produce the London-Lund Corpus, descendants of which are accessible through the Survey website. Eventually the written data and their annotations were computerized as well.5 Quirk was not the first to undertake such a survey, but its size, range, and inclusion of va­ rieties of spontaneous speech broke new ground. From the outset, Quirk supplemented it with elicited material which he viewed as necessary to probe speakers’ evaluation of (p. 15) (for example) agreement in sentences like ‘Mr. Smith with his son leave/leaves for London’, or adverb position in ‘Did they badly treat the servant?’ (Greenbaum and Quirk 1970: 128, 134). But for the most part he expected that a grammar of English ‘could be formulated from the patterns…emerging from a corpus of natural material’ (1960: 54). Starting in 1972, Quirk and a rotating cohort of collaborators began publishing grammars of English for various readerships, based largely on the London-Lund Corpus but some­ times supplemented by reference to earlier American or British corpora of written Eng­ lish, with occasional citation of elicited data.

Page 12 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology The largest, most ambitious, product of the Survey is Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik’s 1779-page Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) (1985), published about 200 years after Murray’s grammar and one hundred years after Sweet’s. Despite their choice of title, the authors concede that writing a ‘complete and definitive grammatical description of English’ exceeds their capacity; they aim instead for ‘breadth of coverage and depth of detail, in which observation of particularities goes hand in hand with the search for general and systematic explanations’ (p. 91). CGEL is organized in a spiral of three ‘cycles’: Chapter 2 surveys the basic units of English phrases, clauses, and sentences; Chapters 3 through 11 cover, one by one, the constituents of simple sentences and their combinatorial privileges; Chapters 12 through 19 analyse more complex struc­ tures, including ellipsis, coordination, subordination, and the grammar of discourse. Separate Appendices address word-formation, prosody, and punctuation. The approach is assiduously descriptive, and the coverage exhaustive. CGEL notes in passing the existence of double negatives, within a footnote embedded in a subsection on nonassertive items with negation. It provides a telling contrast with earlier grammars: In nonstandard English, a negative item can be used wherever in standard English a nonassertive item follows the negative: STANDARD: No one ever said anything to anybody NONSTANDARD: No one never said nothing to nobody Such double or multiple negatives are condemned by prescriptive grammatical tradition (Quirk et al. 1985: 787) A later subsection comments on the semantics of double negation: ‘The additional nega­ tives in nonstandard English do not cancel out the previous negatives’ (p. 799). Unlike Murray, Quirk et al. register the existence of double negation without labelling it as de­ fective in principle: ‘No one never said nothing to nobody’ simply illustrates one option for marking negation, albeit a dispreferred one. Unlike Sweet, Quirk et al. do not set the construction in its historical context. Unlike Jespersen, they provide no cross-linguistic comparison. The London-Lund corpus allowed Quirk et al. to extract, assemble, and generalize across multiple exemplars of words and constructions, in diverse contexts. But of course this re­ quired more than simply collating patterns that emerged from the corpus: Quirk and his colleagues had to make many decisions about how to order items under a grammatical rubric; how to classify data where varieties of a construction shade (p. 16) incrementally from one category into another; when to invent new terms rather than rely on convention­ al ones; and so forth. All such decisions are fraught; no grammar satisfies all readers.

Page 13 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology However, even as reviewers raised all manner of criticism, most, like Huddleston (1988: 346), acknowledged the ‘pre-eminent and authoritative’ status of CGEL. CGEL and its sister texts also necessarily transcend the contents of the London-Lund cor­ pus in a different sense. Quirk (1960) asserted that the basis of a grammar of English re­ sides in native speakers’ spontaneous speech. The Survey, augmented by the results of elicitation experiments, was designed to provide that basis. However, Quirk et al. do not strictly limit themselves to those data. First, they freely employ counter-examples to illus­ trate the limits of grammatical constructions, as in ‘Fortunately, he knows about it’ versus ‘*Does he fortunately know about it?’ (p. 627). Many of these sentences were used in the elicitation experiments (e.g. Greenbaum and Quirk 1970: 134), legitimating the judge­ ments indicated in CGEL. But not all of Quirk et al.’s data can be accounted for in this way. For example, pages 1100–1 discuss the structure and meaning of (1–4): (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

There’s no evidence that Quirk et al. elicited or observed these sentences, much less their semantics. More likely, Quirk et al. created (1–4) from their own intuitions, despite Quirk’s (1960) scepticism about constructed examples. Second, the spoken data cited by Quirk et al. display a general absence of hesitation morphemes (‘um…uh…’), fillers (‘I mean’; ‘You know’), fragments, repetitions, or restarts. The dysfluency of spontaneous speech seems to have been groomed out of the thousands of illustrative sentences in CGEL. The result is an idealized representation of natural language, albeit one far more genuine than earlier grammarians’ examples. In the final chapter, where Quirk et al. analyse conversations and unscripted discourse, their data are less retouched, leaving in­ tact expressions like ‘well’ or ‘oh’, and self-interruptions, self-corrections, and restarts (pp. 1509–12). Still, the distance remains rather great between what appears on the page and the Survey’s goal to capture raw, truly authentic, language in all its ‘earthy dy­ namism’. Even if Quirk et al. did not realize their goal of inducing a grammar of English strictly from a naturalistic corpus, CGEL represents a departure in its conceptualization of what

Page 14 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology counts as the relevant data for a grammar, and in deriving those data from actual sponta­ neous language.

1.6 Noam Chomsky (b. 1928) Noam Chomsky is a theoretical linguist, not a grammarian. Unlike the other four scholars discussed here, Chomsky has not attempted to analyse the whole of English. (p. 17) Nev­ ertheless, he developed an influential conceptualization of what counts as a grammar, and of the source of the data on which a grammar should rest. On these points Chomsky dif­ fers starkly from Murray, Sweet, Jespersen, and Quirk—and the impact of his views on grammar writing has been widespread since the mid-twentieth century. Chomsky was born and raised in Philadelphia. His father was a scholar of medieval He­ brew, and principal of a Jewish community school where Chomsky’s mother taught. Chomsky’s extended family provided a heady intellectual environment, exposing him from an early age to a range of midcentury sociopolitical issues, and encouraging his preco­ cious libertarian social consciousness. (Chomsky is now recognized internationally as an indefatigable critic of all forms of authoritarianism, in government, academia, the media, the military, and business; McGilvray 2014.) Chomsky attended the University of Pennsyl­ vania, where only mathematics and linguistics captured his imagination (Barsky 1997). His senior thesis on Modern Hebrew morphophonemics led to a Master’s thesis complet­ ed in 1951. Chomsky then moved to Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he spent four years as a Junior Fellow at Harvard University. During that interval he began to develop what came to be called generative theory, which challenged behaviourism in psychology and the established schools of American structuralism in linguistics. Along the way, Chomsky created a manuscript of some 1,000 pages. It would not be published for anoth­ er twenty years (Chomsky 1975), but he submitted a chapter to the University of Pennsyl­ vania in lieu of a dissertation and was awarded a doctorate in 1955. That same year Chomsky moved to MIT to work on a machine translation project, a poor fit to his inter­ ests and intellectual commitments. Eventually he settled into linguistic research and teaching. His work began to attract other young, unconventional, scholars interested in language, philosophy, and the emerging field of cognitive science. From their collabora­ tion, a graduate programme in linguistics was born. Chomsky continued lecturing world­ wide on both linguistics and politics beyond his retirement around 2010. In 2017 he ac­ cepted the position of Laureate Professor of Linguistics, Agnese Nelms Haury Chair at the University of Arizona. Arguably, the basic character of generative theory has remained intact from the 1950s, even as Chomsky’s expositions of its components and their interaction have shifted signif­ icantly. Its technical apparatus has evolved from concrete analyses of constructions in particular languages, to increasingly abstract accounts of the general architecture of hu­ man language and increasing concern for structural differences across languages. Three consistent themes relevant to grammaticology stand out.

Page 15 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology One fundamental theme is Chomsky’s problematization of how children learn their native language as rapidly and accurately as they do, granted what he calls ‘the poverty of the stimulus’ (Berwick, Pietroski, Yankama, and Chomsky 2011). This term labels Chomsky’s observation that children are exposed to only limited evidence about the language (or lan­ guages) used in their environment, evidence that does not necessarily transparently asso­ ciate the forms of utterances to their meanings, and which is degraded by normal dysflu­ ency and speech errors. In this sense, input to language learners is impoverished relative to their resulting knowledge. Chomsky argues that learners can only surmount the pover­ ty of the stimulus if they have access to a rich and (p. 18) highly-articulated language fac­ ulty—a cognitive template defining what human languages (including dialectal variants) have in common and what constitutes admissible differences across languages. Chomsky calls this faculty ‘Universal Grammar’. Language data in learners’ environments lead them to select options appropriate to the surrounding language from an inventory of structural properties that Universal Grammar affords. A second relevant theme in generative theory is its emphasis on the creativity of human language. Chomsky has consistently opposed the view that grammars are comprised of patterns transmitted across generations by modelling and imitation, shaped by the exi­ gencies of communication. Rather, Chomsky asserts that Universal Grammar provides re­ cursive mechanisms that generate (for every human language) an infinite number of pos­ sible rule-governed combinations. Speakers of any language, including child learners, routinely exploit the recursive capacity of their language to construct entirely novel utter­ ances that any other member of the speech community can interpret. A third fundamental theme is generative theory’s distinction between underlying ‘competence’ (what speakers tacitly know about the structure of their language), and ‘performance’ (speakers’ observable use of language). Performance imperfectly reflects competence, in several ways. Most simply, performance may include errors or lapses that misrepresent competence. In addition, performance does not indicate the full scope of competence, such as speakers’ understanding of the near-synonymy of ‘I gave the box to Marie’ and ‘I gave Marie the box’ or the divergent roles of ‘John’ in ‘John is eager to please’ versus ‘John is easy to please’. Performance also under-represents competence in not specifying constructions ruled out by Universal Grammar: observed language use does not necessarily indicate what speakers consider impossible. The goal of linguistics, according to Chomsky, is to discover the nature of speakers’ internal competence, rather than to observe and catalogue their external performance. These three themes inform generative grammar’s conceptualization of what counts as a grammar, and what are appropriate sources for the data on which a grammar is built. Ac­ cording to Chomsky, a grammar is not a list of the features of a language, but an analysis of how the language faculty is instantiated within a particular language environment. That analysis must respect the notion of the poverty of the stimulus, since without a satis­ fying explanation of how a child learner can acquire a particular linguistic feature within the constraints of Universal Grammar, the grammarian risks positing an unlearnable (hence, impossible) grammar. To write a complete grammar therefore requires full knowl­ Page 16 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology edge of the contents of the language faculty, in addition to full understanding of how child learners select options from those available in Universal Grammar. It is not surprising, then, that few generative grammarians have attempted to write comprehensive gram­ mars of any language.6 Instead, most have (p. 19) focused on narrow domains that be­ come tractable as the technical apparatus of the theory develops: domains such as reflex­ ive pronouns, parasitic gaps, or the relationship of verbal inflection to word order. Chomsky’s recognition of the creativity of normal language and its basis in recursion also bear on assumptions foundational to writing a grammar. If human linguistic competence comprises knowing how to generate an infinite number of (potentially novel) utterances, then pursuit of a ‘comprehensive’ grammar of language X is misguided, because the col­ lected output of the speakers of X does not define the grammar of X. Rather, the grammar of X resides in a state of the language faculty that differs in narrow but consequential ways from the state of the language faculty that generates the grammar of language Y. Ef­ forts to record, label, and organize language data produced by speakers of X capture only an arbitrary portion of the output of the grammar of X, not the grammar itself. The distinction between competence and performance raises a related challenge to the validity of the data on which grammars rely. Generative grammarians seek to depict com­ petence, but only performance can be observed. To Chomsky, probing the nature of com­ petence requires ‘experimentation of a fairly indirect and ingenious sort’ (1964b: 39), or introspection by speakers of the target language (see Sprouse and Schütze, this volume), because ‘it is absurd to attempt to construct a grammar that describes observed linguis­ tic behavior directly’; in fact, linguistic analysis based on a corpus is—according to Chom­ sky—‘useless’ (p. 36). A distinctive grammaticological style has therefore emerged from the conflation of Chomsky’s insistence that a grammar must not merely describe a language, but explain its acquisition, with his view of grammar as a generative system rather than a collection of facts, and with his scepticism about corpus-based research. Returning to the example of double negatives, grammarians influenced by Chomsky have produced a number of analyses of this feature of English, at different stages in the development of generative grammar.7 They share certain features, however: acceptance of double negation as an op­ tion supported by the human language faculty (regardless of any stigma attached to it in certain varieties of certain languages); attention to the problem of learnability; and re­ spect for the gap between what can be observed in usage versus speakers’ underlying grammatical competence. For example, Zeijlstra (2004) investigates cross-linguistic as well as diachronic variation in double negation (as ‘negative concord’). He also explicitly addresses the question of learnability (pp. 275–7). Zeijlstra does not adopt Chomsky’s ap­ parently uncompromising rejection of corpus-based research, in that his data derive from collections of spontaneous speech, augmented by published and author-constructed ex­ amples. However, Zeijlstra takes seriously the gap between (p. 20) competence and per­ formance in proposing a highly abstract underlying grammar of negative concord, includ­ ing multiple levels of configurational relationships, licensing of negative elements by ab­ stract operators, and syntactic functions that act on formal features. Zeijlstra demon­ Page 17 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology strates what a generative grammar of English negative concord might look like—and in doing so illustrates the grammaticological assumptions of one school of twenty-first cen­ tury linguistics.

1.7 Conclusion The works of Murray, Sweet, Jespersen, Quirk, and scholars in the generativist tradition differently conceptualize the material on which an English grammar should be based and how that material should be amassed. None uniquely monopolizes a particular conceptu­ alization. Rather, each is part of the past that grammar-writing in the modern age carries forward; each is a star in the galaxy of English grammaticology, positioned variably with respect to other stars in a multi-dimensional skyscape. The intricate and subtle analyses represented in the following chapters of this handbook cluster relatively closely together in a twenty-first century constellation in their conceptualization of the relevant material of a grammar, and in the sources of those data. Their shared and divergent traits can best be appreciated against the full backdrop of the history of English grammaticology.

Reference Allott, Stephen (1991). Lindley Murray 1745–1826. York: Sessions Book Trust. Alston, R. C. (1965). A Bibliography of the English Language from the Invention of Print­ ing to the Year 1800. Vol. 1. English Grammars Written in English. Leeds: E. J. Arnold. Barsky, Robert F. (1997). Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Berwick, Robert C., Paul Pietroski, Beracah Yankama, and Noam Chomsky (2011). ‘Pover­ ty of the stimulus revisited.’ Cognitive Science 35: 1207–42. Chapin, Paul (1972). Review of Integration of Transformational Theories of English Syn­ tax. Language 48: 645–67. Chomsky, Noam (1955/1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago: Uni­ versity of Chicago Press. Chomsky, Noam (1964b). ‘Formal discussion’, in Ursula Bellugi and Roger Brown (eds), The Acquisition of Language. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press, 35–9. Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1986b). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Crystal, David (2009). Just a Phrase I’m Going Through. London: Routledge.

Page 18 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology Fens-de Zeeuw, Lyda (2011). Lindley Murray (1746–1826), Quaker and Grammarian. Utrecht: LOT. Francis, W. Nelson (1989). ‘Otto Jespersen as grammarian’, in Arne Juul and Hans F. Nielsen (eds), Otto Jespersen: Facets of His Life and Work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 79–99. Graustein, Gottfried, and Gerhard Leitner (eds) (1989). Reference Grammars and Modern Linguistic Theory. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Greenbaum, Sidney, and Randolph Quirk (1970). Elicitation Experiments in English. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. Huddleston, Rodney (1988). Review of Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik (1985). Language 64: 345–54. Hudson, Richard A. (2010b). ‘The canon.’ The Times Higher Education Supplement 1958 (29 July): 51. Jespersen, Otto (1905). Growth and Structure of the English Language. Leipzig: Teubner. Reprinted with Foreword by Randolph Quirk by University of Chicago Press, 1982. Jespersen, Otto (1909–1949). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part I: Sounds and Spellings; Part II: Syntax Vol. 1; Part III, Syntax Vol. 2; Part IV: Syntax Vol. 3. Heidelberg: Winter. Part V: Syntax Vol. 4; Part VI, Morphology (with Paul Christophersen, Nils Haislund, and Knud Schibsbye); Part VII: Syntax (with Nils Haislund). Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Republished in 1954 by George Allan and Unwin. Jespersen, Otto (1917). Negation in English and Other Languages, 2nd edn. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. (Reprinted 1966.) Jespersen, Otto (1938). A Linguist’s Life: An English Translation of Otto Jespersen’s Auto­ biography with Notes, Photos and a Bibliography. Edited by Arne Juul, Hans F. Nielsen, and Jørgen Erik Nielsen and translated by David Stoner. Denmark: Odense University. Reprinted 1995. Kallel, Amel (2011). The Loss of Negative Concord in Standard English: A Case of Lexical Reanalysis. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Labov, William (1972a). ‘Negative attraction and negative concord in English grammar.’ Language 48: 773–818. Linn, Andrew (2006). ‘English grammar writing’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 72–92. Lowth, Robert (1763). A Short Introduction to English Grammar: With Critical Notes (2nd edn., corrected). London: A. Millar and R. and J. Dodsley. Reprinted 1995, with Introduc­ tion by David A. Reibel. London: Routledge/Thoemmes. (Original work published 1762.) Page 19 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology McGilvray, James (2014). Chomsky: Language, Mind, Politics, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Polity Press. Monaghan, Charles (1998). The Murrays of Murray Hill. Brooklyn, NY: Urban History Press. Murray, Lindley (1795). English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. York: Wilson, Spencer and Mawman. Murray, Lindley (1808). An English Grammar: Comprehending the Principles and Rules of the Language, Illustrated by Appropriate Exercises, and a Key to those Exercises, Vols. 1– 2. England: Thomas Wilson and Sons. Murray, Lindley (1826). Memoirs of the Life of Lindley Murray, in a Series of Letters. York: Longman and Rees. Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1974). ‘Lowth’s grammar: A re-evaluation.’ Linguistics 137: 63–78. Quirk, Randolph (1960). ‘Towards a description of English usage.’ Transactions of the Philological Society 59: 40–61. Quirk, Randolph (2002). ‘Randolph Quirk’, in Keith Brown and Vivian Law (eds), Linguis­ tics in Britain: Personal Histories. Oxford: Philological Society, 239–48. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985). A Compre­ hensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Smith, C. Alphons (1900). Review of A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical. Journal of Germanic Philology 3: 115–18. Stockwell, Robert, Paul Schachter, and Barbara Hall Partee (1973). The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sweet, Henry (1884). ‘The practical study of language.’ Transactions of the Philological Society 19: 577–99. Sweet, Henry (1888). A History of English Sounds. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sweet, Henry (1891). A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical. Part I: Introduc­ tion, Phonology, and Accidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sweet, Henry (1898). A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical. Part II: Syntax. Ox­ ford: Clarendon Press. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. (1982). ‘Double negation and eighteenth-century English grammars.’ Neophilologus 66: 278–85. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (ed) (1996). Two Hundred Years of Lindley Murray. Mün­ ster: Nodus. Page 20 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (2011). The Bishop’s Grammar: Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press [online edition]. Tubau Muntañá, Susagna (2008). Negative Concord in English and Romance: Syntax– Morphology Interface Conditions on the Expression of Negation. Utrecht: LOT. Vorlat, Emma (1959). ‘The sources of Lindley Murray’s The English Grammar.’ Leuven­ sche Bijdragen 48: 108–25. Zeijlstra, Hedde (2004). Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. Utrecht: LOT.

Notes: (1) Fens-de Zeeuw (2011) argues that Murray’s 1783 move to Britain was instead motivat­ ed by his health problems. (2) Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2011: 1) counts this feature of Lowth’s grammar as evidence of its essential descriptivism, despite Lowth’s modern reputation as ‘an icon of prescrip­ tivism’. (3) Additional examples (as corrected in the Key) include: ‘A good and well-cultivated mind, is greatly preferable to rank or riches’ (p. 378); ‘The garment was decently formed, and sewed very neatly’ (p. 430); ‘A hermit is austere in his life; a judge, rigorous in his sentences’ (p. 438). (4) Sweet (1884) conceded limits to this orientation, questioning whether heavy-handed historical content is advantageous to second-language learners. (5) The Survey contributed to two additional corpora: the British component of the Inter­ national Corpus of English, and the Diachronic Corpus of Present-Day Spoken English; see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage. (6) For example, the 800 pages of Stockwell, Schachter, and Partee (1973) do not consti­ tute a comprehensive grammar of English—even granted that true ‘comprehensiveness’ is unattainable. The text is not ‘comprehensive’, in that it addresses only about ten con­ structions in English selected for their amenability to analysis by 1960s generative gram­ mar. Nor is it a ‘grammar’, in that its purpose is not to depict the structure of English, but to explore the strengths and weaknesses of 1960s generative analytic instruments. See Chapin’s (1972) review of its ancestor text. (7) Labov (1972a) relies on Chomsky’s (1965) transformational framework; Kallel (2011) on Chomsky’s (1986b) principles and parameters model; Tubau Muntañá (2008) and Zeijl­ stra (2004) on the Minimalist Programme (Chomsky 1995).

Margaret Thomas

Page 21 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Conceptualizations of Grammar in the History of English Grammaticology Margaret Thomas is Professor in the Program of Linguistics at Boston College. Most of her current research is in the history of linguistics, especially in the United States, with additional interests in second language acquisition and in Japanese psycholin­ guistics. She is the author of Fifty Key Thinkers on Language and Linguistics (2011, Routledge), and Formalism and Functionalism in Linguistics: The Engineer and the Collector (2019, Routledge). She serves on the editorial boards of several journals, and as the reviews editor for Second Language Research and for Language and His­ tory.

Page 22 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation

Syntactic Argumentation   Bas Aarts The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region, Morphology and Syntax Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.39

Abstract and Keywords The aim of this chapter is to discuss the role of syntactic argumentation in the description of English grammar. The chapter first discusses some of the general principles that are used in syntactic argumentation, namely economy and elegance, which are regarded as two dimensions of simplicity. These principles are then exemplified in a number of case studies. The final section discusses how argumentation can be used to establish con­ stituency in clauses. Keywords: syntactic argumentation, simplicity, economy, elegance, constituency

2.1 Introduction DESCRIBING the grammar of a language involves setting up categories such as word classes, phrases and clauses (called a taxonomy), and creating a systematic and internally consistent explanatory account of how these categories relate to each other and how they combine to form larger units. But how many categories are needed, and how do we estab­ lish these larger units? This is a matter that naturally requires careful thought, and gram­ marians need to motivate the choices they make. Put differently, they need to make exten­ sive use of argumentation to establish the framework of grammar that they are describ­ ing. Argumentation is a general notion which can be defined as an evidence-based step-bystep procedure for taking decisions. We all use various kinds of arguments all the time to take decisions in very different situations in our daily lives, for example in deciding whether to study linguistics, whether to buy a car or not, or where to go on holiday. In es­ tablishing grammatical descriptions, for example when deciding whether the word my should be analysed as a pronoun, rather than as a possessive adjective, we also need to make use of reliable arguments. We refer to this as syntactic argumentation. The aim of this chapter is to show how it plays a role in describing the grammar of English in many

Page 1 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation different ways. I will focus on grammar in the narrow sense, i.e. as referring to syntax, though some attention will also be paid to morphology (see also Chapters 11, 12, and 13). My approach to grammar in this chapter is a relatively theory-neutral one, in which the distribution of the elements of language motivates grammatical description. In the next section I will look at some general principles that are used in syntactic argumentation, namely economy and elegance, which can be seen as two dimensions of simplicity. In sec­ tions 2.3 and 2.4 these principles will then be discussed in greater (p. 22) detail using case studies. Section 2.5 looks at how argumentation plays a role in establishing constituency in clauses. Section 2.6 is the conclusion.

2.2 General principles of syntactic argumenta­ tion In investigating the world around us scientists broadly speaking adopt one of two methodologies. One involves induction, the other deduction. The former is a procedure whereby you start from the particular (e.g. observable facts) and create a theory of some phenomenon, based on those observations, whereas the latter is defined as a kind of rea­ soning that proceeds from the general (a hypothesis) to the particular. (See also Wallis, this volume.) The Scottish philosopher David Hume argued against the use of induction by formulating what has become known as the problem of induction. The Austrian-British philosopher of science Karl Popper (1902–1994) articulated the problem as follows (1934/2002): It is usual to call an inference ‘inductive’ if it passes from singular statements (sometimes also called ‘particular’ statements), such as accounts of the results of observations or experiments, to universal statements, such as hypotheses or theo­ ries. Now it is far from obvious, from a logical point of view, that we are justified in in­ ferring universal statements from singular ones, no matter how numerous; for any conclusion drawn in this way may always turn out to be false: no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclu­ sion that all swans are white. The question whether inductive inferences are justified, or under what conditions, is known as the problem of induction. The problem of induction may also be formulated as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the hy­ potheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. For many people be­ lieve that the truth of these universal statements is ‘known by experience’; yet it is clear that an account of an experience—of an observation or the result of an ex­ periment—can in the first place be only a singular statement and not a universal one. Accordingly, people who say of a universal statement that we know its truth Page 2 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation from experience usually mean that the truth of this universal statement can some­ how be reduced to the truth of singular ones, and that these singular ones are known by experience to be true; which amounts to saying that the universal state­ ment is based on inductive inference. Thus to ask whether there are natural laws known to be true appears to be only another way of asking whether inductive in­ ferences are logically justified. Although induction can play a role in science (see Wallis, this volume), nowadays modern science prefers the deductive approach, advocated by Popper. The idea here is (p. 23) that in thinking about a particular phenomenon that requires explanation you start out with a hypothesis about its nature. You then try to falsify the hypothesis (i.e. undermine it) by looking incrementally at more evidence that pertains to the case at hand. This is the rea­ son why this approach is also called the hypothesis-falsification approach. According to Popper, a hypothesis is only worth investigating if it is falsifiable in principle. In investi­ gating a particular hypothesis by looking at more and more evidence you end up with an optimally refined hypothesis which offers the best possible account of the facts, but which may in principle still be wrong. How do you go about establishing which hypothesis about some phenomenon might be correct? Naturally, any account of that phenomenon needs to cover the empirical facts. But what do you do if you end up with two or more accounts which cover the empirical facts? The answer is that you can then assess those accounts using the notion of simplici­ ty. What this means is that, other things being equal, a simple account of the grammatical facts is to be preferred over a more complex account. Culicover and Jackendoff (2005: 5) have encapsulated this idea in their Simpler Syntax Hypothesis: The most explanatory syntactic theory is one that imputes the minimum structure necessary to mediate between phonology and meaning. We can distinguish at least two closely related dimensions of simplicity, hinted at by Chomsky in various publications, namely economy (also called ontological simplicity or on­ tological parsimony) and elegance (sometimes called syntactic simplicity). Economy refers to the strategy of using as few categories as possible in a description of a phenomenon. As such it is a quantitative concept. Aristotle was one of the first philoso­ phers to value it, but the idea became known much later as the Principle of Occam’s Ra­ zor, after the English philosopher William of Occam (c. 1285–1348) who held that Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (‘Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity’). It is also called the Principle of Parsimony and, more informally, the KISS Prin­ ciple (Keep it Short and Simple). Scientists have always advocated some version of it, as in the following quotation from Einstein (where he is discussing the theory of relativity in his autobiography): The theory of relativity is a fine example of the fundamental character of the mod­ ern development of theoretical science. The initial hypotheses become steadily more abstract and remote from experience. On the other hand, it gets nearer to Page 3 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation the grand aim of all science, which is to cover the greatest possible number of em­ pirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest possible number of hypotheses or axioms. (1954: 282) In the field of linguistics Chomsky stressed the importance of economy in one of his earli­ est works: In careful descriptive work, we almost always find that one of the considerations involved in choosing among alternative analyses is the simplicity of the resulting grammar. If we can set up elements in such a way that very few rules need to be (p. 24) given about their distribution, or that these rules are very similar to the rules for other elements, this fact certainly seems to be a valid support for the analysis in question. (Chomsky 1955/1975: 113) And more recently: I think we can also perceive at least the outlines of certain still more general prin­ ciples, which we might think of as “guidelines,” in the sense that they are too vaguely formulated to merit the term “principles of U[niversal] G[rammar].” Some of these guidelines have a kind of “least effort” flavor to them, in the sense that they legislate against “superfluous elements” in representations and derivations. (Chomsky 1995: 130) The other guiding principle for grammar writing is elegance. This refers to how a gram­ mar is optimally organized or streamlined, for example what kind of assumptions are made, whether it is internally consistent, etc. The concept of elegance is distinguished from economy in being qualitative, rather than quantitative, and as such is perhaps some­ what numinous and subjective, as Chomsky indicates in an interview from 1982: In physics, one might ask the same question: why look for elegant answers? Every­ body does, but you might ask: why do it? The reason they do it is an almost mysti­ cal belief that there is something about our concept of elegance that relates to truth, and that is certainly not logically necessary. Our brains might have been de­ vised in such a way that what looks elegant to them is totally off base. But you re­ ally have no choice but to try to use the resources of your mind to find conceptual unification and explanation and elegance, hoping that by some miracle that is the way the world works. (Chomsky 1982: 30) In sections 2.3 and 2.4 we will see how recent developments in the study of syntax demon­ strate how economy and elegance can play a role in grammatical descriptions.

Page 4 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation

2.3 Economy: less is more The dictum ‘less is more’ reflects the idea that a description of any kind of system, in our case the system of grammar, is more highly valued if the description is achieved by posit­ ing as few concepts as possible, everything else being equal. This idea is encapsulated in the Principle of Occam’s Razor, mentioned in the previous section. In what follows I will look at some examples of categorial economy to illustrate this principle at work, specifi­ cally the word classes in English. But before I do so, I will first discuss how word classes can be established in the grammar of English. We can establish which word class a particular element belongs to by looking at its mor­ phological make-up and how it behaves in relation to other words when it is used (p. 25) in a sentence. The latter is referred to as the word’s distribution (see Chapter 14). For ex­ ample, we can assign a word like investigation to the class of nouns because, among oth­ er things, it has a suffix -ion, it allows a plural -s inflection, and it can be preceded by a determinative such as the.1 If this word is followed by a complement it must be in the form of a prepositional phrase, e.g. an investigation of his tax affairs. By contrast, the word investigate does not allow a plural inflection, and cannot be preceded by the. We in­ stead assign this word to the class of verbs on the grounds that it can take other kinds of inflections, such as -ed for the past tense and past participle forms, and -ing for the present participle form. We can furthermore say that investigate can combine with a sub­ ject, which has the role of ‘doer’ or ‘instigator’ of the act of investigating, and an object with the role of ‘patient’, i.e. the person, group, etc., that is being investigated. We will not look at each of the English word classes in detail here (see Hollmann, this vol­ ume). Suffice it to say that a general principle that applies to setting up categories—not just word classes—is that you should not have too many of them, and you should not have too few. You will have too many word classes (called splitting) if you have missed some generalizations regarding the way certain words behave in a language; conversely, you will have too few word classes (called lumping) if it turns out that you have ignored im­ portant differences between them.

2.3.1 Split or lump? Nouns and pronouns The issue of whether to split or to lump needs to be faced by anyone who wants to de­ scribe nouns and pronouns in English. The question is: ‘Do nouns and pronouns form sep­ arate word classes in English, or is there just one class of nouns?’ Interestingly, the two most influential reference grammars of English, namely Quirk et al. (1985) and Huddle­ ston and Pullum (2002), take opposing views on this issue: the former recognizes two word classes, whereas the latter subsumes pronouns under nouns (see Chapter 10). Let’s look at some arguments that could be put forward for arguing that there are two word classes (adapted from Aarts 2011), and then discuss if they are valid. • Pronouns show nominative and accusative case distinctions (she/her, we/us, etc.); common nouns do not. Page 5 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation • Pronouns show person and gender distinctions; common nouns do not. • Pronouns do not have regular inflectional plurals in Standard English. • Pronouns are more constrained than common nouns in taking dependents. • Noun phrases with common or proper nouns as head can have independent refer­ ence, i.e. they can uniquely pick out an individual or entity in the discourse context, whereas the reference of pronouns must be established contextually. Those who argue that we need recognize only a word class of nouns might respond to the points above as follows: (p. 26)

• Although common nouns indeed do not have nominative and accusative case inflec­ tions they do have genitive inflections, as in the doctor’s garden, the mayor’s expenses, etc., so having case inflections is not a property that is exclusive to pronouns. • Indisputably, only pronouns show person and arguably also gender distinctions, but this is not a sufficient reason to assign them to a different word class. After all, among the verbs in English we distinguish between transitive and intransitive verbs, but we would not want to establish two distinct word classes of ‘transitive verbs’ and ‘intransi­ tive verbs’. Instead, it would make more sense to have two subcategories of one and the same word class. If we follow this reasoning we would say that pronouns form a subcategory of nouns that show person and gender distinctions. • It’s not entirely true that pronouns do not have regular inflectional plurals in Stan­ dard English, because the pronoun one can be pluralized, as in Which ones did you buy? Another consideration here is that there are regional varieties of English that plu­ ralize pronouns (for example, Tyneside English has youse as the plural of you, which is used to address more than one person; see Chapter 29 on varieties of English). And we also have I vs. we, mine vs. ours, etc. • Pronouns do seem to be more constrained in taking dependents. We cannot say e.g. *The she left early or *Crazy they/them jumped off the wall. However, dependents are not excluded altogether. We can say, for example, I’m not the me that I used to be or Stupid me: I forgot to take a coat. As for PP dependents: some pronouns can be fol­ lowed by prepositional phrases in the same way as nouns can. Compare: the shop on the corner and one of the students. • Although it’s true that noun phrases headed by common or proper nouns can have in­ dependent reference, while pronouns cannot, this is a semantic difference between nouns and pronouns, not a grammatical one. The conclusion that we can draw from the considerations above is that although pro­ nouns are not prototypical nouns, i.e. they don’t necessarily share all the properties of typical nouns, a good case can be made that they belong to that word class nonetheless. There is one further argument that clinches the matter, and this is the fact that pronouns as heads of phrases distribute like noun phrases, e.g. in subject position, direct object po­ sition, and as complement of prepositions, as in (1) and (2):

Page 6 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation (1)

(2)

This is a strong reason for lumping pronouns and nouns into one category and recogniz­ ing only noun phrases in the grammar of English, not noun phrases and (p. 27) pronoun phrases.2 So we see that we can argue successfully on grounds of economy in favour of recognizing a single word class of nouns, instead of having two word classes, nouns and pronouns. Figure 2.1 schematically shows lumping for nouns and pronouns.

Figure 2.1 Lumping of nouns and pronouns

2.3.2 Economy of linguistic concepts: the so-called ‘gerund’ Let’s look at a further example of economy by discussing the notion of ‘gerund’ in English grammar, and the question of whether or not we need this concept. Consider the sen­ tence below: (3)

In this sentence we have the bracketed string this meeting of minds which func­ tions as the subject of the sentence. Most linguists will agree that this is a noun phrase whose head is the noun meeting. How do we know that meeting is a noun? If we look at the company this word keeps—in other words if we look at its distribution—we find that it (p. 28)

Page 7 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation is preceded by the determinative this and is followed by the prepositional phrase of minds. This is a typical environment for nouns to occur in. Notice also the potential to change this string by adding, for example, an adjective in front of meeting, e.g. this wonderful meeting of minds, which is another property typical of nouns. Let’s now look at another sentence: (4)

This case is very different from (3), because here meeting is not a noun, but a verb. How can we tell? Again this is a matter of distribution. Notice that in (4) meeting has a noun phrase after it which functions as its direct object. Taking a direct object is a verbal prop­ erty. The verb meet also has a subject, namely the committee, again a property of verbs (though not exclusively so). Furthermore, as with (3) we need to look at the potential for adding elements to test whether meeting is indeed a verb. In this connection, consider (5): (5)

Here we have added the manner adverb briefly, which can only modify a verb. (Substitut­ ing the adjective brief here would render the sentence ungrammatical.) Consider next (6): (6)

Which word class do we assign meeting to in this example? This case is less obvious. You may well be thinking ‘this word is clearly also a verb here, for the same reasons that meeting is a verb in (5)’, i.e. the verb has a direct object and is modified by a manner ad­ verb. However, some grammarians would say that meeting in (6) is a gerund which they define as the -ing form of a verb when it (and any dependents it may have) are used in typical noun phrase positions (e.g. subject, object, etc.). Under this definition the word meeting in (3) is also a ‘gerund’, because the -ing form here is a noun functioning as the head of a noun phrase in subject position. Although these linguists would recognize that there is a difference between (3) and (6) by saying that the ‘gerund’ in (3) is not an ordi­ nary noun, but a special kind of noun, often called a verbal noun, because it is derived from the verb meet, whereas meeting in (6) is verb-like by virtue of taking a direct object, they would nevertheless insist that because of their typical position (as the head of a con­ stituent in a noun phrase position), we should use the label ‘gerund’ for both (3) and (6), as distinct from the participle form of the verb in (5). There is a ‘cost’ to this reasoning because these authors need an additional item in their repertoire of grammatical con­ cepts. What arguments do they (p. 29) use to support their view? The rationale for la­ Page 8 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation belling meeting in (3) and (6) as ‘gerunds’ is that historically both instances of this word derive from a different source than the present participle in (5): ‘gerunds’ derive from nouns ending in ‑ing or ‑ung in Old English, whereas the present participle derives from a form that contains -nd (namely -end(e)/-and(e). For some recent accounts, see Denison 1993: 387, De Smet 2014: 225, Los 2015: 127f.). However, in Present-Day English these different historical roots are no longer visible because both the ‘gerund’ and the present participle have exactly the same form.3 While it is true that the string meeting the candi­ dates briefly in (6) occurs in a noun phrase position, and hence displays a noun-like prop­ erty, the verbal properties of meeting outweigh the nominal properties. The question we should now ask is whether we need the concept of ‘gerund’ for an eco­ nomical description of English. You will have realized where this discussion is heading, given that I have consistently used inverted commas around the word ‘gerund’, thus sig­ nalling that I do not give much credence to this concept. The reason for this is that the simplest account of examples (3)–(6) is surely one in which only the word meeting in (3) is a noun (to be sure, a verbal noun), whereas the other instances of this word in (4)–(6) are verbs (participles), despite the fact that examples like (6) do display some nominal prop­ erties.

2.4 Elegance: reconceptualization and refine­ ment In the previous section we looked at ways in which we can achieve economy in grammati­ cal analyses. In this section I will exemplify how we can achieve elegance in grammatical descriptions by looking at some traditional treatments of the word classes and how they can be improved by using syntactic argumentation.

2.4.1 Reconceptualizing word class membership: prepositions and subordinating conjunctions All grammars distinguish separate word classes of prepositions and subordinating con­ junctions (or subordinators for short). In many frameworks the former class includes words such as in, on, through, and under, whereas the latter includes that, whether, if,4 and for, as well as a large number of items used to indicate a (p. 30) range of semantic no­ tions, e.g. after, before, since, when, while, whilst, etc. (temporal subordinators); as, be­ cause, since (reason subordinators); although, (even) though, while, whilst (concessive subordinators); so (that), in order (that) (purposive subordinators), and so on. In the lin­ guistics literature a number of issues concerning both prepositions and subordinating conjunctions have been discussed extensively (e.g. Huddleston and Pullum 2002), two of which I will now look at in more detail (see also Chapter 7). Starting with prepositions, the traditional definition stipulates that they are typically fol­ lowed by a noun phrase or pronoun to form a prepositional phrase, e.g. up the stairs, on the floor, with us, etc.5 Because under this view prepositions must be followed by NPs, el­ Page 9 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation ements such as up in She ran up or on in He moved on, as part of so-called phrasal verbs (both the literal and non-literal types, as in these examples), have not been analysed as prepositions, but as belonging to a different class, typically particles (or sometimes ad­ verbs). We might ask if this is warranted. First of all, recognizing a new word class should be avoided—if we take Occam’s Razor seriously—unless there are good independent rea­ sons for doing so. In this particular case, you will no doubt have noticed that the words up in look up and on in move on are used as prepositions in my earlier examples up the stairs and on the floor. The simplest account of up in up the stairs and look up, and of on in the combinations on the floor and move on, is surely one in which these words are assigned to the same word class, by virtue of the fact that in the constructions concerned up and on have exactly the same form.6 One way of doing so is by saying that up and on always be­ long to the class of prepositions, but that these prepositions can be transitive or intransi­ tive. What this means is that they can occur with or without a complement following them, just like transitive and intransitive verbs. Consider the following contrast: (7)

(8)

This account of prepositions achieves not only an economy, since we can now do away with a redundant word class of particles, but the grammatical description is also more streamlined because we do not need to make multiple statements about which word classes elements like on and up belong to in different grammatical contexts. These words look like prepositions, and in their transitive and intransitive (p. 31) uses occur in similar positions, so it is reasonable to say that they belong to the same word class.7 Turning now to subordinators, these are defined as elements which function as marker to indicate that a particular clause is subordinate to another. In theoretical frameworks sub­ ordinators that introduce clauses that function as complement (e.g. of a verb or adjective) are called complementizers. This set includes only four items, namely that, whether, if in­ ter. , and for. Here are some examples: (9)

9

(10) Page 10 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation

(11)

(12)

The set of complementizers does not include the other elements listed above: after, before, since, when, while, whilst, as, because, although, (even) though, if cond., so (that), etc. The reason for this is that the latter typically introduce clauses that function as adjunct. In Aarts (2018: 47) I call these items adjunctizers. Given this difference between comple­ mentizers and adjunctizers there have been recent proposals to reconceptualize the class of subordinators to include only the complementizers, and to re-assign the adjunctizers to another class. Which class would that be? Looking at the list of adjunctizers, the word class that comes to mind is ‘preposition’. If we take this step, then we have one more rea­ son to allow prepositions to occur intransitively or transitively, as in the sentences below, using before as an example: (13)

(14)

(15)

Allowing for prepositions to be transitive or intransitive does not complicate the grammar because the notion of transitivity is needed in any case to describe verbs. (p. 32)

We can visualize the reassignment of the adjunctizers to the class of prepositions as in Figure 2.2.

Page 11 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation

Figure 2.2 Reassignment of adjunctizers to the preposition class

This may look like splitting, but it is not, because we already had an existing category of prepositions. What we have done is reconceptualize the class of subordinators, such that some of its supposed members now belong to the class of prepositions. This results in a simpler, more streamlined, and hence more elegant grammatical system, because it obvi­ ates the need to assign the same word (e.g. before in (13)–(15)) to different word classes.

2.4.2 Avoiding meretricious lumping: adjectives and determinatives Consider the following examples: (16)

(17)

(18)

As these examples show, the italicized words share the property of being placed before a noun, and for this reason they have often been lumped together into the adjec­ tive word class. The American grammarian George Curme (1947: 18) writes as follows about adjectives: (p. 33)

Page 12 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation There are two classes, descriptive and limiting. A descriptive adjective expresses either the kind or condition or state of the living being or lifeless thing spoken of: a good boy, a bright dog, a tall tree; a sick boy, a lame dog. The participles of verbs in adjective function are all descriptive adjectives, since they indicate either an ac­ tive or passive state: running water, a dying soldier, a broken chair. A limiting adjective, without expressing any idea of kind or condition, limits the application of the idea expressed by the noun to one or more individuals of the class, or to one or more parts of a whole: this boy, this book, these books; this part of the country. In all the examples given above, the adjective stands before the noun. The adjec­ tive in this position is called an adherent adjective. Curme, like Bloomfield (1933) before him, recognizes nine classes of limiting adjectives (1947: 19–22):9 • possessive adjectives, e.g. my, his, her, its, our. • intensifying adjectives, e.g. myself, yourself, himself (as in e.g. Father himself). • demonstrative adjectives, e.g. this, these, that, those, the same, such, the, both, each, every, all. • numeral adjectives, e.g. four, fifty, first, second, third, last, twofold. • relative adjectives, e.g. which, what, whichever, whatever. • indefinite adjectives, e.g. a(n), all, every, some, many, little, few, enough. • interrogative adjectives, e.g. what, which. • proper adjectives, e.g. Harvard, as in Harvard student. • exclamatory adjectives, e.g. what and what a, as in What nonsense and What a beauti­ ful day! Is Curme justified in lumping all these elements into one class of adjectives? To answer this question, let’s contrast his class of ‘descriptive adjectives’ with his ‘demonstrative ad­ jectives’ and ‘possessive adjectives’. First, let’s look at the function of words such as the and my on the one hand, and untrue on the other. As Curme acknowledges, in this regard they are different. The former have what he calls a ‘limiting’ function, i.e. a specificational function, whereas the latter have a ‘descriptive’ function. Put differently, and using current terminology, the and my function as determiners inside the noun phrase, whereas untrue functions (p. 34) as a modifier (or adjunct).10 From the point of view of meaning, the and my mark the NP in which they oc­ cur as definite, whereas untrue ascribes a property to the head noun. What about the distribution of these elements inside noun phrases? If we follow the prin­ ciple that we assign elements to word classes on the basis of the company they keep, i.e.

Page 13 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation their distribution,11 then the following examples should shed some light on the question we asked: (19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

From (19) and (20) we see that words like the and my cannot be used together, whereas descriptive adjectives can easily be stacked, as in (21). Examples (22)–(24) show that the and my cannot be preceded by an intensifying adverb like completely or very, whereas Page 14 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation this is unproblematic for untrue. Examples (25) and (26) show that the and my cannot oc­ cur after a linking verb such as be, whereas this is perfectly fine for untrue, as (27) demonstrates. Notice also from (28) and (29) that the prefix un- cannot be added to the and my, whereas we can analyse untrue morphologically as consisting of the root true with the prefix un- added to it. All these observations lead us to conclude that the and my must belong to a different word class than untrue. However, although you will agree that (26) is ungrammatical, you may have wondered about (30), in which we have mine. (30)

Most grammarians (including Curme) regard this independently occurring word as a pos­ sessive pronoun, but if we compare (30) with (27), we should ask whether it is possible to conclude that mine is an adjective. The answer is: no, not solely on the basis of comparing these two sentences, because the position after verbs like be is not (p. 35) exclusively a position where adjectives occur; noun phrases can also be placed here, as in (31): (31)

What’s more, mine can occur in typical noun phrase positions, such as subject, object and complement of a preposition: (32)

(33)

(34)

Finally, (35) shows that mine cannot be modified by an intensifying adverb: (35)

These data all strongly suggest that the standard analysis of mine as a pronoun heading an NP is correct. However, consider next (36): Page 15 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation (36)

12

This sentence is interesting, because here mine seems to be modified by completely, and (pro)nouns cannot normally be modified by an adverb.13 This is troublesome, because it now seems that we have some prima facie evidence in (36) that mine can behave like an adjective after all. However, that conclusion would be too hasty. We would need to examine further data to see how completely behaves in other constructions. If we do so, using attested data, we find that (36) is not all that exceptional, and that pronouns more generally can be preced­ ed by completely. I found the following examples in the NOW Corpus:14 (37)

(38)

(39)

(p. 36)

Now, even Curme would not wish to draw the conclusion that me, herself, and

everything are adjectives in these examples. For him and most other linguists these words are pronouns (cf. 1947: 44f.).15 But that leaves us with the problem of how to account for (36)–(39). If we insist that mine, me, herself, and everything are pronouns (and hence a kind of noun), how is it possible that these words seem to be modified by completely? A possible answer would be to say that mine is indeed a pronoun that functions as the head of a noun phrase, but that it is the noun phrase as a whole that is being modified by com­ pletely, as follows: (40)

At first sight, this looks suspiciously like an ad hoc solution, i.e. a solution that is cooked up to provide a convenient, but ultimately implausible, solution to a problem. Why would it be implausible? Because there is no way of distinguishing between (40), in which com­

Page 16 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation pletely modifies the entire NP headed by mine, and (41), in which completely modifies the adjective mine functioning as the head of an adjective phrase. (41)

However, a look at further data suggests that there may be some independent justifica­ tion for an analysis along the lines of (40), namely examples such as the following: (42)

(43)

In these examples we have completely modifying a noun phrase as a whole, and it can do so before or after the NP, as the bracketings below show: (44)

(45)

In (44) and (45) the adverb completely does not modify the head of a phrase, as is the case in (24) (completely/very untrue), but an entire phrase. In Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 436) such elements are regarded as peripheral modifiers which occur at the edges of NPs ‘mainly in initial position (before any predeterminer) but in a few cases in final po­ sition’. How are (44) and (45) relevant for the analysis of a string like completely mine? The rea­ soning goes as follows: if we need this kind of analysis for (42) and (43), then we have in­ dependent evidence that an analysis like (40) is not as far-fetched as it at first (p. 37) seemed, and that what initially looked like support for analysing mine as an adjective is in fact invalid. I hope that from the preceding discussion it is clear that Curme’s lumping strategy is spe­ cious: at first sight it looks as though an economy is achieved, since Curme does not need a category of determinative, but if we look carefully at the facts of English it cannot be defended. An account which does away with the class of limiting adjective is more ele­ gant for robust semantic and syntactic reasons.

Page 17 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation

2.5 Constituency Syntactic argumentation also plays a role in grammars of English that recognize con­ stituents, i.e. strings of words that behave like units (see Lohndal and Haegeman, and Borsley, this volume, and Aarts 2018). In sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 I will discuss the two main tests for establishing constituency: movement and substitution.

2.5.1 Movement The movement test for constituency relies on the idea that if a group of words in a clause is displaced, then that group of words must be a constituent. To illustrate, let’s assume that we wish to know whether the string of words the business dealings of Mr Frump forms a constituent in (46) below. (46)

A simple way in which we can test this is by moving the italicized string to the front of the clause, as is shown in (47) (the underscore symbol ‘_’ indicates the position from which the unit has been displaced): (47)

This process is called topicalization because the fronted unit becomes the topic of the clause.16 Another way in which to transform (46) is to make it passive. If we do so the di­ rect object in (46) becomes the subject in (48): (48)

The data in (47) and (48) show that the business dealings of Mr Frump indeed behaves like a unit. As this unit has a noun as its most prominent element, we call it a noun phrase. Notice that we can also show that the court is a noun phrase by changing (46) into an interrogative structure: (p. 38)

(49)

We have inverted the position of the subject the court and the auxiliary verb will here, and this shows that the words the and court belong together. Page 18 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation Consider next (50): (50)

We now wish to investigate how to carve up the subordinate clause that they will change the world. Specifically, we might ask: do the two verbs will and change together form a unit as some kind of complex verb, or do we group will, change, and the world together? Or perhaps only change and the world? The way to test this is to try out a few movements (as before the symbol ‘_’ indicates the position from which the unit has been displaced): (51)

(52)

(53)

The data show that change the world behaves like a unit, but will change and will change the world do not. As its most prominent element is a verb, we call this unit a verb phrase.

2.5.2 Substitution The substitution test for constituency relies on the idea that if a group of words in a clause is replaced by a so-called pro-form, then that group of words must be a con­ stituent. Consider again sentence (46) above. Notice that we can replace the subject the court by the pronoun it and the italicized direct object string by them: (54)

In this case we have a specific kind of pro-form, namely pronouns, replacing noun phras­ es (see also (1) and (2) above). Verb phrases too can be replaced by pro-forms, as the fol­ lowing example illustrates: (55)

Here the pro-form do so in the second clause replaces the verb phrase investigate the business dealings of Mr Frump, again showing that these words together form a unit. (p. 39)

Page 19 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation Apart from movement and substitution, there are a number of further ways in which we can use syntactic argumentation to test constituency. These are discussed extensively in Aarts (2018).

2.6 Conclusion In this chapter I began with a discussion of some of the principles of syntactic argumenta­ tion. After a discussion of induction and deduction we looked at a number of case studies which demonstrated how the notion of simplicity, which encompasses economy and ele­ gance, helps us to decide between competing accounts of a particular linguistic phenome­ non or issue, for example how to set up optimally defined word class categories which can be independently justified, without having to resort to ad hoc solutions. In the second part of the chapter we saw how syntactic argumentation can be used to establish the con­ stituent structure of sentences. By manipulating possible and impossible structures, as we did in section 2.5, argumentation can be a useful heuristic for establishing the princi­ ples of syntactic structure in a language.

Acknowledgements I’m grateful to my fellow editors, internal referee Jon Sprouse, and an anonymous referee for comments on this chapter. Thanks also to Bob Borsley for some useful references.

Reference Aarts, Bas (2018). English Syntax and Argumentation, 5th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chomsky, Noam (1982). The Generative Enterprise: A Discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Curme, George O. (1947). English Grammar: The Principles and Practice of English Gram­ mar Applied to Present-Day Usage. College Outline Series. New York: Barnes and Noble. Published online by HathiTrust Digital Library: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp. 39015042004724. Einstein, Albert (1954). Ideas and Opinions. New York: Crown Publishers. Aarts, Bas (2011). Oxford Modern English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bloomfield, Leonard (1933). Language. New York: Holt. Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Page 20 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation Denison, David (1993). English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London: Long­ man. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the Eng­ lish Language. In collaboration with Laurie Bauer, Betty Birner, Ted Briscoe, Peter Collins, (p. 735) David Denison, David Lee, Anita Mittwoch, Geoffrey Nunberg, Frank Palmer, John Payne, Peter Peterson, Lesley Stirling, Gregory Ward. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Peter Peterson (2002). ‘Relative construc­ tions and unbounded dependencies’, in Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1031–96. Los, Bettelou (2015). A Historical Syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Payne, John, Rodney Huddleston, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2010). ‘The distribution and category status of adjectives and adverbs.’ Word Structure 3: 31–81. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985). A Compre­ hensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Notes: (1) In this chapter I follow Huddleston and Pullum (2002) in using determinative as a form label, and determiner as a function label. (2) We would be forced to recognize ‘pronoun phrases’, unless we allow for phrases that have a head belonging to a word class other than the one that they are named after, as do Quirk et al. (1985) where pronouns function as head in noun phrases, despite the fact that these authors regard pronouns as a separate word class. (3) Huddleston and Pullum (2002) use the hybrid label gerund-participle to reflect the identity in form of the ‘gerund’ and the present participle, as well as the different histori­ cal roots of ‘gerunds’ on the one hand and the present participle on the other. (4) Both interrogative if (ifinter), as in I wondered if he would call me, and conditional if (ifcond), as in She will make a lasagna if you buy the ingredients. (5) In the traditional account prepositions can also take prepositional phrases as comple­ ments, e.g. [PP from [PP inside the building]], but not finite clauses (see the discussion of example (15) below). (6) The simplest hypothesis of data that you want to investigate is called the null hypothe­ sis.

Page 21 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Syntactic Argumentation (7) Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 280) recognize ‘particles’ as elements of what are often called ‘transitive phrasal verbs’, e.g. look (NP) up, work (NP) out. But confusingly they al­ so say that ‘[t]he most central particles are prepositions – intransitive prepositions, of course, since they are one-word phrases’. For an account in which these ‘particles’ are ex­ clusively analysed as intransitive prepositions, see Aarts (2011). (8) Examples with ID codes are taken from the British component of the International Cor­ pus of English (‘S’ for spoken examples; ‘W’ for written examples). (9) These are discussed in a section headed ‘Limiting Adjectives Used as Pronouns’. I’ve used the 1947 version of the book, published online (see References). (10) See Footnote 2 on the determinative/determiner distinction, as well as Chapter 10. (11) See Chapter 14 for alternative views. (12) See https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/. (13) For some exceptions, see Payne, Huddleston, and Pullum (2010). (14) See https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/. (15) As noted above, Curme would label herself, as in e.g. the neighbour herself, as an ‘in­ tensifying adjective’. (16) On topicalization, see also Kaltenböck (this volume).

Bas Aarts

Bas Aarts is professor of English linguistics and director of the Survey of English Us­ age at University College London. His research interest is in the field of syntax, more specifically verbal syntax. Publications include English Syntax and Argumentation (Palgrave, 4th edn., 2013); Investigating Natural Language (with G. Nelson and S. Wallis; Benjamins, 2002); Fuzzy Grammar (edited with D. Denison, E. Keizer, and G. Popova; OUP, 2004); The Handbook of English Linguistics (edited with A. McMahon; Wiley-Blackwell, 2006); Syntactic Gradience (OUP, 2007); Oxford Modern English Grammar (OUP, 2011); and The Verb Phrase in English (CUP, 2013). He was coeditor of English Language and Linguistics (CUP) from 1997 to 2012 and is still its book re­ view editor. [email protected]

Page 22 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data

Grammar and the Use of Data   Jon Sprouse and Carson Schütze The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.28

Abstract and Keywords This chapter is intended to serve as a jumping-off point for thinking about the use of data in grammatical theories, for both linguists and non-linguists. Five types of linguistic data are discussed—corpus data, acceptability judgements, reading time measures (eye-track­ ing and self-paced reading), electrophysiological data (EEG and MEG), and haemodynam­ ic data (specifically, fMRI)—with a particular focus on the logic necessary to link each da­ ta type to predictions made by grammatical theories (linking hypotheses). The chapter al­ so covers the empirical and logical challenges facing each data type, in an attempt to en­ courage closer ties among researchers using each of the data types. Keywords: acceptability judgements, reading times, electroencephalography, magnetoencephalography, function­ al magnetic resonance imaging, linking hypotheses

3.1 Introduction OVER approximately the past twenty years, linguists have taken a renewed interest in the data that underlies grammatical theories. This has taken the form of large scale reviews of data in syntax (e.g., Schütze 1996), textbooks (e.g., Cowart 1997), proposals for new experimental techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1996), enticements to widespread adoption of formal experimental methods (e.g., Featherston 2007), proposals for new grammatical models that can accommodate different data types (e.g., Keller 2000, Featherston 2005), criticisms of informally collected data (e.g., Gibson and Fedorenko 2013), and finally chapters like this, which attempt to provide a useful summary of our current state of knowledge about data in syntax. Here we will discuss five types of data: corpus data, ac­ ceptability judgements, reading times (self-paced reading and eye-tracking), electrophysi­ ological methods (EEG and MEG), and haemodynamic methods (specifically fMRI). It is important to note that in principle, there is no privileged data type in linguistics. Any data type that can bear on the nature of the grammar is a potential source of data for theo­ rists. The wide spectrum of possible data types arises because many linguists assume that there is a single grammatical system that plays a substantive role in both language com­ prehension and language production (Marantz (2016) calls this the Single Competence Page 1 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data Hypothesis). Given this assumption, all language behaviours, and all neurobiological re­ sponses related to language behaviours, are potential sources of information about the grammar. We will focus on these five data types because they play the largest role in mod­ ern studies of grammar. In the sections that follow, we will discuss each data type in turn. The approach that we take for each data type will be slightly different, because each data type has historically played a different role in grammatical theory construction.

(p. 41)

3.2 Corpus data

Chapter 4 by Sean Wallis in this volume provides an excellent discussion of the use of cor­ pus data in linguistics. We won’t double that effort here (and couldn’t do nearly as good a job). Instead, we will briefly discuss some potential disadvantages of corpus data that lead some linguists to explore other data types. For example, two fundamental questions in studies of grammar are (i) Is a given sentence grammatical or ungrammatical (i.e., pos­ sible or impossible in the language)?, and (ii) For ungrammatical sentences, what is the property that causes the ungrammaticality? Because corpus data is fundamentally obser­ vational, it cannot be used to definitively answer these two questions. For the first ques­ tion, one potential strategy would be to use the presence or absence of a sentence in the corpus as a proxy for grammaticality or ungrammaticality, respectively. The problem with this approach is that presence and absence are influenced by factors other than the grammar: it is possible for grammatical sentences to be absent from a corpus simply due to sampling (the relevant sentence was accidentally not uttered during corpus genera­ tion), and it is possible for ungrammatical sentences to be present in a corpus due to speech errors or the inclusion of non-native speakers in the sample. This leads linguists interested in the first question to seek out data types that more directly test the impact of the grammar while controlling for other factors that might influence the outcome—in oth­ er words, a controlled experimental setting. For the second question (what properties cause the ungrammaticality), the concern among some linguists is that corpus data can only reveal correlations between grammatical properties and presence/absence in the corpus; corpus data cannot directly reveal causal relationships. Again, this leads linguists who are interested in the mechanisms underlying ungrammaticality to seek out con­ trolled experimental methods that can be used to directly manipulate grammatical prop­ erties to reveal causal relationships with grammaticality. As Chapter 4 demonstrates, there are plenty of interesting research questions one can investigate using corpus data, but for linguists interested in ungrammaticality and its mechanisms, corpus data tends to be less useful than experimental methods.

Page 2 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data

3.3 Acceptability judgements 3.3.1 What are acceptability judgements? An acceptability judgement is simply the act of judging whether a sentence is ‘acceptable’ in a given language. But this simple definition belies the complexity of what one means by ‘acceptable’. One common assumption in linguistics is that the act of comprehending a sentence automatically (in the sense of an automatic cognitive process) gives rise (p. 42) to an evaluation of that sentence along multiple dimensions: the grammaticality of the sentence, the plausibility of the meaning, the processing difficulty associated with com­ prehending the sentence, etc. Another common assumption is that those multiple dimen­ sions tend to be (automatically, and therefore subconsciously) combined into a single per­ cept. It is that multi-dimensional percept that linguists call ‘acceptability’. Acceptability judgements can then be defined as a conscious report of the automatic evaluation of the acceptability of a sentence, elicited for experimentally designed sentence types (either in an informal setting, as has been typical in linguistics, or in a formal experiment, as has become more common over the last two decades). In short, acceptability judgements are a behavioural response that can reveal information about the grammaticality of a sen­ tence, if the experimenter controls for other factors that influence acceptability (plausibil­ ity, processing, etc.). Therefore, the goal of an acceptability judgement experiment is to isolate a potential difference in grammaticality between two (or more) conditions, while holding differences in other properties constant. There are at least three pieces of information that acceptability judgements can potential­ ly provide that are relevant for constructing grammatical theories. The first is the pres­ ence/absence of an effect—whether there is a difference in acceptability between two (or more) conditions. In many ways this is the minimum piece of information that may be rel­ evant for a grammatical theory. Assuming that the two (or more) conditions were well controlled, such that the only difference between them was the grammatical property of interest, the presence of a difference tells us that the grammatical property has an effect on acceptability. The second potential piece of information is the effect size—the size of the difference between conditions. Again, assuming that the conditions were well con­ trolled, the effect size tells us how big an impact the grammatical manipulation has. The third potential piece of information is the location of the conditions on the scale of accept­ ability.1 These three pieces of information can be used in different combinations by lin­ guists to construct and evaluate grammatical theories. Figure 3.1 highlights these three pieces of information. The raw data for Figure 3.1 comes from 274 sentence types (conditions) that form 137 pairwise phenomena. For example, one of the phenomena is exemplified by these two sentences (from Sobin 2004): (1)

Page 3 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data By hypothesis, the sentence in (1a) is ungrammatical because it does not respect the sub­ ject-verb agreement properties of English (whereas (1b) does). Sprouse et al. (2013) (p. 43) tested this reported contrast and 149 others that were randomly sampled from the journal Linguistic Inquiry in formal judgement experiments using a seven-point Likert-like scale (see also section 3.3.2 below). In Figure 3.1, we use the 137 phenomena that showed statistically significant effects to illustrate the three pieces of information that judgement experiments make available to linguists.

Figure 3.1 Three illustrations of the types of infor­ mation available from acceptability judgements. Raw data is 137 pairwise phenomena randomly sampled from Linguistic Inquiry and tested by Sprouse et al. (2013). The leftmost panel shows location informa­ tion. The middle panel shows effect size information. The rightmost panel combines the two. The middle and rightmost panels also convey the presence/ab­ sence of an effect

The leftmost panel of Figure 3.1 takes all 274 sentence types, and orders them in ascend­ ing order according to their mean judgement (after a z-score transformation, which re­ moves some types of scale bias; see Schütze and Sprouse 2013 for more discussion). This panel therefore highlights location information: some sentences are very clearly on the low end of the scale, others at the high end, and still others in the middle. The middle panel of Figure 3.1 highlights effect sizes. Each vertical bar represents one pairwise phe­ nomenon, with the height of the bar representing the size of the effect, which reflects the size of the difference between the mean ratings of the two conditions in each phenome­ non (reported here as Cohen’s d, which standardizes the raw effect sizes by dividing them by the standard deviation). The rightmost panel combines these two pieces of information by plotting the ratings of the two conditions in each phenomenon in a vertical pair (thus showing location information), and connecting them with a line (thus showing raw effect size information). Both the middle panel and the rightmost panel also highlight the pres­ ence/absence of an effect in a way that the leftmost panel does not. In practice, which of the three pieces of information the linguist decides to use depends upon the specific grammatical theory being investigated, and the way it is used depends on the specific argument that the linguist wishes to make (see Chapter 2 by Bas Aarts on linguistic argumentation). That said, some basic patterns of use do emerge. First, all stud­ ies using acceptability judgements report the presence/absence of an effect, as this is the minimum required to determine whether a grammatical manipulation is potentially rele­ vant to a theory. Second, grammatical theories that rigidly divide sentences into two types (grammatical and ungrammatical) tend to also use location on (p. 44) the scale as a Page 4 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data potential piece of information about whether a sentence should be classified as grammati­ cal (high on the scale) or ungrammatical (low on the scale). The use of scale location in­ formation is complex in its own right because there is no necessary connection between location on the scale and grammaticality. Even if extra-grammatical properties are con­ trolled across the conditions in the experiment as discussed above, participants can rate an individual sentence high or low because of the extra-grammatical properties of that in­ dividual sentence. This is particularly salient in classic examples of mismatches between acceptability and grammaticality, such as the acceptable-but-ungrammatical comparative construction in (2) (from Montalbetti 1984), which appears acceptable but has no coher­ ent meaning (Wellwood et al. 2018), and the unacceptable-but-(by-hypothesis)-grammati­ cal doubly centre-embedded relative clause in (3) (from Miller and Chomsky 1963), which appears unacceptable, but is most likely unacceptable due to the difficulty of processing the centre-embedded relative clauses. (2)

(3)

Despite the possibility of mismatches between location information and grammaticality, it is not uncommon for location information to play a role in linguistic argumentation about grammars that divide sentences into two sets (e.g., an author might assume a transparent mapping between the two halves of the scale of acceptability and ungrammaticality/gram­ maticality). The third piece of information, effect size information, tends to play a role in studies that seek to compare the constraints that make up the grammar. This can either be because the grammatical theory under investigation distinguishes more than two lev­ els of grammaticality (e.g., Keller 2000, Featherston 2005), or because the investigation is exploring properties that might distinguish two constraints from one another (e.g., Chom­ sky 1986a).

3.3.2 Are the acceptability judgements published in the literature valid? Perhaps the most important debate in the acceptability judgement literature concerns the validity of the judgements that have been published in the literature so far. Since the ear­ liest days of acceptability-based linguistic theories there has been a concern that the rela­ tively informal methods that linguists tend to use to collect acceptability judgements might lead to invalid data, and therefore incorrect theorizing (e.g., Hill 1961, Spencer 1973). Over the past twenty years, as formal experimental methods for judgement collec­ tion have gained in popularity, this question has arisen more and more often, with many linguists asking whether the field should shift entirely to formal acceptability judgement collection methods (e.g., Bard et al. 1996, Schütze 1996, Cowart 1997, Ferreira 2005, Featherston 2007, Gibson and Fedorenko 2010, Gibson and Fedorenko 2013, among many Page 5 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data others). Nearly every linguist who (p. 45) has written about this issue agrees that there are benefits to formal acceptability judgement experiments, making them an important tool in the syntactician’s toolkit. What is less clear is whether informal judgement collec­ tion methods should co-exist with formal experimental methods in that toolkit, and whether the informally collected judgements that have been published in the literature to date should be considered valid. The central concern (e.g., from Gibson and Fedorenko 2013) is that linguists tend to solicit informal judgements from other linguists. Because professional linguists are aware of the theoretical issues at play for a given judgement, it is possible that their judgements might be (subconsciously) biased. A related concern is the fact that linguists tend to collect small numbers of judgements, leading to the possi­ bility that the results they obtain are not representative of the population. Similarly, lin­ guists tend to use a small number of example items, leading to the possibility that the re­ sults they obtain are not representative of all of the possible tokens of a given construc­ tion. If any of these potential problems were actual problems, the published judgement literature would not be a solid foundation for constructing grammatical theories. Sprouse et al. (2013) and Sprouse and Almeida (2012) took a first step toward investigat­ ing these concerns by directly comparing published informal judgements with formal judgements that they collected using the best practices of formal experimental work (e.g., naïve participants, large samples, multiple items per condition, frequentist and Bayesian statistical analyses, etc.). Their argument is that, although this does not settle the ques­ tion of which method is best, it does begin to address the question of how much impact these design choices might have on the data. If the results overlap substantially, then ei­ ther both methods are valid or both are invalid. If the results diverge substantially, then either one method is valid and one is invalid, or both are invalid in different ways. Sprouse et al. (2013) found a 95 per cent (±5 per cent) overlap when they re-tested a ran­ dom sample of 150 two-condition phenomena (300 sentence types) from the journal arti­ cles published in Linguistic Inquiry (LI) between 2001 and 2010. Sprouse and Almeida (2012) found a 98 per cent overlap when they re-tested all of the data points published in Adger’s (2003) Core Syntax textbook. Taken together, these results suggest that data from informal and formal methods overlap to a very high degree. This suggests that re­ placing informal judgement data with formally-collected judgement data would have little impact, at least for work on English syntax. Of course, studies such as these are just the beginning of these kinds of investigations. Future work should explore other languages, other judgement types (e.g., semantic judgements), and other facets of the data (e.g., gra­ dience).

3.3.3 Using formal judgement methods to explore the nature of the grammar Formal judgement experiments are not limited to investigating the validity of informal judgements; they can also be used to push the boundaries of the theory of grammar (p. 46) itself. One way formal judgement experiments can do this is by using higher-order experimental designs to isolate and quantify putative grammatical effects while control­ ling for many of the other factors that potentially influence acceptability judgements. As a Page 6 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data concrete example, let us consider the whether-island violation in (4), which we have la­ belled with a star to indicate that it is generally judged to have low acceptability in US English:2 (4)

One common analysis in the generative literature is to postulate a grammatical constraint that prevents movement of a wh-phrase like what out of an embedded question—the em­ bedded question is metaphorically an ‘island’ for this kind of movement (Chomsky 1964a, Ross 1967, Chomsky 1973), so this is called a whether-island violation. If we wanted to study the necessity of this constraint, we would first want to isolate the effect of moving out of the embedded whether-clause over and above other possible effects that are in this sentence, such as the effect of having a long-distance movement in a sentence, and the ef­ fect of having an embedded question in a sentence (both of which might lower acceptabil­ ity independently of the potential island effect). A 2×2 factorial design can solve this problem by creating a sequence of subtractions of ratings that eliminate the extra con­ founds. Take the four sentences in (5): (5)

If we make the subtraction (5a – 5b), we isolate the effect of a long-distance as opposed to a short-distance (local) movement. The difference (5a – 5c) isolates the effect of the embedded question without any movement out of it. The difference (5a – 5d) combines three effects: the effect of a long-distance movement, the effect of an embedded question, and crucially, the effect of moving out of an embedded question (the island effect). By subtracting the first two from the third, we can isolate the island effect, as in (6): (6)

In this way, a series of three subtractions can isolate island effects even though there are two other effects present in the critical sentence. This design is called a 2×2 factorial (p. 47) design because there are two factors, STRUCTURE and DISTANCE, and each fac­ tor has two levels (declarative vs. interrogative and short vs. long).

Page 7 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data There are a number of benefits to 2×2 factorial designs. The most important, of course, is allowing us to isolate the effect of interest. They also allow us to isolate two other effects, one for each factor in the design. Further, they lend themselves to a perspicuous visual interpretation, as illustrated in the two contrasting hypothetical outcomes in the two pan­ els of Figure 3.2. If there is no effect unique to the island violation in (5d) over and above the effects of the two other factors, plotting the four conditions in a pattern known as an interaction plot will yield parallel lines, as in the left panel of Figure 3.2. However, if there is a further effect over and above those two factors, such as an island effect in the design in (5), the two lines will not be parallel, as in the right panel of Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 The visual logic of 2×2 factorial designs, illustrated using the whether-island effect design from (5). The left panel shows main effects for the two factors (STRUCTURE and DISTANCE), but no is­ land effect over and above those two factors. The right panel shows an island effect (interaction) over and above those two main effects

Another benefit of 2×2 factorial designs is that they allow for the use of relatively stan­ dard statistical tests such as two-way ANOVAs and omnibus linear mixed effects models. The effect of interest (e.g., island effect) in these designs will show up as the interaction term. One final advantage of 2×2 factorial designs is that, though they only quantify three effects (one for each factor plus the interaction effect), they theoretically allow us to control for an infinite number of potential confounds as long as the confounds are dis­ tributed across conditions such that they subtract out at the end of the subtraction steps. The theoretical value of the factorial design really becomes apparent when one considers analyses that attempt to explain acceptability judgement phenomena as being caused by factors outside the grammar. For example, Kluender and Kutas (1993b) proposed that is­ land effects (the interaction in the right panel of Figure 3.2) may not be due to syntactic constraints in the grammar, but rather to the demands of the two independent processing challenges of a long-distance dependency and an embedded question interacting with each other, perhaps because they both draw on the same limited pool of working memory resources, such that the parser’s attempt to process both simultaneously leads to a larger cost than one would expect from the (p. 48) linear sum of the two costs in isolation. With a 2×2 factorial design, we can isolate that effect (the superadditive interaction), and at­ tempt to study its properties to see if it is more likely to come from the grammar or more likely to come from the working memory system. For example, Sprouse et al. (2012) looked to see if the superadditive effects for four island effects in English correlate with

Page 8 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data two working memory measures, which is one possible prediction of the Kluender and Ku­ tas (1993b) proposal. Factorial designs also have the potential to reveal novel data for the construction of gram­ matical theories—such as the existence of superadditive interaction patterns without any single sentence being in the lower half of the acceptability scale (e.g., Featherston 2005, Sprouse et al. 2016, Villata et al. 2016). What is interesting about these effects is that the superadditivity suggests the possibility of a grammatical constraint at work, but the fact that all of the sentences are in the top half of the acceptability scale suggests that this po­ tential constraint is not causing the extreme unacceptability that is typically associated with constraint violations. The question facing the field is how to capture these types of effects in grammatical theories. This is one of the current areas of debate in the accept­ ability judgement literature.

3.4 Reading times: self-paced reading and eyetracking The next three data types that we will discuss (reading times, electrophysiological mea­ sures, and haemodynamic measures) are far more prevalent in psycholinguistics and neu­ rolinguistics, two domains that focus on language processing, than theoretical linguistics, which focuses on grammatical theories. This means that the value of these data types is primarily tied to the relationship between theories of language processing and theories of grammar. Nonetheless, we believe it is valuable to provide brief reviews of these three data types, not only because readers may encounter them in the literature, but also be­ cause we believe that the future of linguistics is one where there is a closer integration between theories of grammar and theories of language processing. There are two primary reading time measures used in psycholinguistics: self-paced read­ ing and eye-tracking. The most prevalent version of self-paced reading uses what is called a moving window to more accurately mimic natural reading (Just et al. 1982). In a moving window self-paced reading task, the words of a sentence are replaced with underscores, one per character. The underscores representing the sentence are presented in their en­ tirety on the screen. The participant can then reveal each word in succession by pressing a key on a keyboard or a button on a response box. The computer measures the amount of time between button presses, yielding a measure of the amount of time (typically in milliseconds) that it takes to read each word. In reading-based eye-tracking, the entire sentence is presented on screen (without masking by underscores). A sophisticated cam­ era then records the movements of the participant’s pupils as they read the sentence nat­ urally. Analysis algorithms can then (p. 49) be used to determine how long the participant fixated on each word (or multi-word region) of the sentence, as well as several secondary measures such as if (and for how long) the participant looked back to previously read ma­ terial. Though the method of collection of reading times differs between self-paced read­ ing and eye-tracking, the logic applied to these two data types is the same: one can com­ pare the reading times between two sentences that differ by a specific property of inter­ Page 9 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data est at one or more critical words; if the critical word(s) differ in reading times between the two sentences, then one can infer that the processes deployed to understand those sentences at the critical word(s) differed in either quality or quantity. Reading time mea­ sures such as self-paced reading and eye-tracking have been used in this way to build complex theories of sentence processing. As the previous paragraph makes clear, reading times are primarily used to investigate sentence processing, not grammatical theory. But under the assumption that there is a predictable relationship between grammar and sentence processing (setting aside the ex­ act nature of that relationship), it is possible to look for the consequences of proposals from grammatical theories in real-time sentence processing. If found, these effects can in­ crease our confidence in such proposals, as there would now be convergent evidence from multiple sources. One concrete example of this is a series of findings showing that the human sentence processor appears to respect syntactic island constraints (briefly dis­ cussed in section 3.3) in real time during incremental sentence processing. These studies are predicated upon the Active Filler Strategy (Frazier and Flores d’Arcais 1989), a pars­ ing strategy that appears to be operative in most, if not all, human languages. In effect, the Active Filler Strategy says that the parser attempts to complete long-distance depen­ dencies at the first viable location. For the wh-dependencies that characterize questions in English, this means that the parser will attempt to associate the wh-word (called the filler in the sentence processing literature) with the first location that could potentially host the wh-word (this location is often called the gap, with the full dependencies called filler-gap dependencies)—typically following a verb or preposition. The Active Filler Strat­ egy leads to several useful effects in sentence processing. For space reasons, we will use only one as an example: the filled-gap effect. In the filled-gap effect, participants experi­ ence a reading time slow-down when presented with filler-gap dependencies in which the first potential gap location is occupied (or filled) by another argument (Crain and Fodor 1985, Stowe 1986). For example, Stowe (1986) found a reading time slow-down using self-paced reading at the critical word us in sentence (7a), which contains a filler-gap de­ pendency, relative to sentence (7b), which contains no dependency. Under the Active Filler Strategy, the parser initially associates the filler who with the object of the verb bring, but when us is encountered, the parser must reanalyse the structure (and eventual­ ly associate the filler with the object of the preposition to), leading to a reading time slowdown, which is called the filled-gap effect. (7)

In this way, the filled-gap effect is evidence that the Active Filler Strategy is opera­ tive, and that the location of us is considered a viable gap location by the parser. (p. 50)

Having established the filled-gap effect as a consequence of the Active Filler Strategy, psycholinguists are able to probe the processing consequences of syntactic island con­ straints. Syntactic island constraints prohibit gaps from occurring inside of certain struc­ Page 10 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data tures. The Active Filler Strategy attempts to associate a filler with the first gap location that the parser encounters. This leads to the following question: Will the parser attempt to posit a gap inside of an island structure? Stowe (1986) investigated this question for the Subject Island Constraint using the filled-gap paradigm. The Subject Island Con­ straint (Huang 1982) prohibits gaps inside of complex subjects in English as in (8): (8)

Stowe (1986) looked for a filled-gap effect inside of complex subjects using (9a), which contains a filler-gap dependency with a filled-gap location in the complex subject, and (9b), which contains no filler-gap dependency (thus acting as a control condition). If the Active Filler Strategy attempts to posit gaps inside of complex subjects (contrary to the Subject Island Constraint), there should be a filled-gap effect (a reading time slow-down) at the noun Greg’s. If the Active Filler Strategy respects the Subject Island Constraint, there should be no filled-gap effect. (9)

Stowe (1986) found no filled-gap effect in this paradigm (but did find an effect with simi­ lar complex noun phrases in object position), suggesting that the parser respects the Sub­ ject Island Constraint in real time by suppressing the Active Filler Strategy when gap lo­ cations are prohibited by the grammar. This basic finding has been replicated using both the filled-gap effect and other conse­ quences of the Active Filler Strategy, such as the plausibility effect, for a number of is­ lands and a number of languages (see Phillips 2006 for a comprehensive list as of that time). It has also led to a number of more sophisticated explorations of the interaction of syntactic island effects and sentence processing, including the effect of parasitic gaps (Phillips 2006), and differences between parasitic gaps and across-the-board movement (Wagers and Phillips 2009). The literature on the Active Filler Strategy has also inspired similar investigations in the domain of pronoun coreference, where a similar active search strategy has been found with respect to the search for antecedents for pronouns (van Gompel and Liversedge 2003), using a reading time slow-down effect similar to the filled-gap effect (called the gender mismatch effect). This literature has also explored the effect of grammatical constraints on coreference (p. 51) dependencies, called Binding Constraints (Chomsky 1981), on this active search for an antecedent (Sturt 2003, Kazani­ na et al. 2007). There is even recent work exploring a similar notion of an active search for the antecedent in ellipsis constructions (Yoshida et al. 2013). For space reasons we can’t summarize them all here, but the general logic is the same in each—one can use a Page 11 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data well-established reading time effect to probe the interaction of a parsing strategy with a constraint from the grammatical literature.

3.5 Electrophysiology: EEG and MEG data Much like reading times, electrophysiological responses are primarily used in the psy­ cholinguistics literature to investigate sentence processing. They are rarely used to inves­ tigate the grammar directly. That said, similar to reading times, the assumption of a pre­ dictable relationship between grammar and parser can allow some limited forms of infer­ ence (or at least corroboration) to flow between the two fields. To be fair, there has been much less of this in the electrophysiological literature than the reading time literature. This doesn’t seem like a necessary fact, so in the spirit of making this chapter maximally useful to future researchers, we will review some of the findings in the EEG and MEG lit­ erature that show the most promise for connections with grammatical theory. Electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) are two sides of the same coin: EEG measures (some of) the electrical activity generated by the brain (typical­ ly through electrodes placed on the scalp; though also potentially through electrodes placed directly in the cortex), and MEG measures the magnetic fields generated by (some of) the electrical activity of the brain (through sensors positioned around the head). The analysis of EEG and MEG results is relatively complicated, but the basics are as follows. First, the electrical activity of the brain is an alternating current, which means that both EEG and MEG data can be characterized as time-varying waves (either the oscillations of electrical voltage in EEG, or of magnetic fields in MEG). This means that all M/EEG data analysis can take advantage of the mathematics of waves. Second, nearly all research in neurolinguistics is event-related. This means that the measurements are time-locked to a specific event (such as the presentation of a word), so that neurolinguists can explore the effects of that event on cognition. Third, M/EEG activity can be divided into two types: evoked activity and induced activity. Both evoked and induced activity are event-related, which means that the electrophysiological response is recorded relative to specific (ex­ perimentally controlled) events such as the presentation of a word. The difference be­ tween the two types of activity lies entirely in the amount of phase-locking across tokens of the event. Evoked activity is activity that is phase-locked to the event: the peaks of the waves from one token of the event line up with the peaks of the waves of another token (and the same holds for the troughs of the waves). Induced activity is not phase-locked across (p. 52) tokens of the event. This means that it is possible for the peaks of waves from one token of the event to line up with the troughs of waves from a second token of the event. Evoked and induced activity require different analysis techniques (because of the potential for destructive interference with induced activity). Evoked and induced ac­ tivity may also represent distinct neurophysiological events, though their precise inter­ pretation is an active area of research. The vast majority of research using M/EEG in neu­ rolinguistics has focused on evoked activity in the form of event-related potentials (ERPs), which are simply changes in the amplitude of electrical potentials over time in evoked EEG activity, and event-related fields (ERFs), which are simply changes in the amplitude Page 12 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data of magnetic fields over time in evoked MEG activity (see Luck 2005 for a complete intro­ duction to the ERP technique, and see Cohen 2014 for a complete introduction to analysis techniques for induced activity). There have been some recent explorations of induced ac­ tivity in the M/EEG literature, but that area is still relatively new inside neurolinguistics, so we won’t review it here (but see Bastiaansen et al. 2011 for an excellent overview of that literature to date). The majority of the EEG literature in neurolinguistics has focused on ERPs. Though many ERPs have been identified in the broader EEG literature, the sentence-level neurolinguis­ tics literature tends to focus on four ERPs: the early left anterior negativity (ELAN), the left anterior negativity (LAN), the N400, and the P600. The ERP literature typically de­ scribes two facets of ERPs when defining them: their eliciting conditions, and their func­ tional interpretation. Both facets are potentially useful for linking the EEG literature to the grammatical literature. The eliciting conditions can be used to link grammatical theo­ ries and ERPs at the level of specific phenomena. For example, the grammatical theory may predict a certain kind of violation in a sentence, and thus predict a specific type of ERP at a specific location in the sentence. The functional interpretation can potentially li­ cense the kind of logic we saw in the previous section on reading times. The functional in­ terpretation can indicate what aspect of sentence processing the ERP indexes, and then one can ask whether known sentence processing strategies predict that those aspects of sentence processing should be engaged at the relevant positions in the sentence. As men­ tioned above, there aren’t many great examples of this being used to connect with the grammatical literature, but it is possible in theory. So here we will briefly review the elic­ iting conditions and potential functional interpretation of the four sentence-level ERPs that readers are most likely to encounter in the literature: ELAN, LAN, N400, and P600. As the name suggests, the ELAN (early left anterior negativity) is a negative-going deflec­ tion that peaks in a relatively early processing window (100–250ms post-stimulus onset) and is greatest over left anterior electrode sites. The ELAN was first reported by Neville et al. (1991) to a specific phrase structure violation in which a preposition appears in an ungrammatical position, as in (10b) (note that the critical position may contain a number of categories, but not a preposition): (10)

A similar effect was reported by Friederici et al. (1993) in German, in this case when a participle appears in an ungrammatical position: (p. 53)

(11)

Page 13 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data

The ELAN has since been elicited to very similar phrase structure violations in Spanish (Hinojosa et al. 2003) and French (Isel et al. 2007), and further replicated in English (Lau et al. 2006, Dikker et al. 2009) and German (e.g., Hahne and Friederici 1999, Hahne and Friederici 2002, Rossi et al. 2005). The ELAN is not affected by task (Hahne and Friederi­ ci 2002) or by the probability of the violation in the experiment (Hahne and Friederici 1999), and it is not elicited by the less frequent resolution of a syntactic category ambigu­ ity (Ainsworth-Darnell et al. 1998, Friederici et al. 1996). These results suggest that the ELAN is a very specific response to phrase structure violations, and not simply a re­ sponse to difficult or unlikely structures. The functional interpretation of the ELAN is an area of much active debate. Here are four proposals that exist in the literature: (i) Friederici (2002), among others, interprets the ELAN as a marker of syntactic-categorybased violations; (ii) Lau et al. (2006) interpret the ELAN as a marker of failed syntactic predictions more generally; (iii) Dikker et al. (2009) interpret the ELAN as indexing pro­ cessing in the sensory cortices that occurs prior to lexical access; and (iv) Steinhauer and Drury (2012) argue that the ELAN is an artifact of specific data analysis properties of ELAN-generating experimental paradigms. The LAN (left anterior negativity) is a negative-going deflection that is generally largest over left-anterior electrode sites (similar to the ELAN), and tends to occur in the 300– 500ms time window (later than the ELAN). The LAN has been elicited by a broad array of (morpho-) syntactic violations, such as agreement violations (Coulson et al. 1998, Gunter et al. 1997, Münte et al. 1997, Kaan 2002, Osterhout and Mobley 1995), case violations (Münte and Heinze 1994), phrase structure violations (Friederici et al. 1996, Hagoort et al. 2003), island constraint violations (Kluender and Kutas 1993b), and even garden-path sentences (Kaan and Swab 2003). The LAN has also been elicited during the processing of long-distance dependencies such as wh-movement, at both the filler and the gap loca­ tion (Kluender and Kutas 1993a, Phillips et al. 2005). The functional interpretation of the LAN is even less clear than that of the ELAN. One issue is that the LAN results are often relatively fragile, and do not always replicate from study to study. Another issue is that the LAN arises for very different phenomena (e.g., morphosyntactic agreement and de­ pendency processing), suggesting either a high-level interpretation that links these two phenomena, or two distinct sources for the LAN. A final issue is that LAN effects often cooccur with P600 effects, raising the possibility that the LAN effect is really the result of averaging N400s and P600s from different sub-populations, with the two canceling out in the LAN time window, except for where their distributions fail to overlap (i.e., if the N400 is bilateral, and the P600 is (p. 54) right-lateralized, the combination may yield a left neg­ ativity; see Tanner and van Hell 2014, Tanner 2015).

Page 14 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data The N400 is a negative-going deflection that is generally largest over centro-parietal elec­ trode sites, and tends to occur 300–500ms post-stimulus onset (with a peak amplitude oc­ curring at 400ms, hence the name). The N400 was first observed by Kutas and Hillyard (1980) when they presented participants with sentences that ended with unexpected words. They compared baseline sentences with semantically congruent endings (12a) to sentences with semantically incongruent endings (12b) and sentences with endings that were incongruent due to the physical properties of the stimulus such as words written in all capital letters (12c): (12)

Kutas and Hillyard (1980) observed a larger N400 for (12b) compared to (12a), and a larger P300 (also known as a P3b) to (12c) compared to (12a). This qualitative difference in the responses to (12b) versus (12c) suggests that the N400 is specifically related to se­ mantic processes rather than general error detection. In the decades since its discovery, the N400 has been elicited by a broad array of linguistic and non-linguistic stimuli, with the common pattern being that they are all meaningful in some way: spoken words, writ­ ten words, signed words, pseudowords, acronyms, environmental sounds, faces, and ges­ tures (for a review see Kutas et al. 2006). There are two leading functional interpreta­ tions of the N400: Hagoort (2008), among others, interprets the N400 as an index of the increased difficulty of integrating incongruent words into the preceding context, while Kutas and Federmeier (2000), among others, interpret the N400 as an index of processes related to the activation of semantic features in the lexicon (or semantic memory). The P600 (alternatively the ‘syntactic positive shift’) is a positive-going deflection that is generally largest over centro-parietal electrode sites and tends to occur 500–800ms poststimulus onset (although there is a good deal of variability in its latency in the ERP litera­ ture). Like the LAN, the P600 has been reported for a broad array of syntactic violations, in many cases co-occurring with a preceding LAN. For example, P600s have been elicited to phrase structure violations (Hagoort et al. 1993, Friederici et al. 1993, Hahne and Friederici 1999, Friederici and Frisch 2000, Osterhout and Holcomb 1992), agreement vi­ olations (Hagoort et al. 1993, Kaan 2002), syntactic garden-paths (Friederici et al. 1996, Kaan and Swaab 2003, Osterhout et al. 1994), and island violations (McKinnon and Oster­ hout 1996). The sheer number of violation types that elicit a P600 has led some re­ searchers to suggest that the P600 may be a (slightly delayed) version of the P300 (or P3b), which is a general response to unexpected stimuli (Coulson et al. 1998; see Oster­ hout and Hagoort 1999 for a response). P600s have also been elicited by the processing of grammatical sentences with particularly complex syntactic properties, such as ambigu­ ous structures (Frisch et al. 2002) and wh-movement (Fiebach et al. 2002, (p. 55) Kaan et al. 2000, Phillips et al. 2005). Recent research has even found P600s to sentences that ap­ Page 15 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data pear to contain one very specific type of semantic violation (Kim and Osterhout 2005, Ku­ perberg et al. 2003, van Herten et al. 2005, Kuperberg 2007, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky and Schlesewsky 2008, Stroud and Phillips 2011). As for functional interpretation, Friederici (2002), among others, interprets the P600 as indexing syntactic revision during a stage of processing requiring the integration of syntactic and semantic information, whereas Ha­ goort (2008), among others, interprets the P600 as indexing the difficulty of unifying syn­ tactic and semantic information (a subtly different interpretation from the revision ap­ proach). MEG data can, in principle, be used the same way as EEG data, yielding ERFs to various grammatical violations. And much of the early MEG literature has that profile. However, because MEG lends itself to better spatial resolution of the source of activity than EEG, the current trend in the MEG literature is to focus on the localization of event-related ac­ tivity to specific areas of the brain. For example, using a series of experiments that inves­ tigate activity to two-word units that undergo semantic composition such as ‘red boat’, Bemis and Pylkkänen (2011) found activation in the left anterior temporal lobe and the ventro-medial pre-frontal cortex (with much subsequent work directed at determining to what extent this activation reflects purely semantic composition versus other types of conceptual combinatorics). Similarly, using a naturalistic story-listening task, Brennan and Pylkkänen (2017) found that activation in the left anterior temporal lobe correlates with the number of parse steps in a predictive left-corner (syntactic) parser. Studies such as these suggest a potential future in which MEG is used to localize the fundamental grammatical operations that are postulated by grammatical theories, at least those that translate into distinct operations at the level of sentence processing.

3.6 Haemodynamic responses: functional mag­ netic resonance imaging One potentially useful property of the human circulatory system is the fact that depletion of local energy stores due to neural firing in the cortex triggers a haemodynamic re­ sponse wherein oxygenated blood is sent to that area to replenish those stores. Function­ al magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) leverages this property of the circulatory system to localize cognitive function. Though the details are quite complex, the basic idea is as fol­ lows. Oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin have different magnetic properties. The fMRI method can detect these differences (the signal is called the BOLD signal: blood oxygen-level dependent). By comparing two conditions, one (p. 56) with a specific cogni­ tive process and another without, it is possible to use the BOLD signal to localize the spe­ cific area(s) of the brain that depleted local energy stores due to that cognitive process. The fMRI method has better spatial resolution, and requires fewer controversial assump­ tions, than source-localization using MEG (and EEG). However, fMRI also has worse tem­ poral resolution (because blood travels much slower than electricity and magnetic fields). As such, fMRI can have difficulty isolating the differential effects of sequences of process­

Page 16 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data es; but if the researcher can isolate the relevant process in an experimental design, fMRI is unparalleled among current non-invasive technologies for spatial localization. The localization of cognitive processes is not typically a component of grammatical theo­ ries. But as briefly discussed in the previous section, the localization of grammatical oper­ ations (by way of sentence processing theories) is a natural extension of grammatical the­ ories as theories of cognition, and can help to integrate linguistics with the rest of cogni­ tive neuroscience. To that end, in this section we will briefly review research that has sought to identify brain areas that underlie syntactic processing using fMRI. There are two areas that have been the focus of most neuroimaging research on syntax: Broca’s and the anterior temporal lobe. Broca’s area is probably the most famous brain region to be correlated with structural properties of sentences. The term Broca’s area usually refers to a portion of the left inferi­ or frontal gyrus (LIFG) composed of the more anterior pars triangularis (Brodmann area 45) and the more posterior pars opercularis (Brodmann area 44). Paul Broca originally identified this area as central to speech processing based on the post-mortem inspection of the brains of two patients that exhibited severe aphasia: one patient could only pro­ duce the word ‘tan’, the other only a handful of basic words. With the advent of non-inva­ sive neuroimaging techniques such as fMRI, Broca’s area has taken centre stage in the investigation of the neural substrates of syntactic processing. At least two thirds of the neuroimaging studies of the brain areas involved in sentence processing (in health) over the past fifteen years reveal an increased activation in (at least part of) Broca’s area for at least one of the reported contrasts, suggesting that this area indeed plays a significant role in some aspects of sentence processing. Although there has been great debate about the key property that modulates activity in Broca’s area in sentence processing, perhaps the most theory-neutral description of the central data is that Broca’s area tends to respond more to sentences with non-canonical word order than sentences with canonical word order. For example, relative to controls with canonical word order, Broca’s area shows increased BOLD signal for relative clauses (e.g., Just et al. 1996, Ben-Shachar et al. 2003), wh-movement (e.g., Ben-Shachar et al. 2004, Santi and Grodzinsky 2007), topicalization (e.g., Ben-Shachar et al. 2004), clefting (e.g., Caplan et al. 1999), and scrambling (e.g., Friederici et al. 2006, Bornkessel et al. 2005, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky et al. 2009). The question then is which cognitive process­ es these syntactic phenomena have in common. There is quite a bit of debate in the litera­ ture about this. For example, Grodzinsky and colleagues have argued that Broca’s area seems to be more active for non-canonical word orders because (p. 57) Broca’s area sup­ ports the syntactic mechanism of movement that is familiar from generative syntactic the­ ory (Grodzinsky 1986; see Grodzinsky and Santi 2008 for a recent review). BornkesselSchlesewsky and colleagues have proposed that the same effects can be explained by as­ suming a parsing stage in which the argument relations of the sentence are computed ac­ cording to several prominence hierarchies that are familiar from typological research (e.g., the animacy hierarchy, the case hierarchy, the definiteness hierarchy; Comrie 1989, Bornkessel and Schlesewsky 2006, Wolff et al. 2008). This parsing stage would require a Page 17 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data ‘linearization’ process that maps word order to argument structure according to these prominence hierarchies. For Bornkessel-Schlesewsky and colleagues, Broca’s area sup­ ports this linearization process (Grewe et al. 2005, Chen et al. 2006, Bornkessel-Schle­ sewsky et al. 2009). In principle, if one assumes a strong relationship between cognitive theories and neurobiology (such as the strong reductionism examined critically in Fodor 1975), it is possible that the resolution of this debate about the functional interpretation of these effects in Broca’s area could be used as evidence to adjudicate between these competing theories of syntax. Although Broca’s area has been the focus of many neuroimaging studies of syntax, there is a growing literature implicating portions of the temporal lobe in syntactic processing. One of the most robust neuroimaging findings about sentence-level processing is that lat­ eral anterior portions of the superior and middle temporal cortex show greater activation bilaterally for reading or listening to sentences than word lists (Mazoyer et al. 1993, Stowe et al. 1998, Friederici et al. 2000, Vandenberghe et al. 2002, Humphries et al. 2005, 2006, and Brennan and Pylkkänen 2017, mentioned in the previous section). Fur­ thermore, lesion mapping has associated damage to the left lateral anterior temporal lobe with comprehension impairment for most sentences more complex than simple declara­ tives (Dronkers et al. 2004, although cf. Kho et al. 2008). These findings suggest that an­ terior portions of the temporal lobe support sentence-level computations that do not rely on lexical semantics, but this leaves open a number of possible candidate processes: syn­ tactic processes, argument structure processes, discourse processes, and even prosodic processes. If there were a brain region dedicated to basic syntactic phrase structure com­ putation in comprehension, one would expect it to show a profile similar to that of the an­ terior temporal lobe, showing more activity for processing word strings with syntactic structure than those without. However, demonstrating that this area is specifically in­ volved in syntax as opposed to other phrase-level computations has proved challenging (but see Brennan et al. 2010, Brennan and Pylkkänen 2017, and Rogalsky and Hickok 2008 for interesting attempts to distinguish syntax and semantics). As our confidence in the functional localization of the brain increases, it may become pos­ sible to use that information to test and refine grammatical theories. If a grammatical theory (as suitably integrated into a theory of sentence processing) predicts that a specif­ ic process should be deployed in a sentence, a definitive theory of functional localization in the brain would allow us to use methods such as MEG and fMRI to test whether that process is indeed deployed. Though we are still far from a definitive theory of functional localization in the brain, studies such as the ones (p. 58) reviewed in this section begin to demonstrate the value of integrating neuroscience and linguistics for both fields.

3.7 Conclusion In principle, any data type that is related to language behaviour is a potential source of information for grammatical theories. In practice, acceptability judgements form the ma­ jority of data used to construct grammatical theories, primarily due to their ability to re­ Page 18 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data veal causal relationships, and the assumption that grammatical properties are one of sev­ eral factors that directly impact acceptability judgements. Because of the prevalence of acceptability judgements in the literature, the past two decades have seen a number of advancements in the use of formal experimental methods (including factorial designs) for the collection of acceptability judgements. However, for many linguists, the future of grammatical theory lies in integrating grammatical theories with theories of sentence processing, both at a behavioural level and at a neurophysiological level. One potential step toward this integration is an exploration of the data types that are used to construct theories of sentence processing (e.g., reading times, M/EEG data, and fMRI data). Though the relationship between these data types and grammatical theories is less direct than that of acceptability judgements, we hope that the discussion in this chapter makes it clear that such an integration is a worthy goal for twenty-first-century linguistics.

Reference Adger, David (2003). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ainsworth-Darnell, Kim, Harvey G. Shulman, and Julie E. Boland (1998). ‘Dissociating brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies: Evidence from event-related poten­ tials.’ Journal of Memory and Language 38: 112–30. Bard, Ellen Gurman, Dan Robertson, and Antonella Sorace (1996). ‘Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability.’ Language 72: 32–68. Bastiaansen, Marcel, Ali Mazaheri, and Ole Jensen (2011). ‘Beyond ERPs: Oscillatory neu­ ronal dynamics’, in Emily S. Kappenman and Steven J. Luck (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31–49. Bemis, Douglas K., and Liina Pylkkänen (2011). ‘Simple composition: A magnetoen­ cephalography investigation into the comprehension of minimal linguistic phrases.’ Jour­ nal of Neuroscience 31: 2801–14. Ben-Shachar, Michal, Talma Hendler, Itamar Kahn, Dafna Ben-Bashat, and Yosef Grodzin­ sky (2003). ‘The neural reality of syntactic transformations: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging.’ Psychological Science 14: 433–440. Bornkessel, Ina, and Matthias Schlesewsky (2006). ‘The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages.’ Psycho­ logical Review 113: 787–821. Bornkessel, Ina, Stefan Zysset, Angela D. Friederici, D. Yves von Cramon, and Matthias Schlesewsky (2005). ‘Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension.’ Neuroimage 26: 221–33.

Page 19 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, and Matthias Schlesewsky (2008). ‘An alternative perspec­ tive on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension.’ Brain Research Reviews 59: 55–73. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Matthias Schlesewsky, and D. Yves von Cramon (2009). ‘Word order and Broca’s region: Evidence for a supra-syntactic perspective.’ Brain and Language 111: 125–39. Brennan, Jonathan, Yuval Nir, Uri Hasson, Rafael Malach, David J. Heeger, and Liina Pylkkänen (2010). ‘Syntactic structure building in the anterior temporal lobe during nat­ ural story listening.’ Brain and Language 120: 163–73. Brennan, Jonathan, and Liina Pylkkänen (2017). ‘MEG evidence for incremental sentence composition in the anterior temporal lobe.’ Cognitive Science 41(S6): 1515–31. Caplan, David, Nathaniel Alpert, and Gloria Waters (1999). ‘PET studies of syntactic pro­ cessing with auditory sentence presentation.’ Neuroimage 9: 343–51. Chen, Evan, W. Caroline West, Gloria Waters, and David Caplan (2006). ‘Determinants of BOLD signal correlates of processing object-extracted relative clauses.’ Cortex 42: 591– 604. Chomsky, Noam (1964a). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publica­ tions. Chomsky, Noam (1986a). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cohen, Mike X. (2014). Analyzing Neural Time Series Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Comrie, Bernard (1989). ‘On identifying future tenses’, in Werner Abraham and Theo Janssen (eds), Tempus-Aspekt-Modus. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 51–63. Coulson, Seana, Jonathan W. King, and Marta Kutas (1998). ‘Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 13: 21–58. Cowart, Wayne (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Crain, Stephen, and Janet Dean Fodor (1985). ‘How can grammars help parsers?’, in David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen, and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), Natural Language Parsing: Psycholinguistic, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 94–128. Dikker, Suzanne, Hugh Rabagliati, and Liina Pylkkänen (2009). ‘Sensitivity to syntax in vi­ sual cortex.’ Cognition 110: 293–321. Page 20 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data Dronkers, Nina F., David P. Wilkins, Robert D. Van Valin Jr., Brenda B. Redfern, and Jeri J. Jaeger (2004). ‘Lesion analysis of the brain areas involved in language comprehension.’ Cognition 92: 145–77. Featherston, Sam (2005). ‘The Decathlon Model of empirical syntax’, in Marga Reis and Stephan Kepser (eds), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 187–208. Featherston, Sam (2007). ‘Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot.’ Theo­ retical Linguistics 33: 269–318 Ferguson, Charles A. (1994). ‘Dialect, register, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization’, in Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan (eds), Sociolinguistic Perspec­ tives on Register. New York: Oxford University Press, 5–30. Fiebach, Christian J., Matthias Schlesewsky, and Angela D. Friederici (2002). ‘Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German wh-questions.’ Journal of Memory and Language 47: 250–72. Fodor, Jerry A. (1975). The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Frazier, Lyn, and Giovanni B. Flores d’Arcais (1989). ‘Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch.’ Journal of Memory and Language 28: 331–44. Friederici, Angela D., and Stefan Frisch (2000). ‘Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information.’ Journal of Memory and Lan­ guage 43: 476–507. Friederici, Angela D., Anja Hahne, and Axel Mecklinger (1996). ‘Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects.’ Journal of Experi­ mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22: 1219–48. Friederici, Angela D., Erdmut Pfeifer, and Anja Hahne (1993). ‘Event-related brain poten­ tials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations.’ Cognitive Brain Research 1: 183–92. Friederici, Angela D., Martin Meyer, and D. Yves von Cramon (2000). ‘Auditory language comprehension: An event-related fMRI study on the processing of syntactic and lexical in­ formation.’ Brain and Language 74: 289–300. Frisch, Stefan, Matthias Schlesewsky, Douglas Saddy, and Annegret Alpermann (2002). ‘The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity.’ Cognition 85: B83–B92. Gibson, Edward, and Evelina Fedorenko (2010). ‘Weak quantitative standards in linguis­ tics research.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14: 233–4.

Page 21 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data Gibson, Edward, and Evelina Fedorenko (2013). ‘The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 88–124. Grodzinsky, Yosef (1986). ‘Language deficits and the theory of syntax.’ Brain and Lan­ guage 27: 135–59. Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Andrea Santi (2008). ‘The battle for Broca’s region.’ Trends in Cog­ nitive Sciences 12: 474–80. Gunter, Thomas C., Laurie A. Stowe, and Gusbertus Mulder (1997). ‘When syntax meets semantics.’ Psychophysiology 34: 660–76. Hagoort, Peter (2008). ‘The fractionation of spoken language understanding by measur­ ing electrical and magnetic brain signals.’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363: 1055. Hagoort, Peter, Colin Brown, and Jolanda Groothusen (1993). ‘The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 439–83. Hagoort, Peter, Marlies Wassenaar, and Colin M. Brown (2003). ‘Syntax-related ERP-ef­ fects in Dutch.’ Cognitive Brain Research 16: 38–50. Hahne, Anja, and Angela D. Friederici (1999). ‘Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes.’ Journal of Cog­ nitive Neuroscience 11: 194–205. Hahne, Anja, and Angela D. Friederici (2002). ‘Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs.’ Cognitive Brain Research 13: 339–56. Hill, Archibald A. (1961). ‘Grammaticality.’ Word 17: 1–10. Hinojosa, José, Manuel Martín-Loeches, Pilar Casado, Francisco Muñoz, and Francisco Rubia (2003). ‘Similarities and differences between phrase structure and morphosyntac­ tic violations in Spanish: An event-related potentials study.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 18: 113–42. Huang, C.-T. James (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Humphries, Colin, Jeffrey R. Binder, David A. Medler, and Einat Liebenthal (2006). ‘Syn­ tactic and semantic modulation of neural activity during auditory sentence comprehen­ sion.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18: 665–79. Humphries, Colin, Tracy Love, David Swinney, and Gregory Hickok (2005). ‘Response of anterior temporal cortex to syntactic and prosodic manipulations during sentence pro­ cessing.’ Human Brain Mapping 26: 128–38.

Page 22 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data Isel, Frédéric, Anja Hahne, Burkhard Maess, and Angela D. Friederici (2007). ‘Neurody­ namics of sentence interpretation: ERP evidence from French.’ Biological Psychology 74: 337–46. Just, Marcel A., Patricia A. Carpenter, Timothy A. Keller, William F. Eddy, and Keith R. Thulborn (1996). ‘Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension.’ Science 274: 114. Just, Marcel A., Patricia A. Carpenter, and Jacqueline D. Woolley (1982). ‘Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111: 228–38. Kaan, Edith (2002). ‘Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in pro­ cessing subject-verb dependencies: An ERP study.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31: 165–93. Kaan, Edith, Anthony Harris, Edward Gibson, and Phillip Holcomb (2000). ‘The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 15: 159– 201. Kaan, Edith, and Tamara Y. Swaab (2003). ‘Electrophysiological evidence for serial sen­ tence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continua­ tions.’ Cognitive Brain Research 17: 621–35. Kazanina, Nina, Ellen Lau, Moti Lieberman, Masaya Yoshida, and Colin Phillips (2007). ‘The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora.’ Journal of Memory and Language 56: 384–409. Keller, Frank (2000). Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality. Ph.D. thesis. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Kho, Kuan H., Peter Indefrey, Peter Hagoort, C. W. M. van Veelen, Peter C. van Rijen, and Nick F. Ramsey (2008), ‘Unimpaired sentence comprehension after anterior temporal cor­ tex resection.’ Neuropsychologia 46: 1170–8. Kim, Albert, and Lee Osterhout (2005). ‘The independence of combinatory semantic pro­ cessing: Evidence from event-related potentials.’ Journal of Memory and Language 52: 205–25. Kluender, Robert, and Marta Kutas (1993a). ‘Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5: 196– 214. Kluender, Robert, and Marta Kutas (1993b). ‘Subjacency as a processing phenomenon.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 573–633. Kuperberg, Gina R. (2007). ‘Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax.’ Brain Research 1146: 23–49. Page 23 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data Kuperberg, Gina R., Tatiana Sitnikova, David Caplan, and Phillip J. Holcomb (2003). ‘Elec­ trophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sen­ tences.’ Cognitive Brain Research 17: 117–29. Kutas, Marta, and Kara D. Federmeier (2000). ‘Electrophysiology reveals semantic memo­ ry use in language comprehension.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4: 463–70. Kutas, Marta, and Steven A. Hillyard (1980). ‘Event-related brain potentials to semanti­ cally inappropriate and surprisingly large words.’ Biological Psychology 11: 99–116. Kutas, Marta, Cyma Van Petten, and Robert Kluender (2006). ‘Psycholinguistics electri­ fied II: 1994–2005’, in Matthew J. Traxler and Morton Ann Gernsbacher (eds), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 659–724. Lau, Ellen F., Clare Stroud, Silke Plesch, and Colin Phillips (2006). ‘The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis.’ Brain and Language 98: 74–88. Luck, Steven (2005). An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cam­ bridge, MA: MIT Press. Marantz, Alec (2016). ‘Linguistics as cognitive science: Back to our roots.’ 11th Annual Joshua and Verona Whatmough Lecture in Linguistics, Harvard University, April 11. [Available on YouTube]. Mazoyer, Bernard M., Nathalie Tzourio, Victor Frak, André Syrota, Noriko Murayama, Olivier Levrier, Georges Salamon, Stanislas Dehaene, Laurent Cohen, and Jacques Mehler (1993). ‘The cortical representation of speech.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5: 467– 79. McKinnon, Richard, and Lee Osterhout (1996). ‘Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials.’ Language and Cogni­ tive Processes 11: 495–524. Miller, George A., and Noam Chomsky (1963). ‘Finitary models of language users’, in R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter (eds), The Handbook of Mathemati­ cal Psychology, vol. 2, New York: Wiley, 419–93. Montalbetti, Mario (1984). After Binding. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts In­ stitute of Technology. Münte, Thomas F., and Hans J. Heinze (1994). ‘ERP negativities during syntactic process­ ing of written words’, in Hans J. Heinze, Thomas F. Münte, and G. R. Mangun (eds), Cog­ nitive Electrophysiology. Boston: Birkhauser, 211–38. Münte, Thomas F., Mike Matzke, and Sönke Johannes (1997). ‘Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuro­ science 9: 318–29.

Page 24 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data Neville, Helen, Janet L. Nicol, Andrew Barss, Kenneth I. Forster, and Merrill F. Garrett (1991). ‘Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3: 151–65. Osterhout, Lee, and Peter Hagoort (1999). ‘A superficial resemblance does not necessari­ ly mean you are part of the family: Counterarguments to Coulson, King and Kutas (1998) in the P600/SPS-P300 debate.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 14: 1–14. Osterhout, Lee, and Phillip J. Holcomb (1992). ‘Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly.’ Journal of Memory and Language 31: 785–806. Osterhout, Lee, and Linda A. Mobley (1995). ‘Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree.’ Journal of Memory and Language 34: 739–73. Osterhout, Lee, Phillip J. Holcomb, and David Swinney (1994). ‘Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during pars­ ing.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20: 786–803. Phillips, Colin (2006). ‘The real-time status of island phenomena.’ Language 82: 795–823. Phillips, Colin, Nina Kazanina, and Shani H. Abada (2005). ‘ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies.’ Cognitive Brain Research 22: 407–28. Rogalsky, Corianne, and Gregory Hickok (2008). ‘Selective attention to semantic and syn­ tactic features modulates sentence processing networks in anterior temporal cortex.’ Cerebral Cortex 19: 786–96. Ross, John R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Rossi, Sonja, Manfred F. Gugler, Anja Hahne, and Angela D. Friederici (2005). ‘When word category information encounters morphosyntax: An ERP study.’ Neuroscience Let­ ters 384: 228–33. Schütze, Carson T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reprinted by Lan­ guage Science Press (Classics in Linguistics #2), Berlin, 2016. Schütze, Carson T., and Jon Sprouse (2013). ‘Judgment data’, in Robert J. Podesva and De­ vyani Sharma (eds), Research Methods in Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 27–50. Sobin, Nicholas (2004). ‘Expletive constructions are not “Lower Right Corner” movement constructions.’ Linguistic Inquiry 35: 503–8. Spencer, Nancy J. (1973). ‘Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticality-acceptability.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2: 83–98.

Page 25 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data Sprouse, Jon, and Diogo Almeida (2012). ‘Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syn­ tax: Adger’s Core Syntax.’ Journal of Linguistics 48: 609–52. Sprouse, Jon, Ivano Caponigro, Ciro Greco, and Carlo Cecchetto (2016). ‘Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 307–44. Sprouse, Jon, Carson T. Schütze, and Diogo Almeida (2013). ‘A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001– 2010.’ Lingua 134: 219–48. Sprouse, Jon, Matt Wagers, and Colin Phillips (2012). ‘A test of the relation between work­ ing memory and syntactic island effects.’ Language 88: 82–123. Steinhauer, Karsten, and John Drury (2012). ‘On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies.’ Brain and Language 120: 135–62. Stowe, Laurie A. (1986). ‘Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 1: 227–45. Stowe, Laurie A., Cees A. J. Broere, Anne M. J. Paans, Albertus A. Wijers, Gijsbertus Mul­ der, Wim Vaalburg, and Frans Zwarts (1998). ‘Localizing components of a complex task: Sentence processing and working memory.’ NeuroReport 9: 2995–9. Stroud, Clare, and Colin Phillips (2011). ‘Examining the evidence for an independent se­ mantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish.’ Brain and Language 120: 108–26. Sturt, Patrick (2003). ‘The time-course of the application of binding constraints in refer­ ence resolution.’ Journal of Memory and Language 48: 542–62. Tanner, Darren (2015). ‘On the left anterior negativity (LAN) in electrophysiological stud­ ies of morphosyntactic agreement: A commentary on “Grammatical agreement process­ ing in reading: ERP findings and future directions” by Molinaro et al., 2014.’ Cortex 66: 149–55. Tanner, Darren, and Janet G. Van Hell (2014). ‘ERPs reveal individual differences in mor­ phosyntactic processing.’ Neuropsychologia 56: 289–301. van Gompel, Roger P. G., and Simon P. Liversedge (2003). ‘The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29: 128–39. van Herten, Marieke, Herman H. J. Kolk, and Dorothee J. Chwilla (2005). ‘An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies.’ Cognitive Brain Research 22: 241–55. Vandenberghe, Rik, Anna Christina Nobre, and Cathy J. Price (2002). ‘The response of left temporal cortex to sentences.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 14: 550–60.

Page 26 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and the Use of Data Villata, Sandra, Luigi Rizzi, and Julie Franck (2016). ‘Intervention effects and Relativized Minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments.’ Lingua 179: 76–96. Wagers, Matthew, and Colin Phillips (2009). ‘Multiple dependencies and the role of the grammar in real-time comprehension.’ Journal of Linguistics 45: 395–433. Wolff, Susann, Matthias Schlesewsky, Masako Hirotani, and Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky (2008). ‘The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese.’ Brain and Language 107: 133–57. Yoshida, Masaya, Michael Walsh Dickey, and Patrick Sturt (2013). ‘Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and ellipsis in real-time sentence processing.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 277–302.

Notes: (1) Location on the scale is a complex topic in its own right, as the way that participants use a scale will be influenced by the instructions that they are given (How are the points on the scale labelled? Are example items given for the points on the scale?) and the con­ tent of the experiment itself. See Schütze and Sprouse 2013 for a discussion of the details of acceptability judgement tasks. (2) In this and subsequent examples, the underscore indicates the position from which a wh-phrase has moved, according to movement-based theories of generative syntax.

Jon Sprouse

Jon Sprouse is an associate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the Univer­ sity of Connecticut. His research focuses on experimental syntax—the use of formal experimental measures to explore questions in theoretical syntax—with a particular focus on acceptability judgements. He is the Editor of the forthcoming Oxford Hand­ book of Experimental Syntax, and Co-Editor of Experimental Syntax and Island Ef­ fects (with Norbert Hornstein, 2013, Cambridge University Press). Carson Schütze

Carson T. Schütze is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Los An­ geles, where he has taught since 1997. His research spans topics in syntax, morphol­ ogy, first language acquisition, language processing, and linguistic methodology, of­ ten focusing on Germanic languages. His monograph The Empirical Base of Linguis­ tics (1996, reprinted 2016) is often cited as a catalyst for the recent eruption of em­ pirical and philosophical work on acceptability judgements.

Page 27 of 27

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology

Grammar and Corpus Methodology   Sean Wallis The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.35

Abstract and Keywords This chapter explores the potential of natural language corpora for grammatical research. The chapter distinguishes three main types of data (evidence) that a corpus can provide: factual evidence, frequency evidence, and interaction evidence. The chapter makes the research case for parsing a corpus completely, correcting the annotation by human lin­ guists. It uses the cyclic ‘3A’ perspective (Nelson et al. 2002) to relate a series of ex­ ploratory algorithms and tools relevant to the grammatical researcher, including concor­ dancing tools, grammatical exploration tools, and bottom-up generalization algorithms. The aim is not merely to describe what is found in a corpus but to perform systematic ‘natural experiments’. The rich grammatical analysis of a parsed corpus gains a new role: in reliably obtaining examples of grammatical units within which research may be con­ ducted. The chapter concludes with a discussion of some simple experiments, and the methodological issues that arise in carrying them out. Keywords: corpora, parsing, exploration, experimentation, science

4.1 Introduction THIS chapter explores the potential of natural language corpora, databases of text sam­ ples, for grammatical research. These samples may be entire texts or excerpts, and may be composed of written text, transcribed speech, handwriting, or even sign language. Texts are sampled using a set of criteria termed the sampling frame, which specifies the genres, contexts, meta-data, and participants sampled. These ‘texts’ contain more than words and punctuation. A plain text corpus with minimum annotation identifies sentences and, where relevant, speaker turns; it may mark other phenomena, such as headlines, pauses, and overlapping speech. Grammatical research requires either grammatically annotated corpora or ‘on-the-fly’ grammatical interpretation of plain text corpora. In practice, due to the availability of ef­ fective algorithms, most corpora are tagged so that every word is grammatically catego­ Page 1 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology rized by its word class. In corpus linguistics, tagged corpora predominate. Such corpora can be exceedingly large (hundreds of millions of words upwards), or may be drawn from specialized data sources. Tagged corpora are an improvement on plain text, but they are rather limited. Grammar is fundamentally structural (see Chapter 23). Word and word class sequences are mean­ ingful in the context of structural grammatical relationships. It follows that corpora with the greatest potential benefit for grammarians are likely to be those where every sen­ tence has been given a full grammatical tree analysis. Creating this kind of parsed corpus (also known as a ‘treebank’) is difficult and time-con­ suming, and consequently resources tend to be smaller: typically, a million words or so. Opting to parse a corpus means selecting a particular framework and applying it consis­ tently across diverse naturally-occurring data. Which scheme should we choose? (p. 60) Once selected, are future researchers constrained by our parsing decisions? How do we apply the scheme consistently? We discuss these questions in this chapter. Corpora have been used to study, inter alia, semantics, syntax, morphology, and pragmat­ ics. The distinction between applying categorical labels (‘tagging’) and specifying struc­ tural relationships (‘parsing’) is extensible to other linguistic levels. Indeed, a richly anno­ tated corpus might allow frameworks to be related. For example, pragmatic analysis might apply speech act categories (such as ‘request’ or ‘assertion’) to main clauses inde­ pendently categorized by structural type (such as ‘interrogative’ or ‘declarative’: see Chapter 18). Researchers have approached natural language text data at multiple levels, in different ways, with various software tools. This combination of purposes, approaches, and tools falls within the scope of the methodology of corpus linguistics. This chapter does not at­ tempt a complete review of tools, or to enumerate the broad range of fields of enquiry, from stylistics to social geography and pedagogy, to which corpus linguistics methods have been applied. For such a review, see McEnery and Hardie (2012), O’Keefe and Mc­ Carthy (2012), or Biber and Reppen (2015). This chapter has a particular focus: which corpus linguistic methods are likely to be of the greatest benefit for the study of gram­ mar? Corpus linguistics has grown in popularity over the years, but not all linguists agree about the relevance of corpus data for their subject. Some, like John Sinclair (1992), ar­ gue that all linguistic knowledge resides in the text. Others, notably Noam Chomsky, have argued (see e.g., Aarts 2001) that corpus data represents at most a collection of perfor­ mances and epiphenomena, the study of which tells us little about the internal linguistic processes that give rise to grammar. Corpus linguistic data has important strengths and weaknesses for the grammarian. Al­ though corpora can be drawn from a wide range of sources, most corpora are construct­ ed from daily life rather than artificial contexts, and responses are not cued artificially by a researcher. Corpus data is raw primary data, unselected by linguistic introspection. The Page 2 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology task of the corpus linguist is to use linguistic insight to interpret this data after it has been collected. In this chapter, I argue that the optimum position for grammatical researchers is at the intersection of linguistic theory and corpus data analysis. This means working with gram­ matically annotated corpora, while recognizing that the annotation is based on a neces­ sarily partial knowledge of grammar. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 4.2 considers what a corpus could potential­ ly tell us about language—the classes of evidence that corpus linguistics can offer a gram­ matical researcher. Armed with these distinctions, the next section returns to the Chom­ sky–Sinclair dichotomy outlined above. In section 4.4 the proposed solution is further sub­ divided into levels of knowledge and process. This set of distinctions allows us to relate different grammatical research programmes with corpora, including top-down corpus parsing, cyclic treebank exploration, and bot­ tom-up clustering. To conclude, I discuss how corpus research raises practical problems of experimental design and analysis.

4.2 What types of evidence can a corpus of­ fer a linguist? (p. 61)

Corpus linguistics arrived late to the grammar party. Corpus linguists tend to date the ad­ vent of their field with the compilation of the Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English (popularly known as the ‘Brown Corpus’; Kučera and Francis 1967). This was followed by the Survey of English Usage Corpus of spoken and written British English (the ‘Quirk Corpus’), begun on paper in 1959, the spoken part of which was pub­ lished electronically in 1990 as the London-Lund Corpus. What made these corpora different from simple collections of texts was a focus on scale and sampling. Firstly, these corpora were substantial collections of naturally occurring text samples. They were of the order of a million words—small by today’s standards, but larger than contemporaneous resources. Secondly, they were consciously collected with the aim of creating a representative sample of the relevant English language variety. Gen­ eralizations from such a sample might be said to be ‘representative of the language’, or more precisely, a well-defined subset of it. The novel contribution of corpora lay not in their being a source of natural-language ex­ amples. Indeed, linguists had long drawn insight from, and accounted for, real-world ex­ amples. Thus in 1909, Otto Jespersen wrote ‘I have tried…to go to the sources them­ selves, and have taken as few facts and as few theories as possible at second hand’ (Jespersen 1909–1949, I: VI). Pre-corpus sources tended to be limited to the library of a particular grammarian, the Bible, or the works of Chaucer or Shakespeare.

Page 3 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology Moreover, from a grammatical perspective, representativeness has one major drawback. Test cases that expose theoretical distinctions between analyses may be too infrequent to be found in a typical corpus. Constructing artificial conditions to elicit examples from speakers may be a more effective approach (see Chapter 3). The benefits of a corpus for grammatical theory lie elsewhere. There are three types of evidence that may be obtained from a corpus (Wallis 2014; see Figure 4.1), which can ap­ ply to many different linguistic phenomena. These phenomena, instances of which we will term a ‘linguistic event’, x, might be (for example) an individual lexeme, a group of words, a prosodic pattern, a grammatical construction, a speech act, or any configuration of these, such as a question speech act employing a rising tone. The three types of evidence are factual evidence (event x took place, written ‘Exists(x)’), frequency evidence (x occurs ‘f(x)’ times), and interaction evidence (x tends (not) to co-occur with another event y).

Figure 4.1 Three types of evidence: left, factual evi­ dence: event x is found in a corpus; middle, frequen­ cy evidence: x is distributed in the corpus by frequen­ cy; and right, interaction evidence: y co-occurs with x more/less often than chance would predict

Factual evidence is simply evidence that an event occurred in the corpus, i.e., it was ex­ pressed at some point in the past. One application of this is the identification of novel events not predicted by a framework, discussed in 4.2.1 below. Corpus linguistics is most strongly associated with frequency evidence. A single ob­ served frequency, f(x), is an observation that a linguistic event appears in a corpus a cer­ tain number of times. More useful is a frequency distribution: a set of frequencies of related events. Thus the first application of the Brown Corpus was a word frequen­ cy list and set of distributional analyses, Kučera and Francis (1967). (p. 62)

Distributions allow researchers to compare related frequencies. For example: the word pretty is conventionally considered first as an adjective in dictionaries.1 However, Nelson et al. (2002: 233) report that in the British Component of the International Corpus of Eng­ lish (ICE-GB), pretty is found 85 per cent of the time (112 times out of 132) as an adverb.2 Another type of frequency distribution might reveal variation in the frequency or rate of the same phenomenon over a sociolinguistic contrast, such as genre, speaker gender, or time (see e.g., Chapter 27).

Page 4 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology The third type of evidence is interaction evidence. These are observations that two events tend (or tend not) to be found together, sometimes referred to as ‘association’, ‘at­ traction’, or ‘co-location’ statistics. This evidence is interesting because if two apparently independent events coincide more frequently than expected, there may be a deeper con­ nection between them. It is also possible to find evidence of negative association or ‘hor­ ror aequi’ (Rohdenburg 2003: 236). We discuss interaction evidence in 4.2.2.

4.2.1 Factual evidence and the validation of frameworks When corpora are constructed, one of the first tasks of the compilers is to choose a framework and completely annotate the corpus with it. In a tagged corpus, every word must be classified, including novel words, i.e. words that have not previously been given a word class. Thus if we applied a scheme developed with a standard language source to a corpus of regional dialect speech we might find words with no agreed classification, which a human linguist would need to determine. The same principle extends to parsing or any other framework. A corpus can be used to validate a framework through a process of identifying ‘gaps’ and encouraging reappraisal of the scheme. First, the corpus is subjected to an an­ notation process, e.g. the texts are tagged and parsed. Second, a search process is ap­ plied to the entire corpus to identify unannotated cases. (p. 63)

Let us take a real example. Quirk et al.’s (1985: 54) transitivity framework describes the following complementation patterns:

Quirk et al. offer My mother enjoys parties (where parties is a direct object) as a mono­ transitive pattern. The vast majority of SVO patterns (64,482 in ICE-GB) are of this type. Yet in parsing ICE-GB, the compilers found some 271 clauses where the single object was an indirect object, like she told me (cf. ditransitive she told me a story, with indirect object + direct object). They had two options: • Create a new category. The ICE-GB team decided to create a new ‘dimonotransi­ tive’ type for these patterns. The distinction between direct and indirect objects was considered sufficiently important to be recorded as a transitivity feature. • Modify an existing category to include the novel pattern. A literal reading of Quirk et al. might treat ‘monotransitive’ as encompassing all single-object complementation patterns: she told me is monotransitive. Alternatively, perhaps she told me is consid­ ered to have an ellipted direct object, in which case we might argue it is ditransitive. Irrespective of which approach is taken, the distinction is not recorded as a transitivity feature.

Page 5 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology The process of incorporating novel events into a framework is not merely one of applying a label, but one of grammatical argumentation (see Chapter 2). Contrast this process with the ad hoc classification of novel examples without a corpus. The non-corpus linguist, initially at least, finds a single unexplained example. However, it can be difficult to determine a single differentiating factor from just one case, or to de­ cide if the instance is simply anomalous. Obtaining further attested examples of infre­ quent phenomena requires exhaustive manual reading. It is commonly said that a corpus cannot tell us what is impossible in a language. Corpora do tell us what is possible—occasionally, contrary to our expectations. Validating frame­ works against data makes them empirically more robust, so the probability of finding new novel events in the future tends to decline.

4.2.2 Interaction evidence Interaction evidence is rarely discussed in corpus linguistics textbooks. It is empirical evi­ dence that theoretically independent events actually tend (or tend not) to co-occur. (p. 64) This evidence is relevant to grammarians at both abstraction and analysis levels (see 4.4). Interaction evidence may be associative (bi-directional) or directional. The simplest type is associative. Consider two events, x and y, assumed to arise independently, each with probabilities p(x) and p(y). The expected joint probability (the chance that they will co-oc­ cur independently) is simply the product, p(x) × p(y). We measure the observed rate of cooccurrence, p(x ∧ y), and compare figures with a statistical test. The result is a statistical correlation that can occur for a variety of reasons. This principle is used in many comput­ er algorithms, from part of speech tagging and probabilistic parsing to collocation analy­ sis. It can also be used in interaction experiments (see section 4.5.3). Collocation analysis (see also section 4.4.5 below) finds word pairs tending to co-occur (co-locate) next to each other. In the British National Corpus (BNC), askance tends to be immediately preceded by the lemma LOOK. The chance of a word being look, looks, looked, or looking jumps up dramatically if the next word is askance. This example is directional. The probability that askance is preceded by LOOK is around 65 per cent in the BNC (LOOK askance is idiomatic). This is far greater than the probabil­ ity that LOOK is followed by askance, which is around 0.03 per cent (LOOK is much more likely followed by up, forward, etc).3 Directionality is taken further in word class tagging algorithms. These use transition probabilities, p(y | x), ‘the probability of y given x’. A training algorithm analyses a previ­ ously tagged corpus and creates a database, which is then used by a tagging algorithm to tag new texts.

Page 6 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology Let us take a simple example. In ICE-GB the word work appears 982 times: 288 times as a verb and 694 times (70 per cent) as a noun. This is a frequency distribution. However, if work is immediately preceded by an article, the chance of work being a noun jumps to 100 per cent. (In all 115 cases of article + work in ICE-GB, work is a noun.) We can col­ lect an interaction distribution of transition probabilities from the corpus, and use it to make tagging decisions in the future, thus:

Page 7 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology article

the work

115

out of 115

preposition

to work

adjective

recent work

137

138

(99 per cent)

adverb

presently work

4

30

(13 per cent)

149

149

(100 per cent) (100 per cent)

…

Page 8 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology Note how adverbs predict the opposite outcome, i.e. twenty-six times out of thirty, work is a verb. Events x and y need not be adjacent for interaction evidence to be derived, merely found in the same text. The exact relationship depends on the research question. The same principle can be used to study grammatical priming using a corpus (Gries 2005). In this model, events x and y are instances of the same grammatical structure (Speaker A says x, and ‘primes’ Speaker B to say y later on), potentially separated by many utter­ ances. (p. 65)

Patterns of interaction may arise for several reasons. Some co-occurrence tendencies are due to a grammatical relationship, such as the known relationships between articles, ad­ jectives, and nouns illustrated above. Others may be due to psycholinguistic processes of attention and memory operating on grammatical rules (Wallis 2019). However, interaction can also arise for more trivial reasons: a text concerns a particular topic (Church 2000), or patterns reflect semantic associations and idioms. What at first sight appears to be grammatical ‘priming’ may be mere lexical repetition. Detecting pat­ terns is only a starting point. We may need multiple experiments to distinguish plausible causes. Frequency and interaction evidence are open to statistical inference. If the corpus is rep­ resentative of the language from which it is drawn, and instances are drawn from many participants and texts, it becomes possible to argue that detected preferences are not due to an individual writer or speaker but are typical of the language community. We can make sound statistical claims about the population of sentences from which the corpus is drawn.

4.3 Approaches to corpus research Commonly, a contrast is drawn between ‘corpus-based’ and ‘corpus-driven’ linguists (Tognini-Bonelli 2001). A corpus-based linguist is one whose research is primarily theoret­ ical, who uses a corpus for exemplification and hypothesis-testing. For them, a corpus is a source of knowledge about grammar that must be interpreted by theory. While widely used, the term ‘corpus-based’ is far too general. It includes any linguist who uses a corpus but does not claim to rely on corpus data exclusively, i.e. a corpus linguist who is not ‘corpus-driven’. This seems unsatisfactory. There are many possible approaches to research, ranging from an extreme theory-driven approach that avoids corpus data (typified by Chomsky) to an extreme corpus-driven one that sees all theory as inevitably incorrect (typified by Sin­ clair). Instead of ‘corpus-based’ versus ‘corpus-driven’, it is clearer to say there is a con­ tinuum of corpus research perspectives between ‘theory-driven’ and ‘corpus-driven’ poles. Page 9 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology

4.3.1 Corpus-driven linguistics ‘Corpus-driven’ linguists argue against what they perceive as a necessarily selective ap­ proach to the corpus. John Sinclair (1992) objected that the grammatical tradition of (p. 66) top-down research (with or without a corpus) resulted in a plurality of grammatical frameworks with no agreed way to select between them. Corpus-based linguists are vul­ nerable to research bias. They discover what they expect to find and explain away coun­ terevidence as ‘performance errors’. ‘Research’ is reduced to categorizing data under a pre-existing theory, rather than an attempt to critically engage with theories. Consider the ‘dimonotransitive’ verb category we discussed earlier. The compilers of ICEGB did not overturn the category of transitivity, but extended it to account for problemat­ ic examples. Sinclair’s point is that corpus-based researchers tend to ‘patch’ their frame­ work rather than reconstruct it from first principles—and risk reappraisal of their previ­ ous research. Corpus-driven linguists adopt a different starting point. Research should start from the plain text, and researchers should derive theoretical generalizations from the corpus it­ self. Let us make a minimum set of assumptions and see where this takes us. We can har­ ness computational power to process many millions of words and identify new generaliza­ tions.4 Sinclair’s achievement was the construction of the proprietary Bank of EnglishTM corpus of over 650 million words, and a grammatical framework (published as the Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (1987) and Collins COBUILD English Grammar (1990)) that his team reportedly compiled ‘bottom-up’ from the corpus. However, the COBUILD project raises an obvious objection. If it is possible to obtain a grammatical framework from a corpus, how should we refine or extend this grammar? Are we obliged to start again (as true corpus-driven linguists), or may we take this work as a starting point, thereby incorporating generalizations found in the first stage as theo­ retical assumptions for the next? But if we adopt the latter course, are we not becoming corpus-based?

4.3.2 Theory-driven linguistics Probably the most famous example of a theory-driven position is found in Noam Chomsky’s comments on corpus linguistics (Aarts 2001, Chomsky 2002). His explanation of corpus evidence as ultimately constituting evidence of performance, rather than indi­ rect evidence of some kind of internalized language faculty, might appear to place him outside of corpus linguistics altogether.5 Linguistics is then principally an exercise in de­ duction (see Chapter 2). Nonetheless, many linguists strongly influenced by Chomsky’s theories have engaged with corpus evidence (e.g., Wasow 2001). Instead of starting with a corpus and generalizing upwards, they have attempted to test hypotheses against cor­ pus data.

Page 10 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology The principal point of reference for a top-down, theory-driven researcher is their theoreti­ cal framework. Corpus data is interpreted by the theory, so contrary evidence (p. 67) could be interpreted as epiphenomena and exceptions, or even ignored.6 It is ultimately not possible to formally disprove a theory by this method. Yet a key goal of all science lies in attempting to improve theories. We have already seen how a corpus can identify phenomena unanticipated by a grammatical framework. Using a corpus, is it possible to identify and test the kinds of theoretical predictions that might cause us to choose between competing frameworks?

4.3.3 Transcending the dichotomy The resolution of the two positions—‘theory-driven’ and ‘corpus-driven’—starts with the following observation: neither extreme is necessary. Instead, we can agree that any cur­ rent linguistic theory is almost certainly incorrect, but a theory is necessary to make progress—including identifying where it fails. In other sciences, theories are understood to be necessarily partial—indeed, potentially untrue and misleading—but also a necessary part of the scientific process (Putnam 1974). It is not possible to avoid ‘theory’, thus compiling a word list requires us to define a ‘word’. If theories are unavoidable, we must state their assumptions. See also Chapter 2. All theories include auxiliary assumptions, i.e. assumptions outside of the theory proper that are necessary to obtain data. Thus, in astrophysics, one cannot directly measure the chemical composition of stars. Instead researchers collect spectrographs, where each light ‘spike’ matches the characteristic wavelength of a fluorescing atom. But this raw da­ ta is further distorted by Doppler shifts (due to the star moving relative to the viewer), bent by gravity, etc. Auxiliary assumptions are found in calculations to calibrate equip­ ment and interpret measurements. How are observations ultimately interpreted? By comparing spectrographs from distant and local stars, and by relating observations to an overall theory of stellar decay: in short, by comparing expected and observed results and making sense of what remains. More­ over, a systematic difference between expectation and observation can obtain indirect ob­ servations, i.e. observations that cannot be perceived directly but may be inferred by an­ other observed effect. Famously, Pluto was first detected by perturbations (wobbles) in the orbit of Uranus.7 Naïve falsification (Lakatos 1970), where hypotheses are rejected on a single piece of counterevidence, is unusual in science (the exception being fields obliged to have a low tolerance for error, such as clinical trials). Counterevidence may even be revelatory. Rather, progress is often made by triangulation, that is, support for a position builds up when multiple independent approaches tend to converge on the same conclusion, and (p. 68) by competition between alternative theories to explain observations. In short, Lakatos (1970) and Kuhn (1977) argue, parallel research programmes co-exist and

Page 11 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology progress to a certain point, whereupon the dominant theory fails to explain new phenom­ ena or is supplanted by a more effective theory. What does this mean for linguistics? Since neither theory nor data can be dispensed with, extreme top-down and bottom-up positions are untenable. Instead, linguists should adopt a position where corpus data and linguistic theory are engaged in a critical dialogue or di­ alectic: testing the theory against the corpus while enriching the corpus theoretically to make sense of data. Researchers must commit to a particular theoretical framework (al­ beit temporarily) to make progress. Finally, if all theories are necessarily partial, then we must transcend the corpus-driven/ theory-driven dichotomy by a cyclic methodology.8 Knowledge ultimately derives from the attempt to explain data by theory. But researchers can work from the data up, or from the theory down, as the need arises.

4.4 Tools and algorithms for corpus research Modern corpus linguistics could not exist without computation, and a mini-industry of tools and algorithms, ‘toolkits’ and platforms, has grown up alongside corpora. Some tools help build and annotate corpora; others explore existing corpora. Some tools, such as automatic taggers and parsers, perform different tasks. Others, like automatic parsers and manual tree editors, perform comparable tasks with different methods. To make sense of diverse algorithms and approaches we need finer distinctions than ‘topdown’ and ‘bottom-up’. Wallis and Nelson (2001) propose a 3A perspective in corpus lin­ guistics. This identifies three processes that generalize from raw text to linguistic hypoth­ esis: ‘annotation’, ‘abstraction’, and ‘analysis’. Figure 4.2 summarizes the idea.

Page 12 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology

Figure 4.2 The 3A perspective in corpus linguistics (after Wallis and Nelson 2001)

The 3A model is fundamentally cyclic. Each process is capable of upward and downward application. Thus ‘annotation’ is usually considered top-down (applying a framework to text), but, as we observed in 4.2.1, detecting novel elements in a text may generate new terms in a scheme, bottom-up. The model also identifies three more general knowledge layers above the source text. These are the ‘corpus’ (text enriched with annotation); ‘dataset’ (example set extracted from the corpus); and ‘hypothesis space’ (set of hypotheses testable on the dataset). Abstraction (and its reverse, ‘concretization’) maps abstract terms to particular examples in the annotated corpus. Consider a linguist concerned with investigating verb phrase complexity. She uses a concept of a ‘complex verb phrase’, possibly graded by complexity. Her notion of complexity is theory-laden and is not represented in (p. 69) the annotation. However, she can translate it into queries (Wallis 2008; see also section 4.4.4) applicable to the annotated corpus. Abstraction performs a crucial task: mapping specific, concrete example structures, pat­ terns or elements in observed sentences to general conceptual terms. Like annotation, these concepts form part of a systematic framework, but this framework belongs to the researcher, not the annotator. Usually researchers wish to extract examples of a set of linguistic events, rather than a single one. Multiple related queries are typically required, so abstraction should also col­ lect data together in a dataset amenable to analysis, for example to determine if variable X and Y interact.

Page 13 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology The final stage, Analysis, is a process of evaluating this abstracted dataset for generaliza­ tions (‘hypotheses’ in the experimental paradigm).9 A single hypothesis, such as ‘spoken data contains a lower proportion of complex VPs than written data’, can be tested against the dataset, or multiple hypotheses may be evaluated together. Analysis can also be cyclic. The results of one experiment may trigger further refinements of the research de­ sign. The 3A model contains six process arcs—three up, three down—and four levels of linguis­ tic knowledge (see Figure 4.2). Different algorithms (taggers, collocation analysers, search tools, etc.) operate on one or more of these arcs.10 The same principle applies to manual processes under a linguist’s direct control, such as browsing examples and intuit­ ing new concepts and queries. Conceiving of corpus linguistics in this way has two advantages. First, it allows us to integrate different tools in a single platform and identify tools performing parallel tasks. Second, it offers options to linguists who might otherwise fail to see a way forward. For example, analysis software may generate impressive visualizations, but if the linguist has no access to the underlying sentences they cannot verify patterns. Which set of sen­ tences does a datapoint reflect? Are results genuine or an artefact? What follow-up exper­ (p. 70)

iments are necessary to further distinguish hypotheses? Only by returning to the corpus and the original sentences is it possible to find the underpinning of analytical results. Re­ turning to the source data should not be a mere afterthought. The following sections exemplify this perspective. We discuss concordancing in section 4.4.1, lexical search in 4.4.2, parsing in 4.4.3, software for exploring parsed corpora in 4.4.4, and bottom-up exploratory methods in 4.4.5.

4.4.1 Concordancing tools As corpora have grown, the need for specialized software has also grown. Although some early corpora, such as the Quirk Corpus, were built without computers, the benefits of computerization soon became obvious. Initially, corpus developers tended to use existing computer programmes, such as standard text editing software and databases, to con­ struct early corpora. The first set of software tools developed specifically for corpus linguistics were concor­ dancing tools. Popular current examples include AntConc (Anthony 2005) and WordSmith (Scott 2012). ‘Concordancing’ originated in Bible studies, where citations of words in con­ text were deployed in theological discussions. Key Word In Context (KWIC) concordances display the results of a corpus search—a par­ ticular word, morpheme, part-of-speech tag, etc.—in their immediate source sentence context. A simple search for a word can generate a large set of results for a researcher to browse.

Page 14 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology Concordancing is a bottom-up exploratory technique par excellence. A simple search can uncover patterns of use ‘emerging’ from the text by exposing contrasts in a set of exam­ ples. Compare the concordance view in Figure 4.3 to the conventional ‘literary’ way we consider language in a narrative context where contrasts with other examples are un­ available. Figure 4.3 reveals that in the ICE-GB text ‘S1A-012’, school is often prefigured by boy’s, girl’s, local or boarding—a fact that is immediately apparent, but might not be guessed by simply reading the text.

Figure 4.3 Example of a Key Word in Context con­ cordance for the lexical item school in ICE-GB, show­ ing adjacent word class labels

(p. 71)

4.4.2 Lexical-grammatical search in tagged corpora

To perform deeper research, we must exploit linguistic distinctions. In the introduction I suggested that a parsed corpus (or ‘treebank’) offered the greatest opportunities for grammatical research. The dominant movement in corpus linguistics has been to compile ever-larger word-classtagged corpora. The 650 million-word Bank of English is a fraction of the commercial Collins Corpus of 6.5 billion words. Mark Davies has compiled and published several mul­ ti-million word corpora totalling 1.9 billion words and growing (see https://www.englishcorpora.org). Although these corpora are not parsed, it is possible to perform searches for small phras­ es and clauses using sequences of word class tags and words. This method combines the benefits of large corpora with a ‘quasi-parsing’ approach using search strings and careful review. But we cannot guarantee to accurately find all examples. Thus, using the tagged Corpus of Historical American English (COHA), Bowie and Wallis (2016) employed a search string to find examples of the to-infinitival perfect (as in to have forgotten) occurring as complement of a preceding governing verb (as in SEEM to have forgotten). The search pattern ‘, to, have, ’ finds cases like seems to have forgotten and [was] considered to have begun, but excludes others. For instance, noun phrases of varying length can appear between some governing verbs and the particle to, as in considers [the space race] to have begun. Without parsing, ex­ tensive manual analysis is the only way to reliably identify such examples: additional Page 15 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology search strings can be devised to allow for varying numbers of intervening words, but these retrieve numerous ‘false positives’ (instances of irrelevant structures). (p. 72)

4.4.3 Corpus annotation and parsing

Parsing is a considerably more complex problem than tagging. Briscoe (1997) estimated that automatic parsing algorithms correctly parse English sentences approximately 75 per cent of the time. Performance has improved since then, however. Chen and Manning (2014) cite a 92 per cent success rate for certain types of parse decisions for the Stanford Parser. Word class tagging algorithms achieve a 5 per cent error rate for English, which we might accept, but even a 10 per cent parsing error rate is not tolerable for linguistic purposes. The errors are likely to include interesting problems, like the dimonotransitive (see section 4.2.1), and to vary depending on scheme complexity and variation of input sentences. Even with improved parser performance, we should expect to perform consid­ erable linguistic review and hand-annotation. Since their goal is to obtain a better parsing algorithm, natural language processing (NLP) researchers treat their algorithm and database as primary. The corpus is simply test data. Improvement occurs by modifying the algorithm and re-testing it against the corpus. Correcting the corpus seems irrelevant to improving algorithms. When developing a treebank corpus, the cost of hand-correcting parsing is substantial. However, the exercise has benefits. We have already seen how completing the annotation of a corpus can validate and extend a framework. ‘Corpus parsing’ is not merely an exer­ cise in applying a theoretical description to language data, but a cyclic exercise causing the framework to be validated and revised (Leech and Garside 1991; Wallis and Nelson 1997). The parsing-and-correction process obtains a corrected treebank, where each tree has been comprehensively reviewed by multiple linguists.11 These trees contain a set of ‘situ­ ated parsing decisions’, i.e. decisions about how best to analyse this sentence in this context. Errors will exist, but they are less likely to be systematic than errors obtained by deterministic parsing algorithms. This is an important criterion when it comes to statisti­ cal analysis (see section 4.5): we want to know about the grammar of sentences, not merely the performance of the parser. Once we have decided to parse a corpus, we next must decide on the annotation scheme and how it should be applied to sentences. • Which framework should we choose? Whereas there is a certain consensus in word class definitions (see Chapter 14), linguists have adopted many different frame­ works to describe grammatical relationships. • Can we avoid methodological ‘over-commitment’, i.e. that a corpus parsed with Framework X compromises research in Framework Y? The answer must involve ab­

Page 16 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology straction, mapping terms in the researcher’s Framework Y to terms in Framework X. We discuss a solution in section 4.4.4 below. • What should be done with missing elements, such as ellipted subjects, verbless clauses, and incomplete sentences? The approach taken to the last question depends in part on whether we consider annotation from a ‘top-down’ or ‘bottom-up’ perspective. If we believe that a particular theoretical internal language is primary, and missing elements are considered to be per­ formance errors, we might insert ‘null elements’ (Marcus et al. 1993: 321) or ‘hallucinat­ ed’ entities ‘recovered from the context’. (p. 73)

In the spirit of being true to the data (bottom-up), many corpus linguists have tended not to introduce implied content. Superfluous elements such as self-corrected words and ‘slips of the tongue’, common in conversation, are often marked out by annotation (cf. struck-out ‘which’ in Figure 4.3). Not all ellipsis involves single words. Natural language, especially conversational lan­ guage, includes grammatically incomplete utterances as well as complete ones (see Chap­ ter 30). Consider this dialogue sequence from ICE-GB. B:

Didn’t there used to be deer in Richmond Park?

A:

There still are. [S1A-006 #230, 232]

A’s ‘clause fragment’ appears perfectly intelligible to B (and readers). The conversation continues without recapitulation or repair. If we wished to insist on identifying the ‘miss­ ing’ elements of the structure, A’s fragment would need further annotation, e.g., by link­ ing to the relevant material in the previous sentence (deer in Richmond Park), or insert­ ing some.12

4.4.4 Grammatical exploration with ICECUP Tools for working with parsed corpora are relatively rare (see Wallis 2008 for a discus­ sion). The International Corpus of English Corpus Utility Program (ICECUP, Nelson et al. 2002) is a ‘corpus workbench’ (a suite of closely connected tools on a single software platform) designed for parsed corpora. It is not the only search tool (notable search tools currently include CorpusSearch (Randall 2005–2007) and TigerSearch (König et al. 2003)), but it is arguably the most integrated platform of its type. Central to ICECUP is a query representation called a Fuzzy Tree Fragment (FTF): a dia­ grammatic representation of a grammatical query. It consists of information about gram­ matical nodes and/or words, and their possible structural relationships in the tree. A re­ searcher constructs an FTF like the one in Figure 4.4, and ICECUP uses it to find multiple matching examples in the corpus. Results may be concordanced (Figure 4.5), so that each

Page 17 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology example structure is highlighted and aligned visually. If the FTF matches more than once in the same sentence, each matching case is highlighted on a separate line.

Figure 4.4 A Fuzzy Tree Fragment for an adjective phrase (AJP) containing a general adjective head (AJHD, ADJ(ge)) with at least one premodifier (AJPR) and one postmodifier (AJPO). Black lines and arrows mean that elements are immediately connected to each other; white lines mean that they are eventually connected. (For reasons of space, trees are typically drawn left-to-right. See also Figure 4.6.)

Figure 4.5 A simple grammatical concordance: high­ lighted constructions in ICE-GB, such as quite happy to meet you, match the FTF in Figure 4.4

The benefits of a visual representation of a ‘tree fragment’ (rather than, say, a logical ex­ pression) are threefold. First, the FTF appears as a coherent, intuitive whole. Second, (p. 74) the tree metaphor helps us identify how it matches part of a particular tree and sentence, helping researchers refine their queries (see Figure 4.6). Third, users can build an FTF from a tree. They select nodes they want the FTF to match, and make some sim­ ple choices in a ‘Wizard’ tool to form the FTF. This combination—a visual representation that maps from query to tree, a user in­ terface that makes search results easy to browse, plus algorithms working in the back­ ground—produces an exploratory research platform that allows researchers to explore the rich parse annotation in the corpus and carry out experiments. (p. 75)

Page 18 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology

Figure 4.6 Examining any line in the concordance displays the sentence and phrase structure tree, showing how the FTF matches a tree in the corpus. In this case the adjective phrase premodifier is real­ ized by the adverb phrase quite, the head by the ad­ jective happy, and the postmodifier by the subordi­ nate clause to meet you13

What about the risk of ‘over-commitment’ noted earlier? Are ICE-GB users committed to the Quirk et al. (1985) grammar? Must they learn every last detail? ICECUP addresses this problem by an exploration cycle (Nelson et al. 2002: 85). Users of­ ten begin with a text search or by browsing part of the corpus; find a construction of the type they are interested in; and then use the tree to create an initial FTF. The linguist does not have to ‘agree’ with the grammatical framework used: the parse analysis is sim­ ply ‘a handle on the data’ (Wallis 2014). Strictly, this exploration cycle combines the bottom pair of cycles in Figure 4.2 (abstraction and annotation). In practice, exploration often consists of the abstraction cy­ cle, i.e. annotation is taken as given. Occasionally, new annotation may be required. Thus Aarts et al. (2013) ultimately subdivided cases of modal verbs will and shall into semantic subcategories Epistemic and Root. We must be able to add distinctions if required. (p. 76)

4.4.5 Bottom-up generalization algorithms

Many linguists, particularly computational linguists, have used computation to automati­ cally identify common (high-frequency) and ‘statistically interesting’ (closely associated) patterns in annotated text. These inductive algorithms abstract patterns in data to the point where we might consider whether they represent a new concept we might have missed. Here we briefly discuss some automatic methods relevant to grammarians. Lexicons. Compiling a lexicon from a corpus requires a computer algorithm to create an index for every word, every combination of word and word class tag, then combinations with morphological stems, stress patterns, etc. This process generates a vast amount of frequency information. Due to the computational effort involved, indexing is performed first and the results are explored with an interface. For example, ICECUP’s lexicon (Nelson et al. 2002: 206) makes use of indexes compiled when the corpus was created. The interface lets a re­ Page 19 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology searcher limit the lexicon to nouns, words matching a wild card, etc. The interface selects and aggregates terms where necessary. The same approach can be extended to grammat­ ical nodes (ICECUP has a ‘grammaticon’ tool). Collocations. The idea of a collocation (see also section 4.2.2) is almost as old as corpus linguistics itself, and simply means ‘a sequence of words or terms which tend to co-occur more frequently than would be expected by chance’ (interaction evidence). Popular tools include AntConc (Anthony 2005) and WordSmith (Scott 2012). Collocations have obvious value to language learners or researchers in semantics, and the list of examples obtained from a corpus is much broader than published idiom lists. Using business or legal English corpora, collocation can generate domain-specific lists.14 Pairs of words may collocate for different reasons. They may represent a specific concept whose meaning is idiomatically given by the entire string (e.g. small businessman). Collo­ cation did not originally depend on grammatical distinctions: rather, the method might re­ veal grammatical patterning in the text (corpus-driven linguists would say they ‘emerge’ from the corpus). Typical two-word collocations adhere to the pattern ‘adjective + noun’ (e.g., high street, primary school), or ‘verb + particle’ (e.g., found out, i.e. ‘phrasal verbs’), etc. This type of algorithm may be directed by a search word and a ‘slot’ to be filled (a gap be­ fore or after the search term): for example, to search for collocations of the form ‘X + school’, or ‘found + X’. A variation of this approach, sometimes termed colligation, is a collocation restricted by word class tag, such as ‘adjective + school’ or ‘found + particle’, and operates on a tagged corpus. N-grams. Stubbs and Barth (2003) proposed a kind of cluster analysis to detect high-fre­ quency sequences of words, termed n-grams. A variation of this approach, phrase (p. 77) frames, permits some of the word ‘slots’ to be filled by a particular word. The Phrases in English website (http://phrasesinenglish.org) allows researchers to retrieve n-grams from the British National Corpus (BNC). The four top trigrams found are: I don’t

36,863 instances

one of the

35,273

the end of

20,998

part of the

16,444

These are frequent, but not very interesting!15 Stubbs and Barth comment that these n-grams are not (grammatical) linguistic units, but may ‘provide evidence which helps the analyst to identify linguistic units’. In other words,

Page 20 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology results need human interpretation. They may be useful triggers for grammatical insight, but they must be related to a theory. Collostructions. A promising approach that attempts to introduce grammatical concepts into an abstraction process is collostructional analysis (Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003). Collocation does not exploit grammatical information except (in the case of colligation) at a word class level. Without structural constraints the method can generate ‘false posi­ tives’ that skew results. In multi-word sequences there is a greater chance of ‘false nega­ tives’, i.e. cases not found due to the presence of an intermediate word or phrase in sen­ tences. Collostructions attempt to avoid this. They extend the idea of collocations to a range of constructions,16 such as [N waiting to happen], identifying ‘result’ arguments of cause, and so on. In a corpus annotated for transitivity (usually, a parsed corpus), it is possible to configure a collostruction search which ranks verbs by the extent to which they would be most typically found in the ditransitive construction. Like collocation, collostruction uses ‘attraction’ measures (interaction evidence) rather than simple frequency. The authors’ algorithm therefore rates potential slot-filling lex­ emes (e.g. N = accident, disaster, earthquake, etc. for [N waiting to happen]) by the prob­ ability that they appeared in the specified slot by chance, estimated with Fisher’s exact test.17 A tool that brings many of these inductive algorithms together is SketchEngine (Kilgariff et al. 2014). SketchEngine is the prince of bottom-up exploratory tools18 or the ultimate dictionary creator, depending on your perspective. This tool brings many (p. 78) explorato­ ry algorithms together in a single platform, focused around the idea of a ‘word sketch’. Word sketches are a ‘one-page summary of a word’s grammatical and collocational be­ haviour’. The core algorithm can be thought of as a super-lexicon entry generator, exploit­ ing automatic lemmatization, tagging, and parsing algorithms. Since no human interven­ tion is employed, misanalysis occurs, hence the method is exploratory. A verb sketch might include the most frequently co-occurring subjects and objects, co-or­ dinated terms, phrasal prepositions, etc. Kilgariff et al. (2014) use the example of the verb lemma CATCH: in an illustrative corpus, the object identified as the most strongly associated collocate is glimpse; the most frequent, eye.19 Of necessity this brief selection cannot do justice to the full range of computational ab­ straction methods. All these methods obtain results derived from interaction and frequen­ cy evidence, and these results must be interpreted theoretically.

Page 21 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology

4.5 Experimental corpus linguistics Experimental corpus linguistics travels in the opposite direction from the inductive meth­ ods of the previous section: testing an explicit hypothesis framed by a theory against cor­ pus data. The process includes the formal ‘analysis’ process (primarily working top-down, but occasionally bottom-up) in Figure 4.2. Unlike data from a lab experiment, a corpus is not constructed to specifically test particu­ lar hypotheses. We cannot manipulate experimental conditions to collect new data, but must work with existing data. This is sometimes termed a ‘natural experiment’, or a post hoc analysis.20 In the following sections we will consider briefly the methodological issues raised by two types of corpus experiment. • A frequency experiment. The first type is common in corpus linguistics. It investi­ gates whether the frequency distribution of a lexical or grammatical variable changes over a sociolinguistic contrast. For illustration, we will borrow from Aarts et al. (2013), where the sociolinguistic variable is the binary choice: modal shall versus will in first person declarative contexts, as in I will/shall go to the park. In this diachronic study, the sociolinguistic contrast for comparing frequency distributions is time.21 (p. 79)

• An interaction experiment. The second type concerns the interaction be­

tween two lexical or grammatical variables. Some examples are given in Nelson et al. (2002: 273ff), and we provide a walk-through below. Some issues are common to both types of experiment. In this section, 4.5.1 deals with sampling and 4.5.2 the selection of a meaningful baseline. Section 4.5.3 considers interac­ tion experiments.

4.5.1 Sampling Corpora are sampled as whole or part-texts, according to a sampling frame that specifies numbers of words per text, and numbers of texts in each category. Most corpora are collected according to the idea of a balanced sample, i.e. the distribu­ tion of material has similar proportions in each category, or is in rough proportion with the perceived availability of material. A true random sample, on the other hand, would populate the corpus from potential sources purely at random. The advantage of the bal­ anced approach is that the corpus collector can aim for sufficient texts in any sub-sub-cat­ egory of the corpus to permit research in this subdomain. However, it is difficult to control this sampling process for other variables. Sociolinguists have tended to follow Labov (1966) in recommending stratified samples (sometimes called quota samples). The aim is to address two issues: including sufficient numbers of partici­ pants falling into specific sub-categories, and avoiding important variables being entan­ gled (e.g., so that male participants do not tend to be older than female ones).

Page 22 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology A stratified sample allows us to require that we have examples of, say, women’s scientific writing in the 1840s in our corpus. Maintaining strict independent partitions also can help differentiate variables in analysis. However, the more variables we include, the greater the number of combinations to be found and sampled, so ‘full’ stratification is rarely attainable. This raises an obvious question, namely: what if there is no data in a given intersection? Or what if it is extremely rare, and to include it would make the corpus unrepresentative? Principles of ‘representativeness’ and ‘inclusion’ pull in opposite directions (Wattam 2015). All corpora embody a compromise, because different research questions impose different requirements on data collection. So a corpus neatly stratified into sub-corpora of equal numbers of words may still generate a skewed sample, e.g. for expressions of obligation. We must accept that sampling is likely to be uneven, and try to address this in our analy­ sis methods (Gries 2015). Finally, unless we intend to investigate phenomena over the length of a text, a corpus containing many short texts is preferable to one with a few long texts. The reason is due to a problem known as case interaction (Wallis 2015)—the fact that datasets drawn from texts by queries are not actually a true random sample (the sample is not drawn (p. 80) such that each instance is from an independent random text). Multiple cases of a particu­ lar phenomenon may be found in the same text—even the same sentence (Nelson et al. 2002: 272). The more independent texts and participants, therefore, the better.22

4.5.2 Baselines and alternation A common methodological mistake in corpus linguistics arises when baselines are not considered (Wallis forthcoming). Indeed, researchers have traditionally ‘normalized’ fre­ quencies by quoting rates per word (or per thousand or million words). There are circum­ stances when this may be reasonable, but it is rarely optimal. Leech (2003) used the Brown family of corpora to investigate whether shall or will changed in frequency over time. In both US and British English, shall accounts for a smaller proportion of the number of words in the 1990s than in the 1960s data. In British English, modal will is almost constant. This method does not seem to support a claim that shall is being replaced by will, although intuitively this is what we would wish to deter­ mine. We must distinguish two levels of variation—variation in opportunity to use a modal auxil­ iary verb, and variation in the choice of modal when that opportunity arises. The optimum baseline identifies these opportunities.23

Page 23 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology Different baselines permit different research questions: • If we are interested in the potential to employ a modal verb, we might choose tensed verb phrases. The research question becomes ‘given a tensed VP, when is a modal em­ ployed?’ • If we are concerned with the variation of one modal verb amongst others, we might choose the set of all modals: ‘given that we use a modal, which do we choose and when?’ • In the case of shall versus will, the optimum baseline is simply the set of two modals {shall, will}, optionally extended to include ’ll (= will) and semi-modal BE going to. Defining baselines is not simply about identifying words. Ideally, we should try to limit da­ ta to where mutual replacement is possible. In the case of shall versus will, this meant re­ stricting data to positive, declarative first-person contexts (Aarts et al. 2013). To obtain this data required the use of a parsed corpus and FTFs (section 4.4.4). In these contexts it was possible to argue that instances of shall were able to alter­ nate (swap) with will (including ’ll), without changing the surface meaning of the clause.24 (p. 81)

Figure 4.7 illustrates recent change whereby shall became less frequent than explicit will in first person declarative contexts in spoken British English at some point in the late 1970s.

Figure 4.7 Comparing frequency distributions over different time periods. Declining proportion, p, of shall out of the set {shall, will} with first person posi­ tive declarative subjects, half-decade data (‘1960’ = 1958–1962 inclusive, etc.) from the Diachronic Cor­ pus of Present-day Spoken English (after Aarts et al. 2013). The crosses represent mid-points of two sub­ corpora

Posing research questions in terms of the choices available to speakers is also a fruitful way of exploring how structural constraints in grammar interact.

Page 24 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology

4.5.3 Interaction experiments Interaction evidence is straightforward to explore within an experimental paradigm. A simple χ2 test can be used to explore interaction evidence in a statistically sound way (Wallis 2013). In an interaction experiment, both variables refer to different aspects of the same set of linguistic events (or aspects of two related events); see Nelson et al. (2002: 273ff). Consider how we might evaluate the interaction of the polarity of a question tag (‘TAGQ’) with the polarity of the preceding verb phrase within a host clause using ICE-GB. Com­ pare: David turned up did he?

That’s enough isn’t it?

In the corpus, negative tag questions are identified by the presence of the feature ‘neg’ on the auxiliary verb or main verb. Negative verb phrases inherit the feature from the auxiliary or main verb. We create FTFs using the pattern in Figure 4.8, allowing the upper node to match auxiliary or main verbs for robustness. We then manually review the extracted cases, as the ‘neg’ feature is not always accurately recorded. (p. 82)

Figure 4.8 FTF for retrieving a positive (‘¬neg’ = not negative) auxiliary verb, verb or VP (‘∨’ = ‘or’), followed by a tag question with a negative auxiliary or verb. This FTF may be permuted by changing both ‘neg’ features (circled) to obtain all four patterns

Frequency data from ICE-GB is in Table 4.1. We can test the interaction between the two locations by applying a 2×2 χ2 test for independence to the table. The result, as one might predict from the table, is statistically significant. Positive declarative clauses with negative question tags are the most frequent pattern, and there is a large net negative in­ teraction (i.e. polarity consistency is rarer than inconsistency).

Page 25 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology Table 4.1 Contingency table of frequencies exploring the interaction between the polarity of question tags and the polarity of preceding verb phrases, extracted with FTFs and then manually reviewed. The verb phrase and tag never both have a negative polarity in all 716 cases VP ICE-GB TAGQ

negative

positive

Total

negative

0

504

504

positive

116

96

212

Total

116

600

716

Page 26 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology Interaction experiments can be extended in a number of interesting ways. Wallis (2019) summarizes an experimental design for investigating the chances of speakers/writers making serial decisions of the same type. For example, it turns out that adding an adjec­ tive in attributive position before a noun head in a noun phrase becomes progressively less likely (‘more difficult’) the more adjectives we add. But this observation is not true for all rules. Serially adding post-modifying clauses or adding conjoined clauses after the noun phrase head, first declines and then increases in probability (‘becomes easier’) with each successive addition.

4.6 Conclusion With sufficiently flexible tools, a corpus (and a richly annotated parsed corpus in particu­ lar) has much to offer the linguist. Parsed corpora are simultaneously valuable and imper­ fect, so we must engage with evidence critically. Corpus linguistics is commonly associated with evidence of frequency. Few linguists would dispute that if you wish to know how common a construction might be, you need a corpus. Such distributions can be useful in directing pedagogical material (p. 83) towards the constructions learners might be most exposed to. Or they can focus grammatical re­ search by identifying the patterns that account for the lion’s share of the data. However, there is one type of evidence that corpora can provide that is particularly rele­ vant to the study of the structure of linguistic utterances. This is interaction evidence: probabilistic evidence that two linguistic events tend to co-occur. Such evidence may be simply associative but it is often possible to show a greater size of effect in one direction than another. If we know two events tend to co-occur, we are entitled to enquire about un­ derlying causes. These reasons may range from the trivial fact of a shared topic in e.g. a conversation through to deep cognitive processes constraining the choices that speakers and writers make. In this perspective, grammar rules specify the choices available, whereas personal prefer­ ence, language context, semantic and logical reasoning, communicative strategy, and cog­ nitive processing combine to influence the choices made. Linguistic phenomena co-occur for a variety of reasons, not all grammatical, and so this evidence must be carefully considered and alternative explanations explored. Nonethe­ less, this type of evidence seems to be the most viable option for empirically evaluating grammar as expressed by human beings.

Reference Aarts, Bas (2001). ‘Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and Fuzzy Tree Fragments’, in Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt (eds), Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 5–13.

Page 27 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology Aarts, Bas, Joanne Close, and Sean Wallis (2013). ‘Choices over time: Methodological is­ sues in current change’, in Bas Aarts, Joanne Close, Geoffrey Leech, and Sean Wallis (eds), The Verb Phrase in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14–45. Anthony, Laurence (2005). ‘AntConc: Design and development of a freeware corpus analy­ sis toolkit for the technical writing classroom’, in: Proceedings of IPCC 2005, 729–37. Biber, Douglas, and Randy Reppen (eds) (2015). The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boehm, Barry (1986). ‘A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement’. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 11:4, 14–24. Bowie, Jill, and Sean Wallis (2016). ‘The to-infinitival perfect: A study of decline’, in Valentin Werner, Elena Seoane, and Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds), Re-assessing the Present Perfect. Topics in English Linguistics (TiEL) 91. Berlin: De Gruyter, 43–94. Brezina, Vaclav, and Miriam Meyerhoff (2014). ‘Significant or random?: A critical review of sociolinguistic generalisations based on large corpora.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(1): 1–28. Briscoe, Ted (1997). ‘Robust Parsing’, in Ronald Cole, Joseph Mariani, Hans Uszkoreit, Annie Zaenen, and Victor Zue (eds), Survey of the State of the Art in Human Language Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 121–2. Chen, Danqi, and Christopher D. Manning (2014). ‘A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks’, in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Doha, Qatar: ACL, 740–50. Available at: https:// cs.stanford.edu/~danqi/papers/emnlp2014.pdf. Chomsky, Noam (2002). On Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Church, Kenneth (2000). ‘Empirical estimates of adaptation: The chance of two Noriega’s is closer to p/2 than p2.’ Proceedings of COLING 2000, 173–9. Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (1987). Editor-in-chief John Sinclair. Lon­ don/Glasgow: Collins. Gries, Stefan Th. (2005). ‘Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach.’ Journal of Psy­ cholinguistic Research 34(4): 365–99. Gries, Stefan Th. (2013). ‘50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next…’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1): 137–65. Gries, Stefan Th. (2015). ‘The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models.’ Corpora 10(1): 95–125.

Page 28 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology Jespersen, Otto (1909–1949). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part I: Sounds and Spellings; Part II: Syntax Vol. 1; Part III, Syntax Vol. 2; Part IV: Syntax Vol. 3. Heidelberg: Winter. Part V: Syntax Vol. 4; Part VI, Morphology (with Paul Christophersen, Nils Haislund, and Knud Schibsbye); Part VII: Syntax (with Nils Haislund). Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Republished in 1954 by George Allan and Unwin. Kilgariff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On. Brighton: Lexical Computing. Available at: www.sketchengine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/ The_Sketch_Engine_2014.pdf. König, Esther, Wolfgang Lezius, and Holger Voormann (2003). TIGERSearch User’s Manu­ al. IMS, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart. Available at: www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/ forschung/ressourcen/werkzeuge/TIGERSearch/manual.html. Kučera, Henry, and W. Nelson Francis (1967). Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English. Providence, MA: Brown University Press. Kuhn, Thomas (1977). ‘The historical structure of scientific discovery,’ in Thomas Kuhn, The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: Uni­ versity of Chicago Press, 165–77. Labov, William (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Centre for Applied Linguistics. Lakatos, Imre (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. New York: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Leech, Geoffrey N. (2003). ‘Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961– 1992’, in Roberta Fachinetti, Manfred Krug, and Frank Palmer (eds), Modality in Contem­ porary English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 223–40. Leech, Geoffrey N., and Roger Garside (1991). ‘Running a grammar factory: The produc­ tion of syntactically annotated corpora or “treebanks”, in Stig Johansson and Anna-Britte Stenström (eds), English Computer Corpora: Selected Papers and Research Guide. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 15–32. Marcus, Mitchell, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, and Beatrice Santorini (1993). ‘Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank.’ Computational Linguistics 19(2): 313–30. McEnery, Tony, and Andrew Hardie (2012). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Prac­ tice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nelson, Gerald, Sean Wallis, and Bas Aarts (2002). Exploring Natural Language: Working With the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins. Page 29 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology O’Keefe, Anne, and Michael McCarthy (eds) (2012). The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London/New York: Routledge. OED (1961). The Oxford English Dictionary, 1st edn (extended). Oxford: Oxford Universi­ ty Press. Putnam, Hilary (1974). ‘The “Corroboration” of Scientific Theories’, republished in Ian Hacking (ed) (1981), Scientific Revolutions, Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press, 60–79. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985). A Compre­ hensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Randall, Beth (2005–2007). CorpusSearch 2. Available at: http:// corpussearch.sourceforge.net. Rohdenburg, Gunther (2003). ‘Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determin­ ing the use of interrogative clause linkers’, in Gunther Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf (eds), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 205–49. Scott, Michael (2012). WordSmith Tools version 6, Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software. Sinclair, John (1992). ‘The automatic analysis of corpora’, in Jan Svartvik (ed), Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 379–97. Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries (2003). ‘Collostructions: Investigating the in­ teraction of words and constructions.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–43. Stubbs, Michael, and Isabel Barth (2003). ‘Using recurrent phrases as text-type discrimi­ nators: a quantitative method and some findings.’ Functions of Language 10(1): 65–108. Tognini-Bonelli, Elena (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Bernd Heine (eds) (1991). Approaches to Grammaticaliza­ tion. Two volumes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wallis, Sean (2008). ‘Searching treebanks and other structured corpora’, in Anke Lüdel­ ing and Merja Kytö (eds), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 738–59. Wallis, Sean (2013). ‘Binomial confidence intervals and contingency tests: Mathematical fundamentals and the evaluation of alternative methods.’ Journal of Quantitative Linguis­ tics 20(3): 178–208.

Page 30 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology Wallis, Sean (2014). ‘What might a corpus of parsed spoken data tell us about language?’, in Ludmila Veselovská and Markéta Janebová (eds), Complex Visibles Out There. (Pro­ ceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure.)Olomouc: Palacký University, 641–62. Wallis, Sean (2015). Adapting Random-Instance Sampling Variance Estimates and Binomi­ al Models for Random-Text Sampling. London: Survey of English Usage. Available at http://corplingstats.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/adapting-variance. Wallis, Sean (forthcoming). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A New Approach. New York: Routledge. Wallis, Sean, and Gerald Nelson (1997). ‘Syntactic parsing as a knowledge acquisition problem.’ Proceedings of 10th European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, Catalonia, Spain: Springer, 285–300. Wallis, Sean, and Gerald Nelson (2001). ‘Knowledge discovery in grammatically analysed corpora.’ Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 5: 307–40. Wallis, Sean (2019). ‘Investigating the additive probability of repeated language produc­ tion decisions.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(4): 492–525. Wasow, Thomas (2001). Postverbal Behavior, Stanford: CSLI Publications. Wattam, Stephen (2015). Technological Advances in Corpus Sampling Methodology. Ph.D. thesis. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Available at: www.extremetomato.com/cv/pa­ pers/thesis.pdf.

Notes: (1) In the OED, pretty (adjective) has between seven and eight times the space afforded for the description of the adverb form (OED, 1961: VIII 1332–1333). (2) Since corpora are of different sizes, many corpus linguists cite frequencies ‘normal­ ized’ by scaling per thousand or million words before reporting. However, the number of words per text is often not the optimum basis for comparison. A better approach is to pick a meaningful baseline. See section 4.5.2. (3) Despite the highly directional evidence, the bi-directional ‘mutual information’ score places askance first in collocates of LOOK. See also https://corplingstats.wordpress.com/ 2017/03/28/direction. (4) See http://corplingstats.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/pos-tagging. (5) See http://corplingstats.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/why-chomsky.

Page 31 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology (6) Labov (1966: 27) writes: ‘[I]n listening to everyday speech, we tend to hear only those linguistic features that have already been described, and it takes a major effort to hear the new variables that are being generated in the speech community.’ (7) See www.discoveryofpluto.com for an introduction to this topic. (8) The idea that complex systems of knowledge undergo cyclic development is found in computer science (Boehm 1986) and other fields. (9) To take a radically different example, an ‘analysis’ stage in an automated telephone answering service might classify input patterns and trigger a response. (10) To take an example that might at first sight appear contrary to this scheme, Pintzuk (2019) describes using the University of Pennsylvania CorpusSearch tool search-and-re­ place function to modify the annotation in a corpus in order to make future searches (i.e. abstraction) more straightforward. Here CorpusSearch is used in two distinct ways, cru­ cially, with distinct outputs. Annotation obtains a revised corpus, whereas abstraction ob­ tains linguistic evidence. (11) This exercise requires supervisory ‘knowledge management’ protocols (Wallis and Nelson 1997). (12) This issue illuminates a subtle methodological distinction between speaker parsing and hearer parsing. Conventionally, corpus researchers parse the structure as a model of the speaker’s construction process, rather than how the hearer might have reconstructed it. (13) Gloss: PU = parse unit, CL = clause, DISMK = discourse marker, REACT = reaction signal, SU = subject, NP = noun phrase, NPHD = NP head, PRON = pronoun, VB = ver­ bal, VP = verb phrase, MVB = main verb, V = verb, OD = direct object, CS = subject complement, AJP = adjective phrase, AJPR = adjective phrase premodifier, AVP = adverb phrase, AVHD = AVP head, ADV = adverb, AJHD = AJP head, ADJ = adjective, AJPO = AJP postmodifier, TO = to-particle, PRTCL = particle. Features are not shown for reasons of space. (14) Various statistics have been proposed for estimating the degree of interaction be­ tween words. These include mutual information, various statistical measures (z, t, χ2 and log-likelihood), and probability difference (see Gries 2013 for a review). (15) This algorithm exploits frequency evidence (the string is frequent) rather than inter­ action evidence (the string seems to co-occur more than would be expected by chance). (16) This sense of ‘construction’ spans grammar and lexicon, i.e. it is not limited to purely grammatical constructions but may include multi-word patterns. The algorithm tests for statistical association. The linguist has to decide whether this is due to shared meaning.

Page 32 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Corpus Methodology (17) Fisher’s test is like a more accurate 2 × 2 χ2 test (Wallis 2013). It can compare p(x) × p(y) and p(x ∧ y) for significant difference. Ranking by error level tends to bias results to­ wards high-frequency phenomena, which is not always desirable. (18) The term ‘sketch’ is a deliberate reference to the approximate results these algo­ rithms obtain. (19) It is hard to think of a more poetic illustration of the difference between interaction and frequency evidence. (20) Other sciences, such as astrophysics or evolutionary biology, work almost exclusively with observational data. (21) Diachronic studies offer the potential for exploring evolutionary change of grammar including grammaticalization (Traugott and Heine 1991). (22) Case interaction affects statistical methods, but it also has implications for quasi-sta­ tistical algorithms, such as collocation tools. Several researchers have commented on this problem and proposed solutions (Nelson et al. 2002, Brezina and Meyerhoff 2014, Gries 2015, Wallis 2015). (23) See Wallis (forthcoming) for a detailed discussion of how to select baselines. See also https://corplingstats.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/that-vexed-problem. (24) Interrogative modals were excluded because they may have a different dominant pragmatic reading (cf. Will we go? = prediction; Shall we go? = suggestion). A similar is­ sue applies to negation.

Sean Wallis

Sean Wallis is Principal Research Fellow and Deputy Director of the Survey of Eng­ lish Usage at University College London. His publications include Exploring Natural Language (2002, with G. Nelson and Bas Aarts, John Benjamins), The English Verb Phrase (2013, edited with J. Close, G. Leech, and Bas Aarts, CUP), as well as book chapters and articles in journals across a range of topics from artificial intelligence and computing to statistics and corpus research methodology. He runs a blog on sta­ tistics in corpus linguistics, corp.ling.stats (http://corplingstats.wordpress.com).

Page 33 of 33

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches   John R Taylor The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region, Language and Cognition Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.32

Abstract and Keywords After a brief account of the salient characteristics of Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar, this chapter highlights the distinctive perspective which this approach offers on traditional topics in the description of English, including the question of word classes, the nature of syntactic relations, and the status of constructions as an alternative to rule-based ac­ counts of linguistic knowledge. It presents three case studies illustrating the role of back­ ground cognition, not only as a factor in semantic interpretation but also for its grammat­ ical effects. These concern (i) the role of grounding in nominal and verbal systems, (ii) some of the manifestations of cognitive reference points in such diverse areas as posses­ sive expressions and constraints on the use of participles, and (iii) processes of subjectifi­ cation, as exemplified in such areas as modals, fictive motion, and causal relations. Keywords: Cognitive Grammar, word classes, constructions, grounding, possessives, participles, modals, fictive motion, causal relations

5.1 Introduction COGNITIVE Linguistics is the name of an approach to language study which has its ori­ gins in the 1980s. Important landmarks were Langacker’s Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (1987), Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By (1981), and Lakoff’s Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things (1987)—though the outlines of the last named book had already appeared in Lakoff (1982). Other important figures include Talmy, for his work on semantic structure and its grammatical reflexes (his most important publications are collected in Talmy 2000), Fauconnier, for his work on mental spaces and, subsequent­ ly, conceptual blending (Fauconnier 1997, Fauconnier and Turner 2002), Bybee, for her work on usage-based approaches to morphology and phonology (e.g., Bybee 2001), and Tomasello, for his studies on language acquisition (e.g., Tomasello 2003). Several text­ book introductions (e.g., Taylor 2002, Evans and Green 2006) and handbook surveys (e.g., Geeraerts and Cuyckens 2007, Littlemore and Taylor 2014, Dąbrowska and Divjak 2015)

Page 1 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches are available. An English grammar based on cognitive linguistic principles is Radden and Dirven (2007). Cognitive Linguistics arose largely as a reaction to what were perceived to be inadequa­ cies and even outright errors of the prevailing generative and formalist approaches to language study. A number of themes have characterized the movement: • Language knowledge does not constitute an encapsulated module of mind, but is rather grounded in general cognitive processes, such as attention, memory, percep­ tion, categorization, abstraction, and indeed conceptualization more generally. • While language knowledge resides in the minds of individual speakers, it is neverthe­ less embedded in processes of socialization and acculturation, and reflects the dynam­ ics of interpersonal communication. • Language acquisition proceeds as a response to input data rather than by the setting of what are presumed to be innate parameters of a mental module. The empha­ sis thus falls on the role of general learning mechanisms in response to features of the input. (p. 88)

• An important feature of input is the frequency of occurrence of linguistic elements, at all levels of description, whether sounds, words, word combinations, or syntactic patterns. In any sufficiently large and representative corpus, these frequencies tend to be remarkably stable and need to be taken into account in descriptions of language structure and its mental representation. • Truth-conditional approaches to semantics, whereby the meaning of an expression lies in correspondences with states of affairs in the world (or possible worlds), are re­ jected. Rather, meaning resides in a speaker’s conceptualizations and construals, and involves such aspects as perspective, imagery, figure-ground organization, specificity, and epistemic commitment. • There has been a general reluctance to compartmentalize language description in terms of traditional layers of phonology, morphology, and syntax; the same goes for the distinctions between lexicon and syntax and between semantics and pragmatics. These are seen as continua, with no clean lines of demarcation. The focus in this chapter is on Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar (though references to oth­ er trends will also be made), this being the most explicit and fully worked-out theory, es­ pecially for its account of many traditional issues in syntax. First, I outline the salient as­ pects of the theory (section 5.2), then discuss its approach to some basic topics of syntax (section 5.3). Section 5.4 addresses some selected topics illustrating the role of back­ ground cognition in several areas of English syntax.

Page 2 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches

5.2 Cognitive Grammar Cognitive Grammar (CG) is the name which Ronald Langacker has given to his theory of language. Langacker began working on the theory in the 1980s, largely, as he tells us (1987: 1), through profound dissatisfaction with prevailing generative theories. The first full statement of the theory is the 1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, followed four years later by a second volume, sub-titled Descriptive Applications (Langacker 1991). An updated presentation is Langacker (2008a). Many of Langacker’s papers and journal arti­ cles have been assembled in collected volumes (Langacker 1999, 2002, 2009). CG is based on minimal assumptions about the object of study. Invoking Saussure’s con­ ception of the linguistic sign, Langacker postulates that there are only three kinds of enti­ ties relevant to linguistic description: (a) phonological representations (understood very generally to refer to language in its perceptible form); (b) semantic representations (again understood very broadly, to incorporate not only referential aspects, but also speaker attitudes, contextual effects, and sociolinguistic parameters); and (c) symbolic (p. 89) relations between (a) and (b). To the extent that these representations have been entrenched through previous usage, they are referred to as units. A language may then be characterized as a structured inventory of linguistic units—phonological, semantic, and symbolic (Langacker 1987: 57). A major task of the cognitive grammarian is to identi­ fy and to propose substantive characterizations of these units. Learning a language is seen as a life-long process consisting in expanding one’s reper­ toire of units and increasing one’s mastery of them. The input to learning are usage events, that is, linguistic utterances in all their context-specific detail. Linguistic units emerge on the basis of perceived commonalities over diverse usage events. It is taken as uncontested that no two speakers of the ‘same’ language will share exactly the same in­ ventory of linguistic units, something which is rather obvious with regard to word knowl­ edge (and even more obvious when it comes to matters of pronunciation) but which is of­ ten discounted in studies of syntactic competence. Of primary concern in the study of syntax are symbolic units. It should be emphasized that while symbolic units unite phonological and semantic representations, the approach by no means entails that all phonological units enter into symbolic relations. Vowels, con­ sonants, permissible consonant clusters (to the extent that these have become en­ trenched through frequent usage), and syllable types constitute phonological units, but it is only by happenstance that a vowel unit such as [ɑː] counts (in some of its occurrences) as the phonological pole of a symbolic unit, i.e. the word are. Likewise, as we shall see in section 5.4, elements of semantic structure are not necessarily symbolized by phonologi­ cal material. Another misunderstanding needs to be addressed. It is sometimes (erroneously) asserted that CG proposes that all aspects of syntactic structure are reflexes of, and can therefore be reduced to, matters of semantics (see e.g., Jackendoff 2010: 224). It is certainly true that syntax is taken to be inherently meaningful (Langacker 1987: 12) and decades of re­ Page 3 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches search by practitioners of the theory have uncovered the semantic foundations of an in­ creasing number of seemingly arbitrary syntactic phenomena.1 However, the CG claim is actually more modest, namely, that syntax can be fully described in terms of assemblies of symbolic units. At the same time, it is acknowledged that syntactic organization is subject to a great deal of language-specific conventionalization. Even though these conventions might be motivated by semantic and pragmatic factors, and by other structural elements in the language, in the last analysis the conventions simply have to be learnt. With respect to the study of words, the relevance of Saussure’s conception of the linguis­ tic sign is evident. To know the word tree involves knowing (a) its pronunciation, (b) its meaning, and (c) the fact that the former symbolizes the latter. (Even so, the task of stat­ ing the conceptual content of the semantic unit, and even of the phonological unit, is far from trivial; think of all the ways in which the word can be pronounced, (p. 90) by differ­ ent speakers of different accents,2 and all the kinds of things that can possibly be called trees.) More controversial is the application of the approach to syntax. Many would argue that one aspect of knowing the word tree is knowing its lexical category, i.e. the fact that it is a noun. In most linguistic theories, syntax constitutes an autonomous level of struc­ ture—autonomous, in the sense that its constituents (such as noun, noun phrase) and re­ lations between constituents (such as subject-of) are unique to this level and cannot be reduced to, or explained by, elements from other levels. CG rejects this approach, claim­ ing that syntax can be fully and insightfully described solely in terms of the constructs made available by the theory. This approach does not, of course, entail that there is no such thing as syntactic organization, nor does it deny the important role of lexical cate­ gories. The claim, rather, is that syntax and its categories can be fully described in terms of the admissible constructs. For this ‘minimalist’ approach to language study to work, some additional apparatus is re­ quired. I consider first the relations between units (5.2.1), followed by an account of how some of the basic notions in syntax are handled (5.2.2). To round off the section, I look at the role of constructions (5.2.3) and the CG approach to lexical categories (5.2.4).

5.2.1 A structured inventory As noted, knowledge of a language consists in knowledge of a structured inventory of units. The structure resides in various kinds of relations that exist amongst the units. Three relations are paramount: (a) schema-instance. One unit can be schematic for (i.e. is more abstract than) an­ other unit. The schema abstracts what is common to a range of instances; the in­ stances inherit the content of the schema and elaborate it in contrasting ways. The semantic unit [TREE] is schematic for [FRUIT TREE], which in turn is schematic for [APPLE TREE], [PEAR TREE], etc.; the latter are instances of [FRUIT TREE], which is an instance of [TREE]. (b) whole-part. A unit may be analysed into constituent parts; conversely, a complex unit may be formed by assembling its parts. Within the symbolic unit singer we can Page 4 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches identify the unit sing and the agentive suffix -er; within The farmer kills the duckling we can identify, inter alia, the farmer, kills, and the duckling. (c) similarity. One unit may be perceived as being similar (in some respects) to an­ other unit. The above relations can be recursive. [A] may be schematic for [B], which in turn is schematic for [C]; [X] may be a part of [Y], which in turn is a part of [Z]. This property greatly expands the repertoire of units that make up the grammar of a language. A second point to note is that the above relations are mutually dependent, indeed, mutually defining (Taylor 2015b). It is the similarity between apple trees and pear trees that enables the schematic unit [FRUIT TREE] to emerge. The fact that we can analyse singer as sing+er rests on its similarity with countless other examples: walker, dancer, speaker, etc., this permitting the emergence of a schema for an agentive noun [VERB+er]. It is the schema which, in turn, sanctions the assembly of agentive nouns from their parts. (p. 91)

The network structure of linguistic knowledge (and here there are affinities with the net­ work model proposed in e.g. Hudson’s 2007 Word Grammar) has several important conse­ quences. First, grammaticality (or acceptability: in CG there is no reason to distinguish the concepts) of an expression is a matter of its being sanctioned by existing schemas. Se­ cond, linguistic expressions exhibit a high degree of language-internal motivation, in the sense that every expression lies at the hub, as it were, of a large number of relations to other units in the language. An expression which failed to exhibit these relations would be perceived, quite simply, as not belonging to the language at all. Even ‘idiomatic’ ex­ pressions are supported by multiple intra-language relations. See, for example, the ex­ tended discussion of the expression Bang goes my weekend! in Taylor (2004) and of the so-called WXDY construction (What are you doing, lying on the floor?: Kay and Fillmore 1999) in Taylor (2012: 91–4). Internal motivation contributes significantly to the learnabil­ ity of a language, and facilitates the retrieval of units in acts of language usage.

5.2.2 The mechanics of syntax In CG, syntax—the means whereby smaller symbolic units (words, morphemes, etc.) are combined into larger meaningful expressions—is accounted for in terms of the three kinds of units listed in section 5.2.1. Once again, some additional constructs are needed. These are best introduced by way of some examples. Take the expression the book on the table. (I ignore for the time being the role of the determiners.) Let us consider, first of all, some features of the component words: book, on, and table. Book and table designate (or profile) three-dimensional things, with characteristic shape, size, appearance, material composition, function, history, etc., these being the domains against which the concepts are understood. (Since this chapter is not primarily con­ cerned with semantic representations, we need not go into this matter further.) On is quite different. The word profiles a relation (here: a spatial relation) between a figure and a ground (see Talmy 2000: Chapter 5), or, in Langacker’s terminology, a trajector and a Page 5 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches landmark, trajector being defined as the cognitively more prominent entity in a relation. While trajector and landmark both feature in the profile of the preposition, they are speci­ fied only schematically, the landmark being characterized merely as a possible supporting surface, while the trajector could be practically anything that requires support. Needless to say, on has semantic values other than the one sketched above, especially in non-spatial domains. Consider such random examples as on television, on Monday, (p. 92) on holiday, on a diet. (For the polysemy of on, see, e.g., Evans 2010.) The main point to emphasize here, however, is that on, in all of its uses, is conceptually dependent, in con­ trast to book and table, which are (comparatively speaking) conceptually autonomous: we cannot conceive of an on-relation without invoking, however vaguely, some notion of the entities involved in the relation, while the conceptualizations of book and table do not have this property. The syntagmatic combination of on, table, and book is possible be­ cause book and table are able to elaborate the schematic trajector and landmark in the se­ mantic structure of the preposition. How is the combination to be analysed? Consider the sub-unit on the table. This, like the preposition, profiles a relation. On lends its profile to the expression; it is therefore the expression’s head (or, in CG terms, the profile determinant). The table functions as a com­ plement, that is, it elaborates a schematic structure in the head. The book on the table, in contrast, does not profile a relation; it profiles the book, the prepositional phrase on the table serving to give additional information to the head; on the table functions as a modifi­ er. The notions of profiling and elaboration, along with the notions of thing and relation, make possible a succinct definition of the traditional notions of head, complement, and modifier, the head being the item which lends its profile to the composite expression, a complement being an item which elaborates a schematic entity in the semantic structure of the head, while a modifier provides additional specification to the head. The relations of complement and modifier are not always mutually exclusive. In father of twins, the prepositional phrase of twins has features of both modifier and complement (Taylor 2002: 235). An additional syntagmatic relation may be mentioned, that of apposition. Apposition in­ volves the combination of expressions with identical profiles, the profiled entity typically being characterized from different perspectives, or with differing degrees of precision: [my neighbour] [the butcher], [the fact] [that the earth is flat]. One value of the preposi­ tion of is to profile a relation of apposition: [the state] of [California], [the fact] of [the earth being flat]. Even [that idiot] of [a man] can be analysed in this way (Taylor 1996: 329). Consider now The book is on the table. This no longer profiles the book, but a situation, the profile determinant (head) being the verb. Be merely profiles the continuation through time of a situation, whose participants are elaborated by its complements. Note, in this connection, that on the CG approach a clausal subject is analysed as a complement of the verb, since it elaborates a schematic entity in the verb’s semantic structure; sub­ Page 6 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches ject and direct object are distinguished by their status as trajector and landmark, respec­ tively.

5.2.3 Constructions The account of the book on the table could be replicated on countless other examples. The similarity between these prompts the emergence of a schematic nominal construc­ tion (p. 93) [NP PP], which in turn is able to sanction new instances. At the same time, some instantiations of the construction may well have the status, for some speakers, of entrenched units. CG accepts that the mental grammar may contain a good deal of redun­ dancy, with schematic constructions and their (regular) instantiations both being stored in the mind. Indeed, it is only through acquaintance with a range of instances that the schema is able to emerge at all, and there is no reason to suppose that once the general­ ization has emerged the instances upon which it is based are then expunged from memo­ ry. It should also be noted that instances of a construction may sometimes acquire an id­ iomatic flavour. Consider examples like the man in the moon, food on the table, a place in the sun, reds under the bed. Although these expressions conform to the more abstract schema, they have special semantic nuances and conditions of use. The construction just discussed is one of countless constructions which make up the grammar of a language, an expression being judged grammatical to the extent that it is sanctioned by already entrenched units.3 Collectively, these perform the function of rules in many other theories of grammar. The constructions which make up the grammar of a language vary along such parameters as their internal complexity, their lexical fixedness, and their productivity. Some, such as the prepositional construction [P NP], or the transi­ tive verb construction [NP V NP], are highly schematic, both in terms of their semantics and their phonology (the phonological pole simply specifying ‘some’ phonological materi­ al). Others have slots which can be filled only with a small number of items, and some slots may be lexically specified. For days on end instantiates a schematic construction [for X on end], where X represents a noun (typically plural) designating a period of time (Tay­ lor 2015a). The limiting case is fixed idioms, where no variation is possible. Examples in­ clude of course, by and large, and the introductory formula How do you do?, which cannot even be embedded in reported speech.4 Favouring the productivity of a construction is not so much the raw frequency of its oc­ currence, but the number of different types which instantiate it (Bybee 2001). The matter is familiar to morphologists. The high (token) frequency of did (as the past form of do) does not sanction a general process of verbs in [uː] forming their past tense in [ɪd]. On the other hand, the cluster of nouns with ‘Greek’ plurals (thesis-theses, crisis~crises), none of which is particularly frequent, is nevertheless able to provide a model for innova­ tive forms such as process-processes [siːz], bias-biases [siːz] (Taylor 2012: 134). In terms of its raw frequency, the way-construction (make one’s way to the exit, elbow one’s way through the crowd, spend one’s way out of recession: schematically: [V one’s way PP]) may not rank particularly highly. However, the fact that a large (p. 94) number of different

Page 7 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches verbs and prepositions are attested in the construction favours its productive use with new verbs and new prepositional phrases (Goldberg 1995).

5.2.4 Lexical categories The above-discussed example is also instructive in that it gives an insight into the CG ap­ proach to parts of speech (or lexical categories). See also Hollmann (this volume). For many linguistic theories, parts of speech are both identified and defined by their distribu­ tion. Langacker (1987), however, takes the position that (at least) the major parts of speech have semantic content, this residing in the nature of the profile. Nouns profile things, defined as regions in a domain. While prototypical examples can be cited (people, animals, and smallish, three-dimensional time-stable objects that a person can handle), the noun category extends far beyond these to incorporate abstracts, collectives, and nominalizations of various kinds. The distinction between count and mass nouns is crucial to the grammar of the English noun phrase. As a matter of fact, practically any noun in English can be used as count or mass, though preferences and biases obviously exist. The distinction rests on whether the instantiated instances are bounded (count) or unbounded (mass), that is, whether the boundary of the instance is contained within the profile. ‘Lawn’ may be construed as a kind of covering (We have a lot of lawn to mow) or as an instance whose boundaries are in profile (We have a large lawn to mow). Verbs designate temporal relations, i.e. relations construed as obtaining over time. The temporal component is included in the profile and it is this aspect that mainly distinguish­ es verbs from prepositions and adverbs. The temporal boundedness of an instantiated in­ stance gives rise to the distinction between states and processes, the former being un­ bounded, the latter bounded, a matter of importance in the use of simple or progressive aspect. Langacker is by no means the first to draw a parallel with the mass–count distinc­ tion in nouns. Again, however, it would be an error to classify verbs as inherently stative or non-stative; while biases exist, practically any verb can be used in either function. Prepositions and conjunctions designate atemporal relations; while the relations may well be instantiated in the temporal domain, time does not feature in the profile. Prepositions and (subordinating) conjunctions are distinguished by the nature of their complement, a noun in the case of prepositions (before lunch), a clause in the case of conjunctions (be­ fore we had lunch). Adjectives and perhaps even more so adverbs constitute rather heterogeneous classes, with fuzzy boundaries and few unifying or defining features. Prototypically, however, an adjective (such as tall in a tall man) profiles a relation between its trajector (in this case, man) and a region in vertical space in excess of some reference norm. Similarly, a proto­ typical adverb (fast, as in run fast) profiles a relation between the process designated by the verb and a region in velocity space, in excess of some norm. The accounts would obvi­ ously need to be modified for other kinds of adjectives and (p. 95) adverbs, e.g., for exclu­ Page 8 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches sively attributive adjectives (such as mere, in a mere child, the very idea), or for so-called sentence adverbs (obviously, presumably, etc.). Cognitive linguists have long been interested in prepositions. Here, I would draw atten­ tion to a crucial distinction, having to do with the ‘plexity’ (Talmy 2000) of the trajector. One set of spatial prepositions—this includes in, on, at, above—construe the place of the trajector as simplex. Another set, including across, (a)round, through, along, up, require a trajector which occupies a multiplicity of places. This property gives rise to some interest­ ing effects. Thus, with multiplex prepositions, the trajector may be an extended entity, which simultaneously occupies a series of places (in the appropriate configuration): a road along the river, a tunnel through the mountain, a path up the hill. Alternatively, the trajector may consist of a multiplicity of entities (typically designated by a plural noun), arranged in the appropriate configuration: trees (planted) along the river, footprints through the snow. Another possibility is that the trajector is a moving entity which traces a path of the appropriate shape (I walked round the lake). Yet another possibility is that the preposition is used to designate a (simplex) place; the place, however, is construed as the endpoint of a path (He lives over the hill, The pantry is through the kitchen). Ambigui­ ties can arise; consider houses up the hill (houses located at a place ‘up the hill’, or hous­ es in a rising configuration). Note that if the trajector is simplex—as in the house across the field, the church up the hill—the end-point reading is the only possible one. The com­ plexities of the preposition over—a particular favourite with cognitive linguists!—may be due in part to the fact that the preposition has the special property of being able to func­ tion as both simplex and multiplex (Taylor 2012: 233–8). Consider the ambiguity of We flew over the ocean (‘above’ versus ‘above and across’).

5.3 Background cognition A major issue in linguistic theory is the problem of compositionality. It goes without say­ ing that component units make a contribution to the properties of the complex expres­ sions of which they are a part. The question is, whether the properties of the parts fully determine the properties of the whole. The CG position is that they do not. This is evident even with respect to phonology. The [r] which features in the (British English) pronuncia­ tion of ma [r] and pa is not contributed by the properties of any of the constituent words; it is due, rather, to a phonological requirement that syllables have a consonantal onset (Taylor 2002: 252).5 It is therefore not too surprising that compositionality does not ob­ tain with respect to the semantic value of an expression. In the first place, the semantic representations of component items (words, in the first (p. 96) instance) should not be thought of as constituting fixed packages of information. Rather, the items provide paths of access (Langacker 2008a: 42) to a potentially open-ended network of conceptual knowledge, only some facets of which are activated in a given usage event. To be sure, some paths may be very well trodden and liable to be invoked as defaults or in the ab­ sence of contrary indications, thus encouraging the (erroneous) impression that words do have fixed meanings (Taylor 2017).

Page 9 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches A related issue is that the interpretation of complex expressions very often makes refer­ ence to conceptual structures, relations, and processes which are not intrinsically associ­ ated with any of the component items, or even with the sanctioning schemas. Consider some possible readings of (1): (1)

Did the city have a teenager as its mayor, or is the present mayor in his/her thirties? The two readings are not due to the ambiguity of any of the component units, but rather re­ sult from alternative blendings of two temporally distinct situations, the latter interpreta­ tion emerging if the mayor of twenty years ago is taken to be the same person as the cur­ rent one.6 Blending theory (Fauconnier and Turner 2002) addresses the role of just this kind of ‘background cognition’ (Coulson and Oakley 2005: 1516), while Langacker (2008a: 463) in this connection speaks of a largely implicit ‘conceptual substrate’, which underlies the understanding of all linguistic expressions. In fact, much of the ‘work’ in CG takes place at the semantic/conceptual level, and involves concepts which are not overtly symbolized in the language. Since there is no direct (linguistic, observational) evidence for these concepts, their discussion tends to be speculative. They can be justified by their explanatory power, and for the fact that they offer unified accounts of seemingly dis­ parate phenomena. In the remaining part of this section, I select three topics which have been important in the development of CG: grounding, reference points, and subjectification.

5.3.1 Grounding The term ‘ground’ refers to the ‘current discourse space’ (Langacker 2008a: 283), rele­ vant aspects being the circumstances of the speech event, primarily the speaker and hearer(s), but also the time and place, as well as preceding discourse. Grounding is the process whereby a linguistic expression is anchored to ground. The above example of The book is on the table exhibits two kinds of grounding. Firstly, the nouns are grounded by means of the definite determiner the, while the clause as a whole is grounded by the present tense of the verb. Definite determiners (primarily the, that, these, etc.) indicate that the speaker has singled out, or established mental contact with, a specific, identifiable exemplar, or exem­ plars, of the kind of thing designated by the noun, and presumes that the hearer can do so too. Indefinites (such as a(n), unstressed some, numerals, etc.) have two values. They may convey that the speaker has a specific exemplar (or exemplars) in mind; the speaker, however, presumes that the hearer is not able to identify it. Alternatively, on a non-specif­ ic reading, the speaker merely conjures up an arbitrary instance, or set of instances, whose identity is unknown or irrelevant; in the case of generic statements (of the kind A cat chases mice), the instance serves as representative of the class as a whole. (p. 97)

Page 10 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches As an ungrounded noun, coffee profiles a kind of substance; likewise strong coffee (modification of a noun, while narrowing down its range of potential referents, does not in itself constitute grounding). This coffee refers to an identifiable instantiation of the sub­ stance. Several interpretations are available. The expression could refer to a portion (‘this cup of coffee’) of the substance or to its instantiation in type space (‘this kind of coffee’). Used without a determiner, the word takes on properties of a generic: Coffee keeps me awake. Clausal grounding is achieved through tense and modality. In English, these two systems are largely in complementary distribution. Tense grounds a clause in present or past real­ ity, whereas modals typically ground a clause in terms of its perceived possibility, likeli­ hood, inevitability, and so on. Significantly, the modals do not bear the present tense -s inflection with third-person singular subjects. (I address below the question of whether modals inflect for past tense.) First, some remarks on the English tenses. Just as indefinite determiners can have two values (specific and non-specific), so too can present tense. It may ground the process in present reality (that is, the process is presented as obtaining at the moment of speaking) or it may invoke a ‘virtual’ reality, an aspect of ‘how the world works’. You press this but­ ton to start the machine refers to a structural property of the machine; the statement may be true even if the machine has never been operated. Similarly, This knife cuts well may be taken as true, even though the knife has never been used for cutting, its cutting ability being an aspect of its constitution. Past tense prototypically situates a process in a time prior to the moment of speaking. Past tense has other values, having to do, not with temporal, but with epistemic or prag­ matic distance. If only I knew situates the predicate ‘I know’ in a counterfactual space, contrary to present reality; although morphologically past, the expression indicates a present state of not-knowing. I wanted to ask you something illustrates a pragmatic dis­ tancing of the speaker from the speech event; it is as if the speaker wishes to soften the impact of the request. Modals ground a situation in virtual reality—the world as it could be, might have been, may be, should be, will be, etc. Language is as much (perhaps even more) about imagined realities as about ‘real’ reality. These ‘realities’ are assessed from the perspective of the ground. Although forms such as could, might, should, and would may be considered to be morphologically past (at least, from a diachronic point of view), they (p. 98) assess a situa­ tion from the perspective of the ground (the past morphology illustrating, perhaps, a kind of epistemic distancing or pragmatic weakening). You could have been killed constitutes a present assessment of a past eventuality; You shouldn’t have done that is a present-time evaluation of a past action. We noted above that the modals do not bear present-tense in­ flections; neither do they in general have ‘true’ past tenses,7 confirming again the com­ plementary distribution in English of tense inflections and the modals.

Page 11 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches

5.3.2 Cognitive reference points This construct is familiar in everyday life. You state the location of one entity (the target) by reference to its proximity to, or accessibility with respect to, a more readily available entity, the reference point. The latter provides access to a range of entities in its proximi­ ty (or ‘dominion’). Natural reference points are the speaker and/or hearer, wholes with re­ spect to their parts, prominent features of the natural environment, or entities that have been rendered prominent in previous discourse. There are many linguistic manifestations of the reference point phenomenon. One is the prenominal possessive construction. John’s car refers to a car, one which is identified from the perspective of a person identified as ‘John’, and, by default, the expression is taken as uniquely referring. Prenominal possessives generally have definite reference, the possessor phrase thus serving as a grounding element. Possessor entities are predom­ inantly human or animate, and usually definite; typically, they are entities that have been introduced (and rendered topical) by previous discourse. Possessees, in contrast, are typi­ cally new to the discourse (Taylor 1996). Significantly, the reference point is stated first, word order iconically representing the path of access to the target. The nature of the relation is not specified, though possession (in the legalistic sense), kinship, and whole–part are especially common. Often, the se­ mantics of the possessee noun strongly favours a particular interpretation. My aunt favours the kinship relation, my hand the part–whole relation, my thesis the creator–prod­ uct relation (a thesis has to have been written by someone),8 and so on. The reference point phenomenon can also be observed in nominal compounds. Fingernail designates a nail conceptualized against the notion of finger; likewise toenail. Compare also car door and house door. Both designate a door (compounds are typically headed by their final element), but they characterize the door with respect to the previously men­ tioned entity. The examples underscore my earlier remark on the (p. 99) flexibility of word meanings. The semantic pole of door does not constitute a fixed package of information; the context provides access to a network of conceptual knowledge, activating those facets which are relevant. The affinity between possessives and compounds is shown by the fact that the distinction is sometimes unstable, especially where the ‘possessor’ is understood generically. There is some variation in the use of user manual and user’s manual. A further manifestation of the reference point phenomenon concerns topic constructions. A topic is an initial element which provides the framework for the interpretation of the following material (see Kaltenböck, this volume). Consider the following: (2)

Page 12 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches The initial noun phrase provides the context for how a lot more work is to be understood. It is obviously not a question of more manual labour, but intellectual work, of the kind needed in the writing of a research proposal. The role of the topic is apparent, even if there is no syntactic relation between the topic and the following clause, as in (2b). A second point to note is that in (2a) the topic serves as the antecedent for the interpreta­ tion of the pronoun it. Normally, a pronoun follows its antecedent (as in this example). Sometimes, however, the interpretation is dependent on a following item, as in the follow­ ing: (3)

His would normally be taken to be co-referential with the vice-chancellor, consistent with the prominence associated with the subject of a clause. However, if the preceding context were to attribute topical salience to another individual, one could imagine that his office could refer to the office of this other individual. A kind of topic that is deeply embedded in the grammar of English is the subject of a clause. Langacker (1987) defines subject as the more prominent element in a temporal relation; it is typically a nominal which serves as the starting point for the interpretation of the clause. A remarkable feature of present-day English (in comparison to earlier stages of the language and to related Germanic languages) is its flexibility in the choice of subject. The major semantic roles of the subject (in a transitive clause) are to indicate the Initiator of a process (Bill kicked the ball) or the Experiencer of a Stimulus (I heard the music). Another possibility is for the subject to designate the ‘setting’ for an event or situation. In (4), sentences (a) and (b) invoke a whole–part relation (analogous to that in possessives: the guitar’s string, the car’s tyre), (c) and (d) present a temporal setting, while in (e) the setting is a location. (4)

These usages are not very productive, being subject to many lexical restrictions (especially concerning the choice of verb);9 their ‘idiomatic’ nature becomes apparent once one attempts to translate them into other languages, even closely related European languages (Hawkins 1986). Halliday (1985: Chapter 10) sees in sentences like these ex­ amples of ‘grammatical metaphor’, whereby a grammatical resource—here the transitive NP VP clause—is transferred from its basic function to encode a different set of relations (p. 100)

Page 13 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches amongst the participants. What motivates the new structure is the desire to get the refer­ ence point entity into initial position; there is an extra bonus if the initial position func­ tions as the (inherently topical) subject of the clause. As a final example of the role of reference points, I would like briefly to mention the case of subjectless (and ungrounded) clauses. A mainstay of prescriptive advice on ‘good writ­ ing’ concerns the avoidance of dangling participles. Students are advised to avoid exam­ ples like the following: (5)

1011

According to the prescriptive rule, the understood subject of the participles (note that both present and past participles are involved) has to be identifiable as the subject of the main clause. From a CG perspective the rule makes good sense; the main clause subject is a cognitively prominent entity which naturally serves as a reference point for the con­ ceptual elaboration of the subjectless clause. Often, however, the prescriptive rule can be broken, with little or no interference with easy comprehension (nor resulting in unfortu­ nate ambiguities). Even the most pedantic of prescriptivists would probably not want to outlaw examples like the following: (6)

Here, considering and seeing (that) might be analysed as kinds of subordinating conjunc­ tions (or even, in the case of considering, as a kind of preposition), rather (p. 101) than as present participles, thus rendering the prescriptive rule otiose. Nevertheless, the expres­ sions do retain a whiff of their participial origin. They prompt the question of who it is who does the considering and the seeing. The answer, of course, is the speaker/writer, who at the same time also draws in other participants in the discourse situation, namely the hearer(s) and the intended reader(s). These ever-present features of the ground are available to serve as reference points for the interpretation of the elliptical structures. To take another proscribed example, this time involving a dangling subjectless infinitive:12 To wash the car, soap and water are needed. Who is to wash the car? Obviously, the ad­ dressee (who is presumably in need of the advice). To this extent, the proposed ‘correc­ tion’—To wash the car, you will need soap and water13—seems needlessly explicit.

Page 14 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches

5.3.3 Viewing arrangements: objectification and subjectification Langacker (e.g., 2008a: 74) refers to a default viewing arrangement, in which the ‘viewer’ (conceptualizer) is maximally distinct from the scene that is viewed (conceptual­ ized). (Think of a theatre patron, viewing events on the stage.) The profiled ‘objective’ sit­ uation is ‘on-stage’, the conceptualizing subject (speaker/hearer) is ‘off-stage’. While the observer is able to direct attention at different facets of the on-stage region, thus zoom­ ing in on particular features of it, there is no interaction between viewer and viewed. Of course, no utterance can be 100 per cent objective; nominal and clausal grounding in­ volve some implicit reference to the ground. Perhaps the closest we can get to a purely objective statement would be assertions of mathematical truths, of the kind 22 = 4. Objec­ tification is the process whereby some aspect of the ground is put on-stage as it were, and spoken about ‘objectively’. Consider the following: (7)

In (7a), the speaker refers to herself using a self-referential personal pronoun. In (b), the addressee, implied in (a), is explicitly put on-stage, while in (c) the speaker refers to her­ self as a third-party might do. The examples illustrate the progressive objectification of features of the ground. More diverse in its effects is the process of subjectification, whereby some facet of an ob­ jectively construed situation comes to be incorporated into the conceptualization (p. 102) process itself.14 Take, as an example, uses of the verb go. In its ‘basic’ sense, go profiles spatial motion, whereby a trajector entity, expressed by the verb’s subject, occupies a se­ quence of places distributed over time (as in She went to the store). Both change of place and progress through time are involved. Go, however, has many additional uses which do not involve motion. Some of these can be understood in terms of metaphor, whereby change of state is construed metaphorically as change of place, as in The milk went sour, Prices went up, The situation went from bad to worse.15 (Note that these examples still in­ volve progress through time.) The temporal aspect is prominent in other uses of the verb, as in I went through the alphabet (i.e. recited it, from beginning to end), The tune goes like this (followed up by the speaker humming the tune). A further use is with respect to the prospective future: (8)

Page 15 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches

Could this use also be seen as an instance of conceptual metaphor, whereby a basically spatial term is used of the temporal domain, as suggested e.g. by Lakoff (1992)? A prob­ lem with this approach is the question of what, exactly, it is that ‘goes’ (metaphorically speaking). Note, in this connection, the loosening of restrictions on the properties of the subject nominal. Even in its metaphorical uses, the subject of go is the entity that changes state (The milk went sour) or that proceeds along a path (The tune goes like this). There can be no question, however, of ‘the kitchen’ in (8b) changing state. Rather, it is the con­ ceptualizer who mentally projects the evolution of the present situation into the immedi­ ate future (Langacker 1999: 394): given the present dilapidated state of the kitchen, the speaker projects a future situation in which it will be necessary to repaint it. The notion of motion, implied in objective uses of go, has here been subjectified, i.e. become a com­ ponent of the conceptualization itself. Subjective motion—in Langacker’s sense—is also at issue in well-known examples like the following: (9)

These sentences describe the configuration of a static entity. It makes no sense to claim that the road, scar, etc. ‘goes’, whether fictively (Talmy 2000) or metaphorically, from one place to another. What ‘goes’ is the conceptualizer’s attention as s/he mentally traces the elongated object from one end to the other. Significantly, the phenomenon is usually attested with respect to elongated entities, which cannot be taken in at a glance, as it were, resulting in a conceptualization which is inherently dynamic. (p. 103)

A similar kind of subjective motion is involved in examples like the following, which exhib­ it the end-point focus of multiplex prepositions: (10)

Page 16 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches As already noted (section 5.2.4), across the table, over the hill, and through the kitchen designate a place construed as the end-point of a path. Again, it is the conceptualizer who mentally traces the path. The source of the virtual path may be specified: She was sitting across the table from Harry. Even here, though, it is the conceptualizer who traces the path from Harry to the designated individual. Subjective motion is inherently directional. Compare the road into the forest and the road out of the forest. These expressions could refer to exactly the same road, but differ with regard to the direction of the conceptualizer’s attention. The same goes for the contrast between the gate into the garden and the gate out of the garden. The gate is not an elon­ gated entity which prompts a dynamic conceptualization. Nevertheless, a gate, by its very nature, is likely to feature as a location on a (virtual) path. The two expressions exemplify alternative ways in which the path can be mentally scanned. Subjectification is ubiquitous in the grammar and has been a major source of semantic change and meaning extension. I briefly consider two examples, from the domains of modality and causation. In their so-called deontic senses, the modals refer to some force acting on the realization of a situation. Take the case of must. This modal denotes the presence of a force, usually of a social, legal, moral, or bureaucratic nature, which requires people to act in a certain way: You must apply within six months. Sometimes, it is the speaker who attempts to in­ fluence another’s behaviour: You really must read this book; it’s fascinating. The speaker may even impose the obligation on herself: I really must read this book. Even in these cas­ es, the force is construed objectively: it is a component of the situation being described. Alongside their deontic senses, modals can also have an epistemic sense, where the ‘force’ imposes itself on the speaker’s conceptualization rather than on her or another person’s actions. In You must be mistaken the facts of the matter (as I perceive them) compel me to believe that you are mistaken. The force dynamics inherent to must are in­ corporated into the very process of conceptualization itself. Comparable accounts are available for other models. Should implies a somewhat weaker force than must: You should do as I say. But there are also epistemic uses: They should be home by now (I con­ jecture, given the evidence available, that they are now (p. 104) home). Similarly with can’t: You can’t smoke here (prohibition) versus You can’t be right (the facts as I perceive them prevent me from believing that you are right). Interestingly, some periphrastic modals, such as have (got) to (= must) exhibit the same development: You have (got) to leave (deontic) versus You have (got) to be joking (epistemic). On the other hand, not be able to (= can’t) lacks the epistemic sense: *You are not able to be serious (compare: You can’t be serious). Finally, we may briefly cite the example of causal relations. Cause is essentially a matter of construal; one observes that event A (the temperature falls below zero) is followed by event B (the rain turns to snow), and surmises that A is the cause of B (or that B is the re­ sult of A). The causal relation—for all its problematic aspects—may still be seen as a facet

Page 17 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches of the objective world and how it works. However, alongside (11a), we can also have (11b), where the causal relation appears to be reversed. (11)

16

How is this possible? The answer, of course, is that in (b) it is the conceptualizer who in­ vokes the causal relation, deducing that the temperature must be falling (epistemic use of ‘must’!), in view of the rain turning to snow. The causal relation no longer inheres in the external world, but is a facet of the speaker’s interpretation of the world. Even a seeming­ ly innocuous sentence like the following is open to a number of interpretations: (12)

At issue is the locus of the causal relation. Is it the woman herself, who decided to leave for the stated reason? If this is the case, what is the speaker’s authority for reporting the causal relation? Did the woman confide in the speaker, stating her reason for leaving? Or is it the speaker who, on observing the course of events, offers an interpretation of the woman’s behaviour? The complexities arising from the inherently subjective nature of causation is no doubt one reason for the proliferation of linguistic resources that are available for its expression. Some aspects of these are discussed in Taylor and Pang (2008).

5.4 Conclusion Cognitive Grammar offers a distinctive perspective on many traditional topics in the de­ scription of English, at the same time opening up new avenues of research. In this (p. 105) chapter I have briefly looked at the CG account of word classes and syntactic rela­ tions, and pointed to the crucial role of constructions as an alternative to rule-oriented ac­ counts of linguistic knowledge. A major contribution of the approach has been to eluci­ date aspects of ‘background cognition’ which not only inform the interpretation of linguis­ tic expressions, but also have far-reaching effects on the grammar. The matter was illus­ trated using the examples of grounding, reference points, and processes of subjectifica­ tion.

Reference Bybee, Joan L. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 18 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches Coulson, Seana, and Todd Oakley (2005). ‘Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figu­ rative meaning in cognitive semantics.’ Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1510–36. Dąbrowska, Ewa, and Dagmar Divjak (eds) (2015). The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Evans, Vyvyan (2010). ‘From the spatial to the non-spatial: The “state” lexical concepts of in, on and at’, in Vyvyan Evans and Paul Chilton (eds), Language, Cognition and Space. London: Equinox, 215–48. Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edin­ burgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fauconnier, Gilles (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books. Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds) (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Givón, Talmy (2012). ‘The adaptive approach to grammar’, in Bernd Heine and Heiko Nar­ rog (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27–51. Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argu­ ment Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hawkins, John A. (1986). A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm. Hudson, Richard A. (2007). Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press. Jackendoff, Ray S. (2010). Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975– 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, Keith (2004). ‘Massive reduction in conversational American English’, in Kiyoko Yoneyama and Kikuo Maekawa (eds), Spontaneous Speech: Data and Analysis. Proceed­ ings of the 1st Session of the 10th International Symposium. Tokyo: The National Insti­ tute for Japanese Language, 29–54. Kay, Paul, and Charles J. Fillmore (1999). ‘Grammatical constructions and linguistic gen­ eralization: The What’s X doing Y? construction.’ Language 75(1): 1–33. Page 19 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches Lakoff, George (1982). ‘Categories: An essay in cognitive linguistics’, in Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Korea: Linguistic Society of Korea, 139–93. Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lakoff, George (1992). ‘The contemporary theory of metaphor’, in Andrew Ortony (ed), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202–51. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson (1980/1981). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I. Theoretical Pre­ requisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II. Descriptive Ap­ plication. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. (2002 [1991]). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. (2008a). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (2009). Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. (2015). ‘How to build an English clause.’ Journal of Foreign Lan­ guage Teaching and Applied Linguistics 2(2): 1–45. Littlemore, Jeannette, and John R. Taylor (eds) (2014). The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Radden, Günter, and René Dirven (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Taylor, John R. (1996). Possessives in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press Taylor, John R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, John R. (2004). ‘The ecology of constructions’, in Günter Radden and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds), Studies in Linguistic Motivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 49– 73.

Page 20 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches Taylor, John R. (2012). The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, John R. (2015a). ‘Prototype effects in grammar’, in Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak (eds), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 562–78. Taylor, John R. (2015b). ‘Word-formation in cognitive grammar’, in Peter O. Müller, Inge­ borg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer (eds), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 144–58. Taylor, John R. (2017). ‘Lexical semantics’, in Barbara Dancygier (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 246–61. Taylor, John R., and Kam-Yiu Pang (2008). ‘Seeing as though.’ English Language and Lin­ guistics 12: 103–39. Tomasello, Michael (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Notes: (1) For a good overview of CG achievements in grammatical description, especially with regard to the structure of the verbal group and the fronting on non-subject elements in English, see Langacker (2015). (2) Phonological variation in the pronunciation of words is probably no less extensive than variation in their meaning, a fact often overlooked by semanticists. See Johnson (2004). (3) The sanctioning units may not always pull in the same direction. See the discussion of That is fair to say in Taylor (2012: 274). (4) This comment applies to present-day English. In Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey (Chapter 7), we find ‘He asked each of them how they did’. The use of How do you do? in Chapters 7 and 9 of the novel, however, suggests that at that time the formula had the function of a generalized greeting, rather like present-day English How are you?, and was not restricted to a first introduction. (5) An alternative possibility is that the syllable onset requirement is satisfied by the in­ sertion of a glottal stop: pa [ʔ] and ma. Note that CG does not have the option of propos­ ing that there might be a ‘latent’, ‘underlying’ [r] in the phonological representation of ma. (6) There is another interpretation of (1), according to which there used to be a regulation that anyone who was mayor had to be a teenager. Here, mayor designates a role, not an individual. See Taylor (2002: 114) for discussion.

Page 21 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches (7) There are exceptions to this generalization. In reported speech, the modality may be shifted to an earlier point in time (She said that she might come to dinner). Another ex­ ception is provided by could; in When I lived in France, I could speak French fluently (= I was able to speak French fluently) the modal refers to a past ability. See also Ziegeler, this volume. (8) To be sure, other interpretations of my thesis are possible; it could be, for example, the thesis that has been assigned to me for assessment. Still, the general point holds. A the­ sis, by its very nature, is a kind of thing that has to be subjected to assessment by some­ body. (9) There are also syntactic restrictions. For example, although the sentences have the structure of transitive clauses, they do not have passive counterparts: *A string was bro­ ken by my guitar. (10) http://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/grammar/grammar_tutorial/page_30.htm. (11) https://english.ucalgary.ca/grammar/course/sentence/2_6c.htm. (12) Here in the text is another dangling infinitive! Who is supposed to ‘take’ another ex­ ample? Well, you, the reader, of course, in partnership with me, the writer. (13) http://www.ucalgary.ca/uofc/eduweb/grammar/course/sentence/2_6c.htm. (14) ‘Subjectification’ is often used to refer simply to an increased involvement by the speaker, as, for example, when really is used not simply to refer to ‘reality’ (Unicorns real­ ly exist) but to emphasize the speaker’s commitment to a proposition (I really believe that unicorns exist). While not inconsistent with this usage, Langacker’s understanding of sub­ jectification is more precise, in the way described in the text. (15) It is of interest to note that ‘change of state’ go generally involves change for the worse. A person can ‘go mad’, but not ‘go sane’. Things can ‘go wrong’, after which they may ‘come right’, but hardly ‘go right’. (16) Note that in (11b), the comma (indicating an intonation break) is essential. Such is not the case with (11a).

John R Taylor

John R Taylor (PhD 1979) is senior lecturer in linguistics at the University of Otago, New Zealand; previously he was at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannes­ burg, and the University of Trier, Germany. His interest in Cognitive Linguistics dates from the 1980s, when, after having completed his doctoral thesis on acoustic phonet­ ics, he chanced upon a preprint of some chapters of Langacker's Foundations of Cog­ nitive Grammar. He is author of Linguistic Categorization (1989; 2nd ed., 1995; 3rd rev. ed., 2003; and translated into Japanese, Korean, Italian, and Polish), Possessives in English (1996), and Cognitive Grammar (which appeared in 2003 in the Oxford Page 22 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Cognitive Linguistic Approaches Textbooks in Linguistics series). He has also coedited two volumes: Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World (with Robert MacLaury, 1996) and Current Ap­ proaches to Lexical Semantics (with Hubert Cuyckens and René Dirven, 2003). Since 1996, he has been one of the editors (alongside Ronald Langacker and René Dirven) of the series Cognitive Linguistics Research, published by Mouton de Gruyter. His main research interests are lexical semantics, the syntax-semantics interface, and phonetics/phonology in a Cognitive Linguistics perspective. John R Taylor can be reached at [email protected].

Page 23 of 23

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches

Constructional Approaches   Martin Hilpert The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.13

Abstract and Keywords This chapter discusses what a constructional approach to language can reveal about Eng­ lish grammar. Construction Grammar adopts a perspective that has been characterized as ‘the view from the periphery’, which pays particular attention to structures that are irreg­ ular and idiosyncratic with regard to form and meaning. A substantial body of work on such structures indicates that speakers’ knowledge of grammar contains a large number of small-scale generalizations. The constructional view openly questions whether gram­ mar can be conceived of as a well-defined set of morpho-syntactic rules. The wider impli­ cation of a constructional view is that a clean separation of grammar on the one hand and the lexicon on the other is not a realistic representation of linguistic knowledge. Keywords: construction, idiosyncrasy, form, meaning, knowledge of language, morpho-syntax, generalization

6.1 Introduction THIS chapter discusses what Construction Grammar can offer to a readership with a pri­ mary interest in English grammar, including not only linguists of different theoretical per­ suasions, but also language teachers and L2 learners of English. I will argue that Con­ struction Grammar presents a useful perspective on English grammar that differs from most other theoretical frameworks and that sheds light on phenomena that are relevant beyond the confines of a single linguistic theory. The chapter has two principal aims. First, it will discuss how the grammar of English can be approached from the theoretical perspective of Construction Grammar. In order to prepare the ground for that, section 6.2 offers an introduction to the framework and its central assumptions and section 6.3 defines the term ‘construction’. Section 6.4 then ap­ plies these ideas in a survey of different construction types from the grammar of English. The second aim of this chapter is to situate Construction Grammar within a wider re­ search context. Section 6.5 relates Construction Grammar to other approaches to gram­

Page 1 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches mar, and section 6.6 outlines some of its implications for language learning and teaching. Section 6.7 offers a few concluding remarks.

6.2 Construction Grammar: the view from the periphery As is the case for other theoretical frameworks, the term ‘Construction Grammar’ is used for a range of similar approaches. Several of these are presented in detail in Hoffmann and Trousdale (2013). General introductions to the framework can be found (p. 107) in Goldberg (2003), Fischer and Stefanowitsch (2006), Croft (2007a), Ziem and Lasch (2013), Hilpert (2014), or Fried (2015). In order to offer the reader a first orientation in the research landscape, this section will focus on ideas that are widely shared amongst different constructional approaches. Construction Grammar is a theory of what speakers know when they know a language. Its main goal is to describe the implicit, intuitive knowledge of language that is represented in speakers’ minds: What regularities and patterns do speakers have to know in order to produce and process ordinary language? With such an outlook, Construction Grammar has a lot in common with other mentalist approaches, notably Cognitive Grammar (see Chapter 5) and Generative Grammar (Chapter 8). What distinguishes Construction Gram­ mar from many other mentalist approaches is one rather radical idea, namely the as­ sumption that knowledge of language can be modelled exhaustively and exclusively as a network of symbolic form-meaning pairings (Goldberg 2006a: 18). These form-meaning pairings are referred to as constructions. Once the consequences of this idea are spelled out, it becomes apparent how different Construction Grammar really is from most other current theories of grammar. Three consequences are particularly worth considering. First, in Construction Grammar, all formal patterns in language, including words, idioms, morphological word formation processes, and abstract syntactic phrase structures, are seen as meaningful constructions. As I will explain more thoroughly in the next section, all constructions are defined as symbolic units, that is, pairings of form and meaning. This idea goes against the notion that only lexical elements have meaning, while the grammat­ ical patterns that can be used to combine them would be exclusively formal, that is, not meaningful in themselves. Second, the idea that knowledge of language is organized as a conceptual network is di­ rectly opposed to modular theories of grammar (Sadock 2012: 4), which assume separate, encapsulated components of linguistic knowledge that handle semantic, syntactic, or phonological aspects of language on their own. If it is assumed that language processing involves constructions, which by definition combine several formal and functional charac­ teristics, processing of meaning and form happens in an integrated fashion. A third consequence of the constructional view of language is that there is no principled distinction between lexis and grammar. Knowledge of language is seen as consisting of Page 2 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches form-meaning pairings, some of which have fixed, short forms and specific meanings (ap­ ple, slide, fast), whereas others are highly schematic in both form and meaning (wh-clefts, subject-to-object raising, left dislocation). The elements in the first category are common­ ly associated with the term ‘lexis’, those in the second category with the term ‘grammar’. On the constructional view, the two are seen as end points on a continuum. What moti­ vates this view is that between monomorphemic lexical elements and complex clausal constructions, there is a vast range of patterns with varying degrees of schematicity and complexity, including idioms, word formation processes, and semi-fixed phrasal construc­ tions. I will discuss all of these in more detail in this chapter. As was suggested above, lexical elements are situated at the more concrete end of the lexis-grammar continuum, since their meanings tend to be highly specific and their phonological forms fully specified. Speakers’ knowledge of language of course includes a large number of individual lexical elements, but beyond that, it also comprises a sizable number of collocations and multi-word strings, such as thank you, happy new year, or Have I got news for you. These multi-word patterns are actually not entirely fixed, but can be varied in flexible ways. For instance, the expression happy new year can easily be extended into a happy, healthy, and successful new year. We thus have knowledge of (p. 108)

schemas, rather than absolutely fixed strings. To flesh out this idea, an expression such as He went nuts instantiates a schematic pattern in which the verb go is paired with a sub­ ject and a predicate such as nuts to indicate that someone became very angry or dis­ played some other irrational behaviour. The meaning of go in this context is different from its usual, motion-related meaning (cf. He went home). Rather than encoding motion, the verb here encodes a change of state. This meaning, however, is not solely observable in He went nuts, but also in similar expressions, such as She’s gone insane or I’ll go crazy. Crucially, not all predicates can be used in this way: ?She’s gone impolite, ?I’ll go happy, or ?He went dirty may perhaps be interpreted as meaningful sentences of English, but they are not conventional ways of saying that someone turned impolite, happy, or dirty. What this means is that He went nuts is not just a fixed, idiomatic expression. Instead, the expression represents a construction that is schematic in three ways: it may accommo­ date different subjects, different forms of the verb go, and a range of different predicates that are related to the notions of confusion and agitation (nuts, mad, crazy, bonkers, wild, etc., cf. Bybee 2013 for an analysis of a similar construction). Speakers of English know this, and so a representation of what might be called the go crazy construction should be part of the constructional network that is meant to model the grammar of English. At the same time, it is clear that the go crazy construction is neither purely a matter of lexis, nor just a matter of syntactic rules. From the perspective of traditional grammar writing, the construction would be viewed as belonging to the periphery of grammar, rather than its core. From the view of Construction Grammar, the go crazy construction is situated closer towards the lexical end of the lexis-grammar continuum. What further motivates the continuum view is that also towards the more schematic end of the continuum, constructions can exhibit lexical preferences and idiosyncratic restric­ tions. An example for this would be English wh-questions with long-distance dependen­ cies. Speakers of English know how to form wh-questions, and they are able to distin­ Page 3 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches guish well-formed questions from ill-formed ones. To give an example, the question What book did you say we needed from the library? is grammatically well-formed, while the question *What book did you make the claim that we needed from the library? is not. The difference in grammaticality has been explained with regard to a formal syntactic criteri­ on (Ross 1967). In the second question, the questioned constituent (the book) is part of a complex noun phrase (the claim that we needed the book from the library). The ungram­ maticality of the question is related to that syntactic structure. Questioning an element from within a complex noun phrase (p. 109) by means of putting it to the front of the sen­ tence is barred by a syntactic constraint that forms part of the grammar of English. While this elegantly explains the difference in grammaticality between the examples above, for­ mal syntactic factors such as the Complex Noun Phrase Constraint do not account for grammaticality judgement ratings that show differences between examples that are struc­ turally identical. Dąbrowska (2008: 411) observes that speakers consistently give worse ratings to Where did you swear the young man went after they found her? than to Where did you say they hid the treasure when they found out? These questions do not differ structurally, but they do differ with regard to the complement-taking verb that governs the questioned constituent. Under experimental conditions, questions with say or think receive better ratings than questions with swear or suspect, also when other variables are controlled for, as for example the pronominality of the subject. This suggests that even highly abstract syntactic patterns are connected to specific lexical elements. In a modular theory of grammar such connections are difficult to explain, whereas the network model of Construction Grammar offers a natural account. Even abstract constructions are mean­ ingful, so that they will be associated with those lexical elements that are best compatible with those meanings. Again, the more general conclusion is that a strict separation of lex­ is and grammar is not possible, and a continuum view suggests itself as a viable alterna­ tive. Starting with early foundational studies such as Fillmore et al. (1988), Construction Grammarians have paid particular attention to structures that do not belong to the estab­ lished ‘core’ of English grammar, but that rather fall somewhere in the middle of the lex­ is-grammar continuum. Examples include the let alone construction (I can’t imagine how to become a vegetarian, let alone a vegan), the comparative correlative construction (The more you read about it, the less you understand), the way-construction (John elbowed his way through the hallway), or the many a NOUN construction (I’ve waited many a day for this to happen). This perspective has been characterized as ‘the view from the periphery’ (Culicover and Jackendoff 1999). A recurring focus has been on the observa­ tion that constructions of this kind display formal and functional peculiarities that cannot be accounted for in terms of more general patterns. By now, a substantial body of work on such ‘unruly’ structures has given rise to the view that idiosyncrasies in grammatical constructions are in fact ubiquitous (cf. Hilpert 2014 and references therein). Speakers’ knowledge of grammar must therefore contain a large number of small-scale generaliza­ tions that capture the idiosyncrasies that are associated with grammatical patterns along the constructional continuum, from relatively specific ones such as the go crazy construction to highly abstract ones such as wh-questions. Page 4 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches

6.3 What is a construction? The last section outlined a fundamental assumption of Construction Grammar, namely that linguistic knowledge exclusively consists of a large network of constructions. A com­ mon reaction to this claim is the question of what a construction actually is. (p. 110) Is everything a construction? If everything in language is a construction, is the term not en­ tirely vacuous? Contrary to first impressions, the term ‘construction’ is defined very pre­ cisely (cf. Kay 2013), and the statement that ‘everything in language is a construction’ is in need of an important qualification. Starting with the latter, it is crucial to distinguish between the words and phrases that speakers utter, which are called constructs, and the more abstract constructions that underlie these constructs. A string of words such as our little farm on the prairie is not, in itself, a construction. Rather, the string and its parts in­ stantiate a number of constructions, such as the noun phrase construction, the attributive adjective construction, and the prepositional phrase construction. As a rule, if a pattern of language use can be fully analysed in terms of more general patterns, that particular pat­ tern of language use is not a construction. With that in mind, the notion of constructions can be approached in more positive terms. A very influential definition of the term ‘con­ struction’ is the following (Goldberg 1995: 4): C is a CONSTRUCTION iffdef C is a form-meaning pair such that some as­ pect of Fi or some aspect of Si is not strictly predictable from C’s component parts or from other previously established constructions.1 This definition echoes several ideas that were touched on earlier in this chapter. First, it characterizes constructions as pairings of form (F) and meaning, here represented by an (S) for semantics. This is perhaps not so very different from definitions of constructions that are used in pedagogical settings, where students of English are introduced to the ‘passive construction’ or the ‘present progressive construction’. An idea that is rather im­ plicit in the definition above is that constructions represent linguistic knowledge: a formmeaning pair is a connection in a speaker’s mind. To know a construction is to know that a certain form maps onto a certain meaning. Here, the definition departs from non-techni­ cal definitions, which are usually just concerned with linguistic structures, not necessari­ ly with speakers’ knowledge of such structures. The most prominent idea in the defini­ tion, however, is that a construction is only to be seen as such if some aspect of its form or some aspect of its meaning is not strictly predictable. In plain words, something is a construction only if speakers have to memorize it as a linguistic unit in its own right. To make this more specific, an idiom such as to get carried away is a construction because its overall meaning ‘to be overcome by enthusiasm’ is not predictable from the meaning of its component words. A set phrase such as by and large likewise displays non-composi­ tional meaning, but in addition, it is also formally unpredictable, since there is no more general pattern in the grammar of English that would license constituents that consist of a preposition, a conjunction, and an adjective. If a form-meaning pair displays non-compo­ sitional meanings and unpredictable formal characteristics, this means that it must be represented as such in speakers’ knowledge of language. Page 5 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches While non-predictability is evidently a sufficient criterion for identifying a con­ struction, many researchers in Construction Grammar no longer consider it to be a neces­ sary one. The reason for this is that even fully transparent forms may be redundantly rep­ resented as nodes in the constructional network if they are used often enough so that speakers remember them as such. Phrases such as come under scrutiny or What took you so long? are fully interpretable, even when they are heard for the first time, so that they would not be seen as constructions under the above definition. Yet, experienced speakers of English have heard these phrases often enough to form distinct memories of them and to associate them with the contextual settings in which they are typically used. There is no convincing reason to exclude this kind of knowledge from the rest of speakers’ linguis­ tic knowledge. In a later definition of constructions, Goldberg (2006a: 5) therefore casts the net a little wider to include also fully transparent form-meaning pairs, as long as these occur frequently enough: (p. 111)

Any linguistic pattern is recognized as a construction as long as some aspect of its form or function is not strictly predictable from its component parts or from other constructions recognized to exist. In addition, patterns are stored as constructions even if they are fully predictable as long as they occur with sufficient frequency. At the time of writing this chapter, this second definition represents a relatively broad consensus in the Construction Grammar community. Constructions are those form-mean­ ing mappings that speakers have memorized in their network of linguistic knowledge, be it for reasons of formal or functional non-predictability or because of frequent exposure. It goes without saying that this is by no means the only view that is held (cf. Langacker 2005, Sag 2012, or Kay 2013, amongst others). Even with a working definition in place, it is, however, not always easy to identify con­ structions on the basis of natural linguistic data. It will therefore be useful to round out this section by going over a few strategies that can be used for this purpose. Hilpert (2014: 14) suggests four heuristics that tie in with several ideas that have already been mentioned. The first, and perhaps easiest strategy is to check whether an expression has formal characteristics that cannot be explained in terms of more general grammatical patterns. Whenever an expression can be said to be formally unusual or idiosyncratic, this is the case. An example would be the so-called big mess construction (Van Eynde 2007). In examples such as How big a mess is it? or If it’s that good a deal, you cannot refuse, an adjective precedes the determiner of an indefinite noun phrase. This particular order is not found elsewhere in the grammar of English and therefore motivates the recognition of a separate construction. The second heuristic is to look for non-compositional meanings. Idiomatic expressions such as get the ball rolling ‘initiate a process’, a smoking gun ‘incriminating evidence’, or weather the storm ‘master a difficult situation’ illustrate the phenomenon: the meanings of the parts do not correspond to the meaning of the whole expression. Yet, idioms are not the only constructions in which this can be observed. For example, the meaning of the English subject-to-object raising construction, which is exemplified (p. 112) by sentences Page 6 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches such as I need you to calm down, is non-compositional. At first glance, this may not be en­ tirely obvious. For an experienced speaker of English, the immediate interpretation of this sentence is that the speaker asks the addressee to calm down (‘I need something, namely that you calm down’). However, the sentence is structurally ambiguous. A begin­ ning learner of English might thus interpret the sentence differently, thinking that the speaker would like to calm down, which, for some reason, she or he can only do when the addressee is present (‘I need you here so that I can calm down’). How the respective roles of the participants in a raising construction are interpreted is thus a matter of convention that does not automatically follow from the meaning of the lexical words that occur in such a construction. Constructions can even be identified as such when they do not exhibit overt formal oddi­ ties or non-compositional meanings. A third strategy that can be used for this purpose is to check whether a given expression is subject to formal restrictions. Are there con­ straints on the use of an expression? Are there certain conditions under which a construc­ tion ‘does not work’? To give an example, the sentence Mary is a smarter lawyer than John seems to be fully compositional semantically and fully in line with canonical syntac­ tic patterns of English. Yet, there is an unpredictable constraint on the construction that licenses the sentence. The predicate noun phrase of the sentence (a smarter lawyer than John) must be indefinite. With a definite determiner, the result *Mary is the smarter lawyer than John becomes ungrammatical. This suggests that the first, grammatical sen­ tence instantiates a construction that is subject to an indefiniteness constraint. Even highly general and productive constructions can be shown to have constraints. For instance, Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 276) note that English prepositional passives (This bed has been slept in, Her book was referred to) cannot be formed with certain prepositional verbs (*Boston was flown to next, *Some old letters were come across). Es­ tablishing that a construction is subject to constraints usually requires the analyst to use introspection and to construct minimal pairs of examples, which may be difficult to do for second language learners. Even for native speakers, this procedure is not error-proof, but it serves to generate hypotheses that can then be checked against naturally occurring da­ ta. The three strategies that have been discussed up to now are all concerned with discrete qualitative characteristics of constructions. Whether or not an expression is formally or semantically unpredictable, or subject to a constraint, is a question that can be answered categorically, with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. The fourth and last heuristic to be mentioned here is more gradual and probabilistic in nature. Importantly, speakers’ knowledge of language does not only allow them to discriminate between grammatical and ungrammatical in­ stances of language use. A hallmark of linguistic competence that is just as significant is speakers’ ability to distinguish conventional, idiomatic language use from unusual, nonidiomatic expressions (Taylor 2012). More specifically, proficient speakers know what words and constructions typically occur together. For example, the sentences The results came under scrutiny and The results went under scrutiny are both grammatically wellformed and convey approximately the same (p. 113) meaning, but when forced to choose, Page 7 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches speakers of English will express a clear preference for the first one, as come under scruti­ ny is much more idiomatic than go under scrutiny. To illustrate the phenomenon in a dif­ ferent way, the English adjective grave, ‘serious, important’, is strongly associated with a range of nouns that convey an inherently negative meaning, such as danger, doubts, con­ cern, mistake, or error. Yet, grave does not combine equally well with all nouns that have negative meanings. Non-idiomatic combinations such as grave shame or grave infection may be used under certain conditions, but statistically speaking, they are strongly dispre­ ferred. Lexical collocations such as come under scrutiny are widely studied, also outside Construction Grammar. What a constructional perspective can add to the study of colloca­ tions is the observation that grammatical constructions also have associative ties to lexi­ cal elements. For example, the English modal auxiliary will and the English be going to construction exhibit collocational preferences for different sets of lexical verbs that occur with these constructions (Hilpert 2008: 41). In comparison, be going to has a greater ten­ dency to select for agentive, intentional, and telic verbs. Collocational preferences of this kind have to be learned, and as such, they motivate the recognition of English will and be going to, in combination with an open slot for a lexical verb in the infinitive, as construc­ tions in the technical sense. To sum up this section, constructions can be defined as form-meaning mappings that are organized in a network of linguistic knowledge. Constructions can be identified as such on the basis of non-predictable formal or functional criteria, idiosyncratic constraints on their usage, or associative ties to other constructions. With all of these theoretical prelim­ inaries in place, the next section will proceed to offer a brief survey of constructions from different domains of the grammar of English, with a commentary on how they can be analysed from the perspective of Construction Grammar.

6.4 English Grammar in a constructional per­ spective 6.4.1 Argument structure: the ditransitive construction One of the foundational texts of Construction Grammar is Adele Goldberg’s study of argu­ ment structure constructions (Goldberg 1995), which presents analyses of the caused mo­ tion construction (John kicked the ball over the fence), the resultative construction (Mary worried herself sick), the way-construction (Bob cheated his way into law school) and, as I will discuss in more detail in this section, the ditransitive construction (Frank poured me a drink). The term ‘argument structure’ (cf. Chapter 7) typically refers to a relationship that holds between a verb and its arguments, which are the participants that are project­ ed by a given verb. In a sentence such as John ate a muffin, the verb form ate is the predi­ cate, and the remaining parts of the sentence (p. 114) (John, a muffin) are its arguments. Traditionally, argument structure is understood as a lexical property of verbs, that is, a given verb is associated with a specific set of arguments. A verb such as eat is thus con­ sidered to be a transitive verb, since it regularly takes a direct object, as in the sentence Page 8 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches above. Typically however, verbs are associated with several argument structure patterns. The verb eat, for example, is often also used without an object (Let’s eat!), in which case it would be used intransitively. What motivates a constructional account of argument structure is that speakers combine verbs and arguments in ways that cannot be just a matter of established convention. Sometimes verbs are used in new and creative ways. A newspaper might report on a snake that ate itself to death. What this example conveys is that a snake died, presumably as a result of choosing an unsuitably large prey. This interpretation does not follow from the verb’s semantics, and it is in direct conflict with the conventionalized transitive argu­ ment structure of eat, which would lead us to expect that the pronoun itself denotes the participant that was eaten. What Goldberg (1995) proposes in order to explain the facility with which readers understand such creative instances of language use is that the overall meaning of the sentence is directly associated with its syntactic structure. Combining a subject with a verb, a reflexive pronoun, and a phrase such as to death yields a formal pattern that Goldberg calls the English resultative construction. This construction can convey the idea that some action brought about a result, regardless of the specific verb that denotes that action. This analysis entails an important shift in perspective, away from the idea that only verbs can select their arguments, and towards the idea that con­ structions also carry meaning, select arguments, and thereby alter established argument structure patterns. The following paragraphs expand on this idea by presenting Goldberg’s analysis of the ditransitive construction in more detail. The English ditransitive construction combines a verb with a subject and two objects. For this reason, the construction is often called the double object construction. It is exempli­ fied by sentences such as My brother sent me a letter or John played me one of his new songs. Goldberg characterizes the prototypical meaning of the ditransitive construction as a ‘transfer between a volitional agent and a willing recipient’ (1995: 141). It is not hard to find apparent counterexamples to this prototypical meaning, as for example He gave me the flu (which has a recipient that is definitely not willing) or The smoke gives the meat an intense flavour (which does not have a volitional agent). Goldberg explains examples of this kind with reference to a conceptual metaphor that presents causal chains as agentive transfers (1995: 144). Ditransitives that verbalize such metaphorical transfers can thus deviate from the prototype. The notions of agent and recipient map on­ to the different arguments of the construction. The subject argument is understood to be the volitional agent that initiates the transfer. The first object is the willing recipient, who accepts the object of transfer that is expressed in the second object. For a verb such as send, which lexically encodes the idea of a transfer, the ditransitive construction is a high­ ly conventionalized argument structure pattern with high relative frequency. When speak­ ers use the verb send, it is quite likely that they use it in the context of a ditransitive sen­ tence. The verb play, by (p. 115) contrast, does not inherently denote transfers and is not as strongly associated with ditransitive argument structure. Its occurrence in the ditran­ sitive construction is perfectly acceptable, but already shows that the construction can make a significant semantic contribution to the overall meaning of the sentence. As a rule, that contribution becomes more substantial the less a verb is associated with the Page 9 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches meaning of a transfer. The verb sketch, for instance, does not, by itself, evoke the idea of a transfer, and it is rarely used in the ditransitive construction. Yet, in a sentence such as I will sketch you a view of the river while you read Wordsworth to me (which is an exam­ ple of authentic language use taken from the COHA corpus), it does occur in the con­ struction, and the overall interpretation is that the speaker aims to transfer a visual im­ pression to the hearer. Unless we assume an ad-hoc sense of sketch along the lines of ‘draw something in order to show it to someone else’, the overall meaning of the sentence does not follow from the meanings of the individual words. In other words, unless we posit a meaningful ditransitive construction, we cannot explain how a hearer might spon­ taneously arrive at the correct interpretation. The previous section mentioned several heuristics that can be used for the detection of constructions. One strategy was that of looking for idiosyncratic constraints. The ditransi­ tive construction is subject to a number of such constraints. For example, the unaccept­ ability of a sentence such as *I brought the table a glass of water shows that if a recipient fails the criterion of being ‘willing to accept’, the ditransitive cannot be used. Crucially, if the sentence is changed in such a way that the table can metonymically refer to a group of willing recipients, as in I brought the table another round of frozen margaritas, the un­ acceptability disappears. Other constraints on the ditransitive concern specific groups of verbs. Several verbs that describe manners of speech, such as scream, murmur, whisper, or yodel (Goldberg 1995: 128), are statistically dispreferred, although examples such as I whispered her a secret are attested. More categorically, sentences such as *John ex­ plained me the theory or *Mary donated the red cross £100 are ruled out, which has been linked to the Latinate morphology and prosody of these verbs (Gropen et al. 1989). Verbs such as obtain, procure, provide, or postulate have meanings that could be thought to fit rather well into the set of conventionalized ditransitive verbs. However, they are conspic­ uously absent from the construction. Herbst (2014) thus rightly points out that ‘there is no guarantee that a particular lexical item with certain semantic characteristics will be able to occur in a particular valency pattern simply because other lexical items with the same characteristics do’. While the relative absence of Latinate verbs in the ditransitive construction cannot be motivated semantically, speakers might still notice it in synchronic usage and draw the conclusion that certain verbs do not work as well as others. Family resemblances in the sound and morphological structure of Latinate verbs might deter speakers from experimenting more freely with them in the ditransitive construction. In summary, the fact that speakers of English use and understand creative formations such as My doctor scribbled me a prescription suggests that English ditransitive argu­ ment structure is a syntactic pattern that is endowed with meaning. The construction can thus be used to convey the idea of a transfer even when it is used with verbs (p. 116) that are not themselves associated with that notion. A persistent problem in the study of argu­ ment structure constructions has been the issue of overgeneralization, that is, the prob­ lem that an analysis may predict the acceptability of examples that competent speakers would judge as deviant or even ungrammatical. Analyses in the tradition of Goldberg (1995) usually posit a number of constraints that restrict how the construction can be used. Other attempts to come to terms with overgeneralization focus on constructions Page 10 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches that are posited at lower levels of generalization (Boas 2003) or on valency constructions for individual verbs (Herbst 2014).

6.4.2 Modality: modal auxiliary constructions There is a rich scholarly tradition that addresses modality and the English modal auxil­ iaries (cf. Chapter 20). In comparison, modal auxiliaries have attracted relatively little at­ tention in the more recent field of Construction Grammar. This is to be seen as a conse­ quence of ‘the view from the periphery’ that much constructional work has adopted. The idiosyncrasies and non-predictable meanings that are found in patterns like the compara­ tive correlative construction (The more you read about it, the less you understand) do not seem to characterize constructions such as the sequence of the modal auxiliary would and a lexical verb in the infinitive. If anything, modal auxiliaries as a group seem to be highly predictable in terms of their semantic and morphosyntactic behaviour: they differ from lexical verbs in terms of their morphosyntactic behaviour, but they share these differ­ ences. Hence, a sentence such as John will wash the dishes is both structurally pre­ dictable and semantically transparent. Modal auxiliaries always take non-finite verb phrases as complements, and the interpretation of the whole sentence can often be fully derived from the meanings of the individual words. Moreover, the behaviour of will is highly similar to the behaviour of would, must, shall, and the remaining core modal auxil­ iaries. As is well known, they exhibit a number of shared features that set them apart from lexical verbs (Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 75). These features include the ability to undergo inversion with the subject in questions (Can / Will / Would you do it?), the ability to occur with negative clitics (I can’t / won’t / wouldn’t do it), and the lack of person agreement, amongst other things. In short, while the manifest differences between modal auxiliaries and lexical verbs would, in the light of what has been argued above, be strong evidence for the assumption of a general modal auxiliary construction, it is less clear whether any one specific modal auxiliary would have to be represented in speakers’ minds as a construction in its own right, and if so, how that construction should be de­ fined. An argument for positing individual modal auxiliary constructions follows from the empir­ ical observation that each of the core modals is statistically associated with a distinct set of lexical collocates (Hilpert 2008, 2012, 2016). While the general morphosyntactic behav­ iour of two modal auxiliaries such as would and will is largely identical, so that speakers would not have to memorize it separately for would and will, the respective associative ties to particular lexical contexts are manifestly different. (p. 117) A phrase such as I would like to thank you is highly idiomatic while I will like to thank you sounds decidedly odd. The shift in perspective that distinguishes a constructional account of modal auxil­ iaries from most other approaches is thus that modal auxiliary constructions not only in­ clude the auxiliary as such, but also a structural open slot for its infinitival complement and a large set of associative links to lexical verbs that typically occupy that slot. In other words, the focus is less on auxiliaries as items that display paradigmatic semantic con­ trasts, but rather on the syntagmatic relations that these items entertain. Cappelle and Depraetere (2016) argue for an even more extended view that includes associations not Page 11 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches only with the infinitival complements, but also with other collocating elements. For in­ stance, the modal auxiliary can is associated with the idiomatic expression Not if I can help it, which conveys the meaning ‘I will try to prevent it’. Another piece of evidence that motivates such a network-based view is that over time, individual auxiliaries may change in their collocational preferences, so that some collocations fade and others be­ come more entrenched. Hilpert (2016) demonstrates how the recent collocational shifts of the modal auxiliary may can be linked to its gradual semantic change from a marker of deontic modality towards a marker of epistemic modality (cf. also Millar 2009). What this means is that a speaker of Present-Day English has internalized an associative colloca­ tional network that differs from the networks that speakers of earlier generations would have had. To conclude this section, the English modal auxiliaries are profitably viewed as construc­ tions, even if they inherit most of their properties from broader generalizations and are thus much less idiosyncratic than the constructions that are discussed in the foundational studies of Construction Grammar. The main surplus value that Construction Grammar brings to the analysis of modal auxiliaries is the focus on the associative ties between modal auxiliaries and their lexical collocates.

6.4.3 Information packaging: it-clefts and wh-clefts An important function of syntax is known as information structuring (see Chapter 22), or, as it is called in this chapter, information packaging. When speakers engage in a conver­ sation, they not only strive to communicate certain pieces of information, they also try to present this information in a way that facilitates the hearer’s job of processing that infor­ mation. In other words, speakers package the information of their utterance in such a way that it can easily be unpacked by the hearer. In order to meet the needs of the hear­ er, speakers design their utterances in accordance with a number of general processingrelated principles. One of these is the Principle of End Focus (Quirk et al. 1985: 1362). If an utterance involves both information that is old, that is, known to both interlocutors, and information that is new to the hearer, speakers will tend to present old information before new information, since the hearer can process information more effectively if an utterance contains a known starting point to which new information can then be connect­ ed. A closely related principle, the Principle of End Weight (Quirk et al. 1985: 1362), bias­ es speakers towards presenting short (p. 118) constituents first, and heavier, more com­ plex constituents only towards the end of the sentence. Also this principle serves to mini­ mize the hearer’s processing effort. Processing a sentence that begins with a long, com­ plex constituent, without knowing the grammatical function that this constituent will eventually take, puts a significant strain on the hearer’s working memory (as this very sentence may have illustrated). These principles of information packaging inform discussions of linguistic structure across different theoretical frameworks, so it is a valid question to ask how a construc­ tional view of information packaging (Leino 2013) might be different from other ap­ proaches. The short answer to that question is that in a constructional approach, re­ Page 12 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches searchers will analyse the syntactic patterns that speakers use for the purpose of infor­ mation packaging as meaningful symbolic units, that is, as information packaging con­ structions. While other theoretical frameworks also investigate constructions such as wh-clefts (What I need is the key to the back door), left dislocation (My dad, he’s a little crazy), or topicalization (This shirt I actually bought second hand), constructional ac­ counts try to analyse them as form-meaning pairings that are subject to particular prag­ matic constraints. On the basis of ideas discussed by Lambrecht (1994: 5), Hilpert (2014: 105) defines infor­ mation packaging constructions in terms of the following three characteristics: Information packaging constructions are sentence-level constructions [1] that speakers use to express complex meanings [2] in a way that shows awareness of the current knowledge of the hearer [3]. In contrast to argument structure constructions like the ditransitive construction, infor­ mation packaging constructions are not inherently tied to a meaning like ‘transfer’. Rather, they allow speakers to signal to the hearer what information in their utterance is new, unexpected, or particularly relevant, given a prior context. Lambrecht (2001) offers a comprehensive constructional account of cleft sentences that informs the following paragraphs. Cleft sentences such as What I need is the key to the back door (wh-cleft) or It is the key to the back door that I need (it-cleft) convey a proposition that can be expressed with a simple transitive construction, as in I need the key to the back door. The fact that speak­ ers choose a more complex form suggests that when cleft sentences are used, they in fact communicate something more than just their propositional information. The added value of wh-clefts and it-clefts includes the following points. First, both types of cleft flag some information as new, and some as old. By uttering them, the speaker treats ‘the key to the back door’ as newsworthy, while presenting the fact that ‘something is needed’ as some­ thing that the hearer already knows, or can at least infer from the context. Which type of cleft a speaker will choose in a given situation depends on several factors (Lambrecht 2001: 497). One aspect is the relative length of the constituent that is presented as new, the so-called focus phrase. In accordance with the Principle of End Weight, a long focus phrase will bias speakers towards the wh-cleft, so that the focus phrase is positioned at the end. A second aspect concerns the (p. 119) information that is presented in the rela­ tive clause constituent of the cleft sentences, i.e. ‘something is needed’. If this informa­ tion is highly discourse-prominent to both interlocutors, for example because the speaker was just asked What do you need?, a wh-cleft is pragmatically the much more appropriate choice, since it presents highly prominent, topical information first, in line with the Prin­ ciple of End Focus. By contrast, an it-cleft is preferred when the information in the rela­ tive clause can only be understood through the non-linguistic context. To illustrate, if the Page 13 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches speaker, while searching through a large collection of keys, is being asked What are you doing with those keys?, an it-cleft (It is the key to the back door that I need) would be a much more fitting answer than a wh-cleft. A third feature that distinguishes wh-clefts and it-clefts is that some examples of the latter simply do not have wh-cleft counterparts. Sen­ tences such as It was with relief that she heard the door close or It was in no time that they had finished their ice creams cannot be paraphrased in such a way that the result is a well-formed wh-cleft (Hilpert 2014: 117). Speakers of English have internalized the structural and pragmatic constraints on the use of cleft sentences and choose between them according to the demands of the communicative situation. This motivates the recog­ nition of clefts, and other information packaging constructions, as conventionalized formmeaning pairings.

6.4.4 Morphological constructions The introductory sections of this chapter presented Construction Grammar as a model of linguistic knowledge that takes the shape of a network in which symbolic units of varying schematicity and complexity are connected. It was discussed that the network contains lexical elements, idiomatic expressions, and more abstract syntactic patterns. Beyond that, the network also contains morphological constructions, that is, symbolic units that allow speakers to produce and understand complex words, such as cats, challenging, or printer. In constructional approaches to morphology (Booij 2010, 2013), inflectional mor­ phological rules (such as plural formation with -s) and derivational word formation processes (such as nominalization with -er) are re-thought as partly schematic formmeaning pairings. To give an example, a noun such as printer is seen as an instantiation of a construction that has both a form and a meaning. Formally, the construction consists of an open slot for a verb that combines with a fixed element, namely the nominalizing suffix -er. The meaning of the construction conveys the idea of someone or something ac­ tively involved in the process that is described by the verb (cf. Booij 2010: 2), so that a printer is understood as ‘something that prints’. What motivates a constructional approach to morphology? Several characteristics of con­ structions that were discussed in section 6.2 can be seen as well in word formation processes. Most importantly, morphological constructions are subject to formal and func­ tional constraints, just like syntactic constructions. The fact that -er is known as a highly productive nominalization suffix of English should not be taken to mean that the verb-er construction is unconstrained. To describe someone who falls as a *faller is just as uncon­ ventional as calling something that exists an *exister. Typical uses of the (p. 120) construc­ tion, such as leader, hunter, or speaker involve verbs that are agentive. Verbs that are se­ mantically too far removed from this prototype are not usable in the construction, which hints at the presence of a semantic constraint. Many morphological constructions also display formal constraints. In fact, the observation that the open slot in the verb-er construction does not readily accommodate nouns (*keyer) or adjectives (*expensiver) al­ ready constitutes a formal constraint. Constraints on form may also concern phonological aspects of the construction. For instance, verbs such as blacken, tighten, or broaden instantiate a construction that licenses de-adjectival causal verbs. The construction is Page 14 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches subject to strict phonological constraints: only monosyllabic adjectives that end in an ob­ struent may be verbalized with the -en suffix (cf. Plag 2003: 93). Another shared characteristic of word formation processes and constructions in the sense of Construction Grammar is non-compositional meaning. This can be illustrated with the verb-er construction that was mentioned above. When the construction occurs with verbs such as burn, which describe spontaneous processes, the resultant form does not simply denote ‘something that burns’. The constructional meaning imposes an agentive or causative interpretation on the complex word, so that a burner is conventionally under­ stood as ‘something that burns something else (usually fuel)’, not ‘something that burns (itself)’. This meaning cannot be attributed to either the verb or the suffix, but it emerges from the combination of the two. A third consideration relates back to the discussion of modal auxiliary constructions earli­ er in this section. There, it was argued that auxiliaries such as English would, followed by a verbal complement, can be seen as constructions because each individual modal auxil­ iary has a distinct profile of collocational preferences. The same argument can be applied to constructions that involve morphological marking, such as the English present progres­ sive, which is a periphrastic construction that includes a form of the verb be and a lexical verb that takes the inflectional -ing suffix. Stefanowitsch and Gries (2003) use the method of collexeme analysis to investigate the associative ties between the present progressive and the lexical verbs that occur in the construction, finding that verbs such as talk, work, sit, and wait are highly overrepresented. Constructions such as the progressive thus con­ stitute complex networks with numerous associations between a schematic pattern and lexical elements. Taken together, the presence of unpredictable constraints, non-compositional meanings, and idiosyncratic collocational preferences motivates a view of inflectional and deriva­ tional morphology as cut from the same cloth as other constructions in the grammar of English.

6.5 Construction Grammar and other approach­ es to grammar Based on the analyses that were presented in the last section, it is now time to consider the question of how Construction Grammar relates to other approaches to grammar. Two hallmark characteristics of Construction Grammar are particularly important (p. 121) in this regard, namely its mentalist stance on the one hand, and its assumption that linguis­ tic knowledge reduces to knowledge of constructions on the other. Given these assump­ tions, how does Construction Grammar fit into the wider research landscape? In compar­ isons of linguistic theories, a frequently made distinction is the contrast between socalled formalist and functionalist approaches (Newmeyer 1998). Assigning Construction Grammar to one of these categories is less than straight forward. Certain varieties, such as Sign-Based Construction Grammar (Sag 2012) and Fluid Construction Grammar (Van Page 15 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches Trijp 2013) have developed sophisticated formalisms and computationally implemented models of speakers’ knowledge, which makes them, to all intents and purposes, ‘formal­ ist’ theories. The work of Goldberg (1995, 2006a), on the other hand, places great empha­ sis on functional and cognitive considerations and is consequently known as Cognitive Construction Grammar. What this suggests is that placing Construction Grammar in a wider context requires more complex criteria than just the formalist-functionalist divide. Working towards such a goal, Butler and Gonzálvez-García (2014) present an overview of different functional and cognitive frameworks (cf. Chapter 10) that includes several vari­ eties of Construction Grammar next to theories such as Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin 1993) and Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008). Their overview is based on a fifty-eight--item questionnaire that was filled out by re­ searchers practising in the respective frameworks. The questionnaire items concern the scope and coverage of the approaches, methodological practices, aspects of theory con­ struction, as well as pedagogical and computational applications. Several results that emerge from the data reveal interesting differences between Construction Grammar and other theoretical frameworks. Among the issues that receive comparatively little atten­ tion in Construction Grammar, Butler and Gonzálvez-García (2014: 488) list discourse and the properties of whole texts, the sociocultural context of language, paradigmatic rela­ tions, and the pursuit of theoretical parsimony (Sign-Based Construction Grammar is an exception with regard to the last item). Issues that are relatively prominent include the assumption that the language system is non-autonomous and non-modular, the network metaphor of linguistic knowledge, and the important role of cognitive factors (again, Sign-Based Construction Grammar does not align with regard to the latter). These obser­ vations, short as they are, offer a first indication of how Construction Grammar relates to its closest theoretical neighbours.

6.6 Construction Grammar in language learn­ ing The areas of first and second language acquisition are important testing grounds for lin­ guistic theories. How well do the assumptions of a given theory align with empirical ob­ servations of learner data? The constructional view of linguistic knowledge goes along with the usage-based approach to language acquisition (Tomasello 2003, Diessel 2013), which holds that language learning proceeds in a gradual, piecemeal fashion, (p. 122) starting with the memorization of fixed chunks of language that gradually expand into more abstract generalizations. Research of this kind has inspired investigations of second language learners and their use of constructions (Ellis 2013). A general conclusion emerging from this work is that learners gradually build up constructional generaliza­ tions in their L2 by associating structural patterns with meanings, figuring out con­ straints, and internalizing collocational preferences. Importantly, this process is influ­ enced by the learners’ L1, which guides their attention and induces transfer, i.e. the analysis of a phenomenon in the L2 in terms of structures that are already known from Page 16 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches the L1. From the perspective of Construction Grammar, becoming a proficient L2 speaker is equivalent to learning to approximate native speakers’ usage of constructions, so that learners use the L2 not only correctly, but also idiomatically. Experimental results by Gries and Wulff (2005) illustrate how this process works. In a sentence completion task, German learners of English were primed with sentence frag­ ments such as The racing driver showed the helpful mechanic … (which strongly evokes the ditransitive construction) or fragments such as The racing driver showed the torn overall … (which is most aptly completed as a prepositional dative construction, i.e. The racing driver showed the torn overall to the helpful mechanic). After these primes, partic­ ipants saw another sentence fragment containing just a subject and a verb, and they had to construct a completion of that fragment. The results show a significant priming effect. When learners have been recently exposed to a syntactic construction of their L2, they are likely to re-use that structure. The data further reveal that this priming effect is not the same for different verbs that were used as stimuli. Both the ditransitive construction and the prepositional dative construction are strongly associated with certain sets of verbs: show, give, and send are typical ditransitive verbs, whereas hand, sell, and post typically occur with the prepositional dative (Gries and Wulff 2005: 187). Crucially, L2 learners appear to know this. When primed with a ditransitive, learners are very likely to complete a sentence with send as a ditransitive. The same prime, followed by a fragment with sell, is less likely to elicit a ditransitive construction. This suggests that learners have been fine-tuning their knowledge of English argument structure constructions in such a way that they have learned a network of lexico-grammatical associations. Results like these suggest that Construction Grammar has implications even for the sec­ ond language classroom. If a big part of L2 learning is the formation of associations be­ tween constructions and lexical items, then it becomes very relevant to ask how such as­ sociations are taught and learned most effectively (Madlener 2015).

6.7 Concluding remarks It was the aim of this chapter to offer readers a first point of entry into the field of Con­ struction Grammar in order to facilitate comparisons with other approaches and to pro­ vide an overview of the main ideas that characterize the constructional view of (p. 123) language. This ‘view from the periphery’ strongly influences the choice of phenomena that are deemed worthy of study in Construction Grammar. Some of the constructions dis­ cussed in this chapter will undoubtedly fall outside the purview of grammar in other ap­ proaches that are discussed in this book. Likewise, some of the characteristics of con­ structions that were highlighted in this chapter, including matters such as collocational preferences or idiosyncratic constraints, will only be of limited interest in other theories. Yet, it would be short-sighted to characterize Construction Grammar merely in opposition to the remaining research landscape in linguistics. As the discussions of argument struc­ ture, modality, information packaging, inflection and derivation, as well as second lan­

Page 17 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches guage acquisition have shown, constructional analyses tend to produce results that are relevant even beyond the confines of a single theoretical framework.

Reference Ágel, Vilmos, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds) (2003). Dependenz und Valenz: Ein Internationales Handbuch Der Zeitgenössischen Forschung. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 1. Halbband/Volume 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Ágel, Vilmos, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds) (2006). Dependenz und Valenz: Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 2. Halbband/Volume 2. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Boas, Hans C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publica­ tions. Booij, Geert (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert (2013). ‘Morphology in construction grammar’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Ox­ ford University Press, 255–73. Butler, Christopher S., and Francisco Gonzálvez-García (2014). Exploring Functional-Cog­ nitive Space. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L. (2013). ‘Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of construc­ tions’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Con­ struction Grammar. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 49–69. Cappelle, Bert, and Ilse Depraetere (2016). ‘Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons.’ Constructions and Frames, 8(1): 7–39. Croft, William (2007a). ‘Construction grammar’, in Hubert Cuyckens and Dirk Geeraerts (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 463–508. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray S. Jackendoff (1999). ‘The view from the periphery: The Eng­ lish comparative correlative.’ Linguistic Inquiry 30: 543–71. Dąbrowska, Ewa (2008). ‘Questions with long-distance dependencies: A usage-based per­ spective.’ Cognitive Linguistics 19(3): 391–425.

Page 18 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches Diessel, Holger (2013). ‘Construction grammar and first language acquisition’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 365–78. Ellis, Nick C. (2013). ‘Construction grammar and second language acquisition’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 347–64. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor (1988). ‘Regularity and id­ iomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone.’ Language 64(3): 501–38. Fischer, Kerstin, and Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds) (2006). Konstruktionsgrammatik: Von der Anwendung zur Theorie. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Fried, Mirjam (2015). ‘Construction grammar’, in Artemis Alexiadou and Tibor Kiss (eds), Handbook of Syntax, 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 974–1003. Goldberg, Adele (2006a). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Lan­ guage. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argu­ ment Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Goldberg, Adele E. (2003). ‘Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–24. Goldberg, Adele E. (2006b). ‘The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction’, in Dirk Geeraerts (ed), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 401–437. Gries, Stefan Th., and Stefanie Wulff (2005). ‘Do foreign language learners also have con­ structions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora.’ Annual Review of Cognitive Lin­ guistics 3: 182–200. Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg, and Ronald Wilson (1989). ‘The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English.’ Language 65(2): 203–95. Hengeveld, Kees, and J. Lachlan Mackenzie (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A Ty­ pologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Herbst, Thomas (2014). ‘The valency approach to argument structure constructions’, in Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid, and Susen Faulhaber (eds), Constructions – Colloca­ tions – Patterns. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 167–216. Hilpert, Martin (2008). Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-based Approach to Lan­ guage Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Page 19 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches Hilpert, Martin (2012). ‘Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels.’ Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 42: 67–82. Hilpert, Martin (2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hilpert, Martin (2016). ‘Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collo­ cates of may.’ Constructions and Frames 8(1): 66–85. Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale (eds) (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Con­ struction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Peter Peterson (2002). ‘Relative construc­ tions and unbounded dependencies’, in Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1031–96. Kay, Paul (2013). ‘The limits of (construction) grammar’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 32–48. Lambrecht, Knud (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lambrecht, Knud (2001). ‘A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions.’ Linguistics 39(3): 463–516. Langacker, Ronald W. (2005). ‘Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so’, in Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and M. Sandra Peña Cervel (eds), Cognitive Linguis­ tics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 101–59. Leino, Jaakko (2013). ‘Information structure’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trous­ dale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 329–44. Madlener, Karin (2015). Frequency Effects in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Millar, Neil (2009). ‘Modal verbs in TIME. Frequency changes 1923–2006.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2): 191–220. Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1998). Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Plag, Ingo (2003). Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 20 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985). A Compre­ hensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Ross, John R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sadock, Jerrold M. (2012). The Modular Architecture of Grammar. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Sag, Ivan A. (2012). ‘Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis’, in Hans Boas and Ivan A. Sag (eds), Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publica­ tions, 69–202. Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries (2003). ‘Collostructions: Investigating the in­ teraction of words and constructions.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–43. Tomasello, Michael (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Van Eynde, Frank (2007). ‘The big mess construction’, in Stefan Müller (ed), Proceedings of the HPSG-07 Conference, 415–33. Van Trijp, Remi (2013). ‘A comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and SignBased Construction Grammar.’ Constructions and Frames 5(1): 88–116. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed) (1993). Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amster­ dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ziem, Alexander, and Alexander Lasch (2013). Konstruktionsgrammatik: Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsbasierter Ansätze. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Notes: (1) iffdef C = if and only if the definition of C. Martin Hilpert

Martin Hilpert is an Assistant Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Neuchâtel. His research interests include Grammaticalization, Construction Gram­ mar, and Cognitive Linguistics. He approaches these topics with the tools and meth­ ods of corpus linguistics. His monograph on Germanic Future Constructions (John Benjamins, 2008) documents change in the domain of future time reference across several languages and constructions. His book Constructional Change in English (CUP, 2013) works out how Construction Grammar can be applied to issues of lan­ guage change. [email protected]

Page 21 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Constructional Approaches

Page 22 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Dependency and Valency Approaches

Dependency and Valency Approaches   Thomas Herbst The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.12

Abstract and Keywords This chapter provides a survey of various approaches within the field of dependency grammar. First, the basic concepts of Tesnière’s Éléments de syntaxe structurale (1959) such as actants, circonstants, junction, and translation are outlined. Then the application of the concept of dependency in different approaches such as that taken in Hudson’s Word Grammar and in Mel’čuk’s approach are discussed. Section 7.4 focuses on the de­ velopment of valency theory and related approaches and their application to English, dis­ cussing the complement–adjunct distinction, the idea of optionality of complements and the approach taken to the description of valency in the Valency Dictionary of English. Fi­ nally, it will be shown how valency and dependency can be related to more recent con­ structionist theories. Keywords: dependency, valency, optionality, semantic roles, Construction Grammar, stemma

7.1 Introduction DEPENDENCY theory is a structuralist model of syntax that differs from other structural­ ist models in that it does not establish hierarchies between the constituents of a sentence in terms of a part-whole-relationship. The driving force behind dependency hierarchies comes from the insight that certain elements in a sentence can only occur if certain other elements are present. Thus, a definite article can only occur if there is also a noun, an ac­ cusative noun can only occur if the sentence also contains a verb that requires or permits an accusative. In this sense, a verb governs subject and object in a sentence, which can be seen as dependents of the governor. The property of verbs to determine number and type of other elements occurring with it has become known as valency. The model of dependency grammar is principally associated with the name of Lucien Tes­ nière, whose Éléments de syntaxe structurale, published posthumously in 1959, outlines the fundamental ideas of this approach. The fact that this book was published in an Eng­ lish translation as recently as 2015 can be taken as an indication of the importance of Tesnière’s ideas for present-day linguistics. And the fact that the first English translation Page 1 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Dependency and Valency Approaches of Tesnière’s work appeared more than half a century after the original and long after translations into German, Spanish, Italian, and Russian can perhaps also be taken as an indication of a somewhat delayed interest of English linguistics in the principles of a de­ pendency-based approach to grammar.1 What exactly is dependency? Matthews (1981: 78) points out that ‘in the tradition­ al language of grammarians, many constructions are described in terms of a subordina­ tion of one element to another’. So the term ‘govern’ has traditionally been used for verbs and prepositions with respect to their objects, for example, whereas the ‘term “modifies” implies the reverse’. These kinds of relations are dependency relations, which Matthews (1981: 79) represents in two different formats (Figures 7.1A and 7.1B). (p. 125)

Figure 7.1a Dependency representation of in the kitchen (Matthews 1981: 79)

Figure 7.1b Dependency tree diagram of in the kitchen (Matthews 1981: 79)

Dependency is thus a co-occurrence relation in the sense that the occurrence of the de­ pendent item presupposes the occurrence of the governor. Hudson (1976: 66), referring to Haas (1973: 108), defines it as follows:2 A dependency relation is a relation between two features where one of the fea­ tures is present only when the other is present – in other words, when one de­ pends for its presence in a structure on the presence of the other (…) Although, as pointed out before, the concept of dependency has not nearly been as popu­ lar in contemporary linguistics as that of phrase structure analysis, it has formed the ba­ sis for a number of different models over the years. Like many other frameworks, howev­ er, dependency approaches do not present one unified theory but differ in a number of important points (such as types and directions of the dependencies established). At the

Page 2 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Dependency and Valency Approaches same time, they are united in making dependency a central element of the respective the­ ories. Some of these differences will be outlined in section 7.3. It is the aim of this chapter to present an outline of the basic principles of depen­ dency models, in particular those that have been applied to English, but also to demon­ strate how some of the central concepts of Tesnière’s thinking have been taken up or de­ veloped in a very similar manner in other approaches.3 The basic characteristics of Tesnière’s model will be outlined in section 7.2 and some more recent applications and modifications of the principles of dependency in section 7.3. Section 7.4 will focus on one particular aspect of dependency grammar, valency theory, which has received consider­ able attention both in linguistic theory and its application to foreign language teaching and lexicography. Section 7.5 discusses dependency and valency in constructionist frame­ works, and section 7.6 contains concluding remarks. (p. 126)

7.2 Foundations: Tesnière’s framework 7.2.1 The basics of the model Tesnière’s dependency grammar can be seen as one of four main schools of post-de Saus­ surean structuralism—alongside with the Prague School, Hjelmslev’s glossematics, and American structuralism. Compared with the latter, Tesnière’s approach differs fundamen­ tally in two respects: • the role of semantics; • the representation of hierarchical relations within the clause. What makes Tesnière’s approach rather modern is that he explicitly sees a sentence such as (1)

as consisting of three elements—Wycliffe, brooded, and the ‘connection that unites them —without which there would be no sentence’ (Chapter 1 §5),4 which is similar to the role of constructions in Construction Grammar (see Hilpert, this volume). A further parallel to modern linguistics is provided by the fact that Tesnière explicitly addresses cognitive as­ pects (albeit without any experimental evidence) when he says that ‘[t]he mind perceives connections between a word and its neighbors’ (Chapter 1 §3). (p. 127)

7.2.2 Sentence hierarchy

Tesnière makes a distinction between the linear order and the structural order of a sen­ tence and states ‘that speaking a language involves transforming structural order to lin­ ear order, and conversely, understanding a language involves transforming linear order Page 3 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Dependency and Valency Approaches to structural order’ (Tesnière 2015: 12, Chapter 6 §4).5 Thus the linear sequence of Wycliffe brooded corresponds to a structural order that can be represented in the form of the stemma in Figure 7.2:

Figure 7.2 Stemma representing the structural or­ der of (1)

The verb form brooded is the governor on which the subordinate Wycliffe depends.6 The hierarchy established here is quite different from the one represented by phrase struc­ ture (or constituency) trees typical of American structuralism and generative transforma­ tional grammar (see Lohndal and Haegeman, this volume).7 This becomes immediately obvious when one compares the analyses provided by both models for a sentence such as (2): (2)

A phrase structure tree such as Figure 7.3A shows a part-whole relationship, with the whole sentence (S) being the highest element in the hierarchy, which is divided into smaller constituents following the principle of binary divisions down to the so-called ulti­ mate constituents (i.e. the constituents that cannot be split up into any further con­ stituents).

Figure 7.3a Phrase structure (constituent structure) of (2)

A dependency stemma, on the other hand, differs from this in a number of ways. Most im­ portantly, it establishes a hierarchy of elements which, in a constituency analysis, would be at the same level of constituency. A stemma such as the one shown in (Figure 7.3B) represents relations of dependency, in which every governor forms a node, which Tes­ nière (2015: 6, Chapter 3 § 3) defines as ‘a set consisting of a governor and all of the sub­ ordinates that are directly or indirectly dependent on the governor’. Thus, for example, Page 4 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Dependency and Valency Approaches rays is the governor of cosmic whereas include is the (p. 128) governor of rays (and cosmic) as well as of particles (and heavy). Include represents the central node since it governs all other nodes in this sentence.8

Figure 7.3b Dependency stemma of (2)

Other accounts of dependency use arrows to represent these relations (Matthews 1981: 87), as in Figure 7.3c:

Figure 7.3c Dependency representation of (2)

7.2.3 Junction and transfer Apart from connection, two further concepts are central to Tesnière’s account of structur­ al syntax—junction (jonction) and transfer (translation). Junction (i.e. coordination) is rep­ resented by horizontal lines. A sentence such as (3) can then be represented as in Figure 7.4 (Tesnière 2015: 344, Chapter 143 §11): (p. 129)

(3)

Figure 7.4 Dependency stemma of (3) (Tesnière 2015: 344, Chapter 143)

Junction is described by Tesnière (2015: 326, Chapter 134 §10–11) as a quantitative phe­ nomenon, whereas transfer is seen as a qualitative phenomenon in that it refers to a change in grammatical category (Tesnière 2015: 368−9, Chapter 152).9 Thus Pierre in Page 5 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Dependency and Valency Approaches phrases such as Pierre’s book or le livre de Pierre is envisaged as undergoing a change from a noun to an adjective. The reason Tesnière (2015: 368−9, Chapter 152 § 2−3) gives for this analysis is that the noun Pierre, ‘though it is not morphologically an adjective, it acquires the syntactic characteristics of an adjective, that is, it acquires adjectival value’, drawing a parallel between le livre de Pierre and le livre rouge. This change is indicated in the stemma in Figure 7.5 by 's and de respectively: the catego­ ry symbol above the line indicates the target category (A for adjective), whereas below the horizontal line the preposed (de) or postposed ('s) translative and the source (Pierre) are given, with the lower hook of the vertical line indicating the difference between pre­ posed and postposed translatives.

Figure 7.5 Representation of transfer in the case of de Pierre and Pierre’s (see Tesnière 2015: 372, Chap­ ter 155)

7.2.4 Valency One of the most central and probably the most influential notions of Tesnière’s Éléments is that of valency—a concept that has since been taken over by many linguists, also out­ side the dependency grammar framework.10 In his famous comparison of the verbal node to a theatrical performance, Tesnière (2015: 97, Chapter 48 §3, §5, §7) introduces the dis­ tinction between ‘process’, ‘actants’, and ‘circumstants’ which was to stimulate a great amount of research: (p. 130)

§3 The verb expresses the process. … §4 The actants are the beings or things, of whatever sort these might be, that par­ ticipate in the process, even as simple extras or in the most passive way. §6 Actants are always nouns or the equivalents of nouns. In return, nouns in prin­ ciple always assume the function of actants in the sentence. §7 Circumstants express the circumstances of time, place, manner, etc.… §8 Circumstants are always adverbs (of time, of place, of manner, etc.) … or the equivalents of adverbs. In return, adverbs in principle always assume the function of circumstants. The fact that verbs can occur with different numbers of actants (ranging from none to three) is described by Tesnière (2015: 239, Chapter 97 §3) in terms of another metaphor in his definition of valency. Page 6 of 39

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Dependency and Valency Approaches The verb may therefore be compared to a sort of atom, susceptible to attracting a greater or lesser number of actants, according to the number of bonds the verb has available to keep them as dependents. The number of bonds a verb has consti­ tutes what we call the verb’s valency. The central role of verb valency for the structure of the sentence is acknowledged by the fact that the verb—provided there is one11—forms the central node of the sentence, which governs the actants and circumstants (shown in a Tesnièrian stemma from left to right but without marking the distinction in any way, see Figure 7.6).

Figure 7.6 Stemma for Then she changed her mind. possession of a duty). The distant con­ ceptual domains of metaphoric shifts cannot allow for the same semantic contiguity famil­ iar to diachronic changes in grammaticalization studies. In this way, it can readily be seen in certain selected examples from the history of English that specific changes were already in progress, as in the following example from Middle English (Traugott and Dasher 2002: 128): (p. 433)

(18)

(18) again illustrates the type of ‘bridging’ context in which changes between deontic and epistemic functions must have taken place: the use of mot ‘must’ can be understood as ex­ pressing either function, deontic (‘is required to be’) or epistemic (‘we can conclude’), in Page 15 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality spite of the fact that it is followed by a stative verb which would most likely render an epistemic meaning. The modality is further reinforced by the use of nede ‘necessarily’, a modal adverb. Even in today’s English, be in the sense of ‘behave’ is understood as a tem­ porary stative situation over which the subject may exercise control. It was such contexts of ambiguity that enabled the almost invisible transitions of meaning of the modals to lat­ er epistemic uses.

20.3.2 Other explanations The motivation of semantic changes in grammaticalization has not always been the main approach adopted in explaining the diachronic changes that took place in the modal verbs, though, and it is worth also considering the syntactic approaches in accounts such as Fischer (2007) and Krug (2000). Fischer (2007), in particular, provides studies which compare English with Germanic languages such as Dutch and German, in which the syn­ tactic changes from SOV to SVO word order have not yet progressed to completion. Ac­ cording to Fischer, the reason for the more rapid auxiliation of the English modals is that the changes to SVO word order, which were complete by 1500 (according to Hopper and Traugott 2003), contributed to their more expansive distributional range. In English the changes of word order would ensure that the modal verb and the infinitive often fell to­ gether syntactically, which in turn promoted the semantic bleaching of the modal element as it grammaticalized to become an auxiliary. Similar hypotheses are proposed by Krug (2000), who provides a major study of the emerging semi-modals, such as have/have got to, want to/wanna, need (to), dare (to), and ought to, using data from the British National Corpus and the ARCHER corpus. Krug also evaluates the syntactic alignment of the modal and the infinitive as contributing to the developing auxiliary role of the modal verb in examples from Shakespeare (Early Modern English); this is especially visible in cases where the (p. 434) developing semi-modal appears in a relative clause with the fronted rel­ ative pronoun standing for the object of the modal verb (Krug 2000: 59, cited in Ziegeler 2010: 48): (19)

Such examples are representative of a pivotal construction using have to in which the old­ er, possessive meanings of the semi-modal form give way to the later meanings of obliga­ tion, ambiguously, in the same construction. Ziegeler (2010) questions the plausibility of ambiguity in such examples as permitting the switch context for the developing modal meanings, since it presupposes that both meanings were already available at the time and that either could be interpreted from the same example; instead the development of obligation meanings are seen as incumbent on the optimal lexical context in which the form appears. As we have seen in (17), there is already a sense of social obligation present in the context even without have to. The studies which look at string frequency and adjacency as a catalyst for the development of modal meanings from their original Page 16 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality lexical source verbs (in most cases, the Old English preterite-presents) also include Fleischman’s (1982) analysis of the Romance future suffixes, cited by Fischer (2007: 194– 5). However, less attention is given in such syntagmatic explanations to the development of epistemic modality from non-epistemic. Such changes can be accounted for more readi­ ly by investigating what can be substituted for a particular functional role in a sentence string. Generative studies also appear to have failed to provide the same convincing explanation for the shifts that enabled epistemic meanings to begin to develop from non-epistemic ones, while offering instead an alternative means of description of the stages represented in the grammaticalization of the modal verbs from their lexical sources, usually verbs ex­ pressing ability, volition, obligation, and power (e.g., Roberts 1985 and Roberts and Rousseau 2003, cited in Traugott 2006). Traugott (2006: 111–12) discusses Roberts and Roussou’s (2003) description of grammaticalization in minimalist terms as the movement of lexical items (i.e. the pre-modals) upwards in the structure to occupy positions as func­ tional heads, which they associate with the well-known process of ‘bleaching’ in grammat­ icalization, or loss of non-logical meaning. She suggests, at the same time, that Roberts and Roussou’s approach to bleaching is not able to account for further shifts within the development of a modal once it achieves grammatical status (2006: 115). Van Kemenade (1999) summarizes similar approaches, and describes syntactically the ‘movements’ which took place at the time the modal verbs were grammaticalizing from their original lexical sources, suggesting that originally both main verbs and pre-auxiliaries were found in the functional head position of ‘Mood’ (1999: 1006). The loss of the subjunctive inflec­ tions on main verbs was accompanied by the emergence of the early modal verbs, which is well-known in grammaticalization theory simply as a functional renewal, but van Keme­ nade (1999) discusses the loss of subjunctive morphology accompanied by the fixture of the modal verbs as derived from the position ‘Mood’ (1999: 1001). In spite of their ele­ gant (p. 435) descriptions, none of these studies begins to explain why such movements occurred, and what they had to do with speakers’ actual manipulations of meanings at the time of the movement. Common amongst all such studies, including Lightfoot’s first (1979) account, is the need to maintain that the actuation of such changes occurs across entire generations of speak­ ers, so that it is always the child learners of a particular generation who reinterpret the functions of the former lexical sources of the modal verbs as auxiliaries. Such explana­ tions assume that children are capable of highly sophisticated pragmatic inferencing pro­ cedures, which many later researchers found implausible (cf. Slobin 1994), and lacking empirical evidence from historical data. Little attention, again, appears to be devoted to explaining the functional shifts from root meanings to epistemic. Many such accounts are heavily formalized and unconcerned with the need to match the diachronic changes with the evidence of semantic continuity. In the beginning of this chapter it was emphasized that mood and modality cannot be studied outside of a semantic approach. The evidence from the study of the diachrony of the modal verbs and their grammaticalization paths may seem to indicate that any ap­ Page 17 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality proach should regard the study of modality as a primarily grammar-driven task. However, in spite of the fact that the modal verbs are ‘grammaticalized’ in English, and mood as a category no longer has much relevance as an inflectional category, the presence of se­ mantic constraints on the present-day grammatical distribution of modal verbs is still dominant. Note the infelicity of (20), for example: (20)

(20) illustrates what is known as lexical retention in grammaticalization. The modal verb would has retained some of its volitional meaning and therefore cannot be used when the subject has no control over the state of being tall. This represents a stark reminder of the impact of lexical source meanings on grammatical distribution at later stages of develop­ ment. In this way it can be seen that grammatical distributional constraints are governed to a certain extent by the semantic origins of the modal verb, and that a grammatical study of modality in today’s English cannot be undertaken without considerable reference to an accompanying semantic and historical perspective.

20.4 Subjectivity and subjectification in modal­ ity Another reason for rejecting a syntactic approach to the diachronic study of modality is the existence of the notion of subjectivity in modality. This feature is recognized in the contexts in which it is found, but is not seen to correspond with any formal encoding, at least in the English modal system, whereas syntactic approaches rely on explicit (p. 436) form-function correspondences. It had been long observed by Palmer that epistemic modals possess the characteristic of being subjective (e.g. 1986: 60), due to their expres­ sion of degrees of speaker commitment, but as Nuyts (2006: 13) notes, Lyons (1977) had also used the term ‘subjective’ to discuss the meanings of deontic modals, comparing them with objective uses occurring ambiguously in the same (often-quoted) example: (21)

As Nuyts (2006: 13) points out, Lyons (1977) claims that examples like (21) can be inter­ preted as having either a subjective or an objective modality. If the sentence is under­ stood as referring to the speaker expressing his or her own uncertainty about the marital status of Alfred, then, according to Lyons, it is interpreted as having subjective modality. If, on the other hand, it is understood as the speaker simply voicing an opinion based on the probability of a computable fact, then, according to Lyons, it is interpreted as having an objective modality. Such an account is similar to Palmer’s (1986: 59) explanation for subjectivity, in that even epistemic possibility can allow for objective, rather than subjec­ tive, interpretations, as long as the speaker is not expressing his or her own opinion. Page 18 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality Whatever the case may be, such isolated examples are semantically underspecified when taken out of context, and often ambiguous. Nuyts, however, justifiably notes that Lyons was questioning the source of evidence in offering such possibilities, i.e., that the distinc­ tion between subjectivity and objectivity is dependent on who was responsible for the modal evaluation (Nuyts 2006: 14). Nuyts, instead, redefines the objective modality of Lyons (1977) as a form of ‘intersubjectivity’—a modal evaluation which can be shared with others, to be contrasted with a subjective modal evaluation, belonging only to the speaker.16 Narrog (2012b) specifically points out that subjectivity is not necessarily a characteristic of modality, but the earlier work by Traugott (1989) and Traugott and Dasher (2002) seems to belie such assumptions, in that the use of epistemic expressions in particular is unavoidably subjective, and reflects the gradual subjectification of the modal meanings over time, which are ‘… increasingly based in the speaker’s subjective belief state/atti­ tude toward the proposition’ (Traugott 1989: 31). Traugott’s earlier study is focused on the general emergence of epistemic meaning, and not specifically on epistemic modality. The question of the presence of subjectivity in modal meanings has often been misunder­ stood, having been described variously in different accounts. Ziegeler (2008b) and Gross­ man and Polis (2010), for example, refer to the weakening of selection restrictions be­ tween the subject and the modal verb, or the loss of relations between the verb and sub­ ject; the latter account also relates the spread of (p. 437) speaker-oriented senses to the loss of subject-oriented ones. The loss of subject control means that the only remaining source for the control can now be the speaker herself. Note, for instance, the following typical example from a Google site: (22)

17

In such examples, there is no possibility of a deontic interpretation as the subject of may is pleonastic there, a dummy subject which cannot be the target of a binding social oblig­ ation. It is impossible for the subject there to control the instances where years of mili­ tary training cannot prepare oneself. Thus, in the reduction of the relations between the verb and the subject, the original (social) obligation senses implying root possibility be­ come reinterpreted as epistemic possibility to allow for the statement to be true. This in­ volves a shifting of control from the sentence subject to the speaker’s domain of knowl­ edge, since there is nowhere else for the subject control to go—it is thus inferred as be­ longing to the speaker. The difference between Traugott’s (1989) and Traugott and Dasher’s (2002) approach to subjectivity and that of Langacker (2013) is that in the latter account, subjectivity is not seen as the product of a diachronic process, whereas in the former accounts it is seen as the gradual accretion over time of speaker-oriented meaning. Subjectification, according to Traugott (2006: 115), can be observed in the development of inferences based in the Page 19 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality speaker’s world of reasoning. In support she cites examples of not just modal verbs such as must, but also modal adverbs like probably, which once meant ‘in a provable manner’, but developed to embrace the speaker’s perspective in the sense ‘presumably’. Another of Traugott’s examples is the modal discourse marker actually, which not only provides sub­ jective inferences in its present-day use, but also intersubjective ones, e.g., when inter­ preted along the lines of ‘I am telling you this in confidence’, using a definition of inter­ subjectivity that differs slightly from that of Nuyts (2006) mentioned above.18 Thus, while in examples like (22) the speaker’s judgement or beliefs about the situation are expressed using the epistemic modal may, the range of linguistic items that can be described as di­ achronically subjectified is not in the least limited to the categories of modal verbs and semi-modals alone.

20.5 Concluding thoughts Any study of mood and modality in English is unavoidably a semantic study, though re­ searchers in the past have attempted to group the modal verbs with the study of other (p. 438) auxiliary forms in English. In the English language, the class of core modal verbs is now seen to serve the principal functions that were once carried out by the subjunctive mood in Old English. This once formed part of a binary category indicative/subjunctive, used to distinguish meanings of assertion and non-assertion, or non-factuality in the clause. Although mood has since been associated with a clause type (Allan 2001, Aarts 2012), it is no longer encoded as an inflectional category in present-day English, having yielded its functions to the modal verbs. The principal problems of studying the class of modal verbs in English relate mainly to methods of categorization, with the difficulties arising from the variable stages of grammaticalization at which the modals can be found today. Grammaticalization is accepted almost universally as the most likely explanation for their development from verbs of lexical origin in Old English and for their replacing the now virtually obsolete English subjunctive. However, the categorization of the modal verbs, including the semi-modals, varies. Some approaches focus on the participants and the source of the modality (e.g., van der Auwera and Plungian 1998), others on the typo­ logical contrasts of sentence roles (if, for example, we take into account Bybee et al.’s (1994) classifications of agent-oriented modality). Yet other approaches take temporal ref­ erence and aspectual considerations to be central to the categorization of modal mean­ ings (e.g., Ziegeler 2006). However, all such accounts struggle with the classification of non-epistemic rather than epistemic categories. Perhaps the classification of epistemic modality is facilitated by the understanding of subjectivity in the epistemic modal, an as­ pect of pragmatic meaning related to the gradual transfer of control from the modal sub­ ject to the speaker. Co-occurrence with stative rather than non-stative main verbs seems to be another possible means of differentiation, but like all categories, the boundaries are not always so discrete and there are often exceptions. The study of English modality will continue to present such challenges for research for many years to come.

Page 20 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality

Acknowledgements Acknowledgements are gratefully extended to the editors, in particular to Geri Popova, for their tireless efforts in helping to perfect this chapter. Any remaining inconsistencies are naturally my own.

Reference Aarts, Bas (2012). ‘The subjunctive conundrum in English.’ Folia Linguistica 46(1): 1–20. Abraham, Werner (1998). ‘The aspectual source of the epistemic-root distinction of modal verbs’, in Winfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner, and Wolfgang Wild­ gen (eds), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In Memoriam Johannes Becher [Band 2: Beiträge zur Empirischen Sprachwissenschaft]. Tübingen: G. Narr, 231–49. Abraham, Werner, and Elisabeth Leiss (eds) (2008). Modality-Aspect Interfaces: Implica­ tions and Typological Solutions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Allan, Keith (2001). Natural Language Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. Bowie, Jill, Sean Wallis, and Bas Aarts (2013). ‘Contemporary change in modal usage in spoken British English: Mapping the impact of “genre”’, in Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita, and Johan van der Auwera (eds), English Modality: Core, Pe­ riphery and Evidentiality. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 57–94. Bybee, Joan L. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L. (1988). ‘The diachronic dimension in explanation’, in John A. Hawkins (ed), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 350–79. Bybee, Joan L., and Suzanne Fleischman (eds) (1995). Modality in Grammar and Dis­ course. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L., and William Pagliuca (1985). ‘Cross-linguistic comparison and the devel­ opment of grammatical meaning’, in Jacek Fisiak (ed), Historical Semantics and Historical Word-Formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 59–83. Bybee, Joan L., and William Pagliuca (1987). ‘The evolution of future meaning’, in Anna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba, and Giuliano Bernini (eds), Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins, 109–22. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca (1991). ‘Back to the future’, in Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17–58. Coates, Jennifer (1983). The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croon Helm. Page 21 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality Coates, Jennifer (1995). ‘The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English’, in Bybee and Fleischman (eds) (1995), 55–66. Collins, Peter (2009). Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Condoravdi, Cleo, and Stefan Kaufmann (eds) (2005). Special issue on Modality and Tem­ porality. Journal of Semantics 22. 2. Dahl, Östen (1975). ‘On generics’, in Edward L. Keenan (ed), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99–111. Denison, David (1990). ‘Auxiliary + impersonal in Old English.’ Folia Linguistica Historica 9: 139–66. Depraetere Ilse, and An Verhulst (2008). ‘Source of modality: A reassessment.’ English Language and Linguistics 12(1): 1–25. Depraetere, Ilse, and Susan Reed (2011). ‘Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root pos­ sibility in English.’ English Language and Linguistics 15(1): 1–29. Fischer, Olga (2007). Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press. Fleischman, Suzanne (1982). The Future in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Foolen, Ad (1992). Review of Sweetser (1990). Lingua 88: 76–86. Frawley, William (1992). Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Frawley, William (ed) (2006). The Expression of Modality. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Gisborne, Nikolas (2007). ‘Dynamic modality.’ SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4: 44–61. Givón, Talmy (1994). ‘Irrealis and the subjunctive.’ Studies in Language 18: 265–337. Goossens, Louis (2000). ‘Patterns of meaning extension, “parallel chaining”, subjectifica­ tion, and modal shifts’, in Antonio Barcelona (ed), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Cross­ roads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 149–69. Grossman, Eitan, and Stéphane Polis (2010). ‘On the pragmatics of subjectification: The grammaticalization of verbless allative futures (with a case study in Ancient Egyptian)’. Paper presented at Gramis 2010 (International Conference on Grammaticalization and (Inter)Subjectification. Royal Flemish Academy, Brussels, 11–13 November 2010. Guéron, Jacqueline, and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds) (2008). Time and Modality. Houten, NL: Springer Media BV. Page 22 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality Heine, Bernd (1995). ‘Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality: Some observations on Ger­ man modals’, In Bybee and Fleischman (eds) (1995), 17–53. Heine, Bernd (2002). ‘On the role of context in grammaticalization’, in Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83–101. Hopper, Paul J., and Elisabeth C. Traugott (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Horn, Laurence R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hoye, Leo Francis (2005). ‘“You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!” Modality studies: Contemporary research and future directions’, Part II. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1481–1506. Huddleston, Rodney (1971). The Sentence in Written English: A Syntactic Study Based on the Analysis of Scientific Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the Eng­ lish Language. In collaboration with Laurie Bauer, Betty Birner, Ted Briscoe, Peter Collins, David Denison, David Lee, Anita Mittwoch, Geoffrey Nunberg, Frank Palmer, John Payne, Peter Peterson, Lesley Stirling, Gregory Ward. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2005). A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. James, Francis (1986). Semantics of the English Subjunctive. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Krug, Manfred G. (2000). Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammati­ calization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. (2013). ‘Modals: striving for control’, in Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Mar­ ta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita, and Johan van der Auwera (eds), English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter [TIELS 81], 1–55. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1969). Towards a Semantic Description of English. London: Longman. Levinson, Stephen C. (1979). ‘Pragmatics and social deixis: Reclaiming the notion of con­ ventional implicature’, in Christine Chiarello, John Kingston, Eve E. Sweetser, James Collins, Haruko Kawasaki, John Manley-Buser, Dorothy W. Marshak, Catherine O?Connor, David Shaul, Marta Tobey, Henry Thompson and Katherine Turner (eds), Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguis­ tics Society, 206–33.

Page 23 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality Lightfoot, David (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi­ ty Press. Lyons, John (1977). Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John (1995). Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Nagle, Stephen J. (1994). ‘The English double modal conspiracy.’ Diachronica 11: 199– 212. Narrog, Heiko (2005a). ‘On defining modality again.’ Language Sciences 27: 165–92. Narrog, Heiko (2012a). Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change. Oxford: Oxford Uni­ versity Press. Narrog, Heiko (2012b). ‘Modality and speech act orientation’, in Johan van der Auwera and Jan Nuyts (eds), Grammaticalization and (Inter)subjectification. [Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten.] Brussels: Universa, 21–36. Nordlinger, Rachel, and Elisabeth Closs Traugott (1997). ‘Scope and the development of epistemic modality: Evidence from ought to.’ English Language and Linguistics 1: 295– 317. Nuyts, Jan (2001). Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A CognitivePragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nuyts, Jan (2006). ‘Modality: Overview and linguistic issues’, in Frawley (ed), 1–26. Palmer, Frank R. (1979). Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman. Palmer, Frank R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, Frank R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman. Palmer, Frank R. (2001). Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, Frank R. (2003). ‘Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological is­ sues’, in Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug, and Frank Palmer (eds), Modality in Contem­ porary English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–17. Papafragou, Anna (1998). ‘Inference and word meaning: the case of modal auxiliaries.’ Lingua 105: 1–47. Plank, Frans (1984). ‘The modals story retold.’ Studies in Language 8: 305–64. Roberts, Ian (1985). ‘Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxil­ iaries.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58. Page 24 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality Siemund, Peter (2013). Varieties of English: A Typological Approach. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Slobin, Dan. I. (1994). ‘Talking perfectly: Discourse origins of the present perfect’, in William Pagliuca (ed), Perspectives on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 119–33. Sweetser, Eve E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1989). ‘On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An exam­ ple of subjectification in semantic change.’ Language 65(1): 31–55. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2006). ‘Historical aspects of modality’, in Frawley (ed) (2006), 107–39. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2010). ‘(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification,’ in Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), Subjectification, Intersubjecti­ fication and Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 29–70. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard Dasher (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trudgill, Peter, and Jean Hannah (2008). International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English. London: Arnold. van der Auwera, Johan (1999). ‘On the semantic and pragmatic polyfunctionality of modal verbs’, in K. Turner (ed), The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, 49–64. van der Auwera, Johan, and Vladimir Plungian (1998). ‘Modality’s semantic map.’ Linguis­ tic Typology 2: 79–124. van der Gaaf, Willem (1931). ‘Beon and habban connected with an inflected infinitive.’ English Studies 13(1–6): 176–88. van Kemenade, Ans (1999). ‘Functional categories, morphosyntactic change, grammati­ calization.’ Linguistics 37: 997–1010. Van linden, An, Jean-Christophe Verstraete, and Hubert Cuyckens (2008). ‘The semantic development of essential and crucial: Paths to deontic meaning.’ English Studies 89(2): 226–47. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (2001). ‘Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system.’ Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1505–28. Warner, Anthony R. (1993). English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Page 25 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality Ziegeler, Debra P. (2000). Hypothetical Modality: Grammaticalisation in an L2 Dialect. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2001). ‘Past ability modality and the derivation of complementary in­ ferences.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2: 273–316. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2003). ‘On the generic origins of modality in English’, in David Hart (ed), English Modality in Context: Diachronic Perspectives. Bern: Peter Lang, 33–69. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2006). Interfaces with English Aspect: Diachronic and Empirical Stud­ ies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2008a). ‘Propositional aspect and the development of modal inferences in English’, in W. Abraham and E. Leiss (eds) (2008), 43–79. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2008b). ‘Grammaticalisation under control: Towards a functional analysis of same-subject identity-sharing.’ Folia Linguistica 42: 401–51. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2010). ‘Semantic determinism and the grammaticalisation of have to in English: A reassessment.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11: 32–66. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2012). ‘Towards a composite definition of nominal modality’, in Werner Abraham and Elisabeth Leiss (eds), Covert Patterns of Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Series, 343–83.

Notes: (1) For example, in a modal expression such as He might be at home, the absence of factu­ al knowledge about the whereabouts of the subject are inferable from the use of the modal might. (2) Grammaticalization studies deal with the study of the diachronic evolution of a gram­ matical form from a lexical source. For a basic survey reference, see Hopper and Trau­ gott (2003) (see also Hundt, this volume). (3) Palmer’s (1986) definitions are changed in his (2003) account, which describes modali­ ty as a grammatical category rather than a semantic category. (4) Subjectivity is discussed at length in section 20.4, essentially as the involvement of the speaker in the modal (or other) expression. (5) See Hundt, this volume, for more discussion on these types of subjunctives. (6) Roberts (1985: 41n) interpreted the bare form as resulting from the possibility that the complement contains an ‘empty’ or phonologically null modal, and modals must always appear with bare infinitives. Huddleston and Pullum (2002) simply label the bare subjunc­ tive form ‘the plain form’.

Page 26 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality (7) This category includes the subject nouns in generic constructions such as Cows eat grass, etc. (8) I am reminded by the editors of this volume that the present-past formal oppositions of the modal verbs are still active in some cases, especially with can, could, will, and would, and that they are treated in Huddleston and Pullum (2002) as different forms of the same lexeme (see also Collins 2009 for a frequency study of preterite modal verbs). Polyfunc­ tionality does not exclude such treatments, while not necessarily accepting that the verbs are polysemous. See also section 20.3 on the historical reasons for treating the modal verbs as polyfunctional; unfortunately, scope does not permit a more in-depth discussion of the monosemy/polysemy debate. (9) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/03/russia-putin-trump-us-poli­ tics-sanders-supporters-response (last accessed 4 April 2019). (10) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/07/stonehenge-first-erected-in-walessecondhand-monument (last accessed 4 April 2019). (11) See also Depraetere and Reed (2011) for an alternative account of the classification of root possibility. (12) See also Chapter 27 for more details on the diachrony of modality. (13) Plank used the term ‘grammaticization’ in the same way as later researchers used ‘grammaticalization’. (14) See also Taylor’s chapter (this volume) on cognitive linguistic approaches. (15) The use of the infinitive marker for to also contributes to the reinterpretation since it implies a purposive sense in the possessive expression. (16) Intersubjectivity has been discussed further in the recent literature by others such as Traugott (2010), who describes it differently as the speaker’s accommodation of the addressee’s self-image, ‘face’, beliefs, and attitudes, and there have been further expan­ sions of the term, but these are not necessarily related to the expression of modality in particular. (17) http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-may-be-mattis-one-mistake-2016-6?r=US&IR=T (last accessed 7 March 2019). (18) Traugott’s (2006) definitions referred to the accommodation of the addressee’s evalu­ ations in the speech event, e.g., Actually, we’re getting married.

Debra Ziegler

Debra Ziegeler attained her PhD from Monash University, Melbourne, in 1997: As­ pects of the Grammaticalisation of Hypothetical Modality, published in 2000 as Hypo­ thetical Modality: Grammaticalisation in an L2 Dialect (John Benjamins, SILC series). Page 27 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Mood and Modality A second study, Interfaces with English Aspect (2006, John Benjamins, SILC series), looked at the relationship between modality and aspect in English. In other publica­ tions, she has focused on the semantics of modality associated with proximative meaning (in Journal of Pragmatics 2000, 2010, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2016) as well as the diachronic grammaticalization of the semi-modals, e.g. be sup­ posed to, be able to, and have to (e.g. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2001, 2010).

Page 28 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination

Subordination and Coordination   Thomas Egan The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.10

Abstract and Keywords This chapter describes the forms and functions of the main types of subordinate clauses, as well as various types of both phrasal and clausal coordination. The two main types of subordination, modification and complementation, are distinguished in relation to both fi­ nite and non-finite subordinate clauses. Various means of signalling subordination are de­ scribed. It is shown how subordinate non-finite clauses, which lack primary tense, are largely dependent on the main clause predicate for their temporal interpretation, and how understood subjects in subordinate clauses may be coreferential with various nomi­ nals in the main clause. As for coordination, both bare heads and heads with dependents may be coordinated and, although we normally coordinate like with like, the items being coordinated do not necessarily have to be identical in form, nor indeed in function. Some constructions are discussed that straddle the binary distinction between coordination and subordination. Keywords: subordination, coordination, modification, complementation, temporal interpretation, coreferentiality

21.1 Introduction GRAMMAR affords us various means of signalling the relationship between entities and events. Consider the two examples in (1). (1)

In both (1a) and (1b) there are two clauses, both of which contain a finite verb in the past tense. The two clauses in (1a) are linked explicitly by and. The two are of equal status and each could stand on its own two feet, as it were. One could substitute a full stop for and without materially altering the truth conditions of the two predications. The clauses are said to be coordinated, and is said to be a coordinator and the relationship between the Page 1 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination two clauses is called coordination. The two clauses in (1b), on the other hand, are not of equal status. If one were to substitute a full stop for that, one would be left with two unre­ lated predications, the first of which is clearly incomplete. The second clause encodes the object of belief of the referent of He, the subject of the first verb. It is thus parallel to a nominal object, as in He believed her story. Like this nominal object, the object in the form of a clause in (1b) is said to be subordinate to the verb believed. The linking element that is called a subordinating conjunction or subordinator and the relationship between the two clauses, one of which envelops the other, is labelled subordination (the enveloped clause is said to be embedded in the larger structure). It is the two relationships coordina­ tion and subordination that are the topic of this chapter. The example of coordination in (1a) consists of two finite clauses, joined together by and. It is not just clauses that may be joined in this way. We can join together phrases, as in the two preposition phrases [up the ladder] and [down the stairs], and the two noun phrases in [unpopular men] and [popular women]. We can join together words, as in popu­ lar [men and women]. We can even join together parts of words, in particular prefixes, as in pre- and post-natal. The important point is that the two items to be joined together are similar in form and function. In other words, we generally join like with like (though see (p. 440)

21.3.3 for some exceptions). The example of subordination in (1b) consists of one clause which is subordinate to the verb in another clause. We also find subordinate relations in phrases, as in (2a) and (2b).1 (2)

In predications containing one of these phrases, such as The girl living upstairs is study­ ing law, one can omit the subordinate clause but not the noun and still be left with a meaningful sentence. Living upstairs is therefore considered subordinate to girl, which may be labelled the ‘head’ of the phrase.2 The term ‘subordination’ is sometimes used in the broad sense of a dependency relation­ ship and sometimes with a narrower focus on clauses as dependent elements. Subordina­ tion in the broader sense of dependency is a pervasive grammatical phenomenon, and subordinate (or dependent) elements within clausal and phrasal structures can take many forms. For instance, a noun phrase functioning as object is a subordinate element within a clause, as mentioned above; adjectives and preposition phrases can be subordinate ele­ ments within noun phrases (as in the young girl, the girl in the photo). Such dependency relationships are discussed in various other chapters in this volume.3 The discussion of subordination in this chapter will therefore focus mainly on subordinate clauses. The chapter is structured as follows. Section 21.2 discusses subordination, focusing specifically on subordinate clauses; section 21.3 deals with coordination, both on the

Page 2 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination phrasal and clausal level; and section 21.4 presents grey areas between subordination and coordination. Section 21.5 contains a brief summary and conclusion.

(p. 441)

21.2 Subordination

There are two main types of subordination, modification and complementation. These are distinguished in 21.2.1 in relation to subordinate clauses, though the distinction applies more generally to other types of dependent, as discussed in other chapters.4 Sections 21.2.2 and 21.2.3 present the forms and functions of finite and non-finite subordinate clauses respectively.5

21.2.1 Modification versus complementation In this section I introduce the two main functions of subordinate clauses, as modifiers and complements. As a first illustration of the difference, consider the two subordinate claus­ es in (3): (3)

In (3) one can omit the italicized because clause and still be left with a complete predica­ tion. The because clause is optional and functions as a modifier within the main clause. Units that function as modifier within a clause are also called adjuncts. The that clause, on the other hand, is licensed by the verb said for the latter to make sense in context, and is called a complement. Modifiers occur more freely within structures, while a comple­ ment depends on the presence of a head that licenses it, i.e. permits it to occur. In other words ‘x licenses y’ is the equivalent of ‘x can take y as a complement’ and, on the other side of the coin, ‘y can only occur as a complement with a certain type of x’. For instance, some verbs, like say, allow (license) clausal complements while others, like speak, do not (*She spoke that he was incompetent). Complements, unlike adjuncts, are often obliga­ tory, since they are often not only permitted by the head but required by it. While there are many constructions that are clear instances of modification and comple­ mentation, the borderline between the two forms of dependency may at times be difficult to draw.6 In other words, one may have identified the head and the subordinate item in a construction, but be unsure as to whether this construction (p. 442) instantiates modifica­ tion or complementation. The fact that there are instances that are hard to classify as one or the other suggests either that our system of categorization is flawed or that both cate­ gories of relationship are prototype-based rather than Aristotelian in nature (see Aarts et al. 2004: 6–10 and Aarts 2007a).

Page 3 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination

21.2.2 Finite subordinate clauses Finite subordinate clauses resemble main clauses in that they contain a tensed verb. This means that they can be related in time to the point of utterance. We can say that they are anchored, or ‘grounded’, in the universe of discourse (Lyons 1977: 508, Langacker 2008a: 300, Taylor section 5.3.1, this volume). This grounding may be explicitly coded on the verb in the form of past tense morphemes or third person present singular -s. It is not coded explicitly on other persons in the present, except in the case of the verb be. The main difference between main clauses and subordinate clauses, both of which can contain tensed verbs, is that subordinate clauses generally cannot stand on their own but require some element to be subordinate to, i.e. a head of some sort, which may be a verb, a noun, an adjective, an adverb, a preposition or indeed a whole clause. Table 21.1 contains an overview of the main functions of finite subordinate clauses.7

Page 4 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination Table 21.1 Main functions of finite subordinate clauses Level

Relation

Function

Example

Clause

Comple­ ment

Subject

That he is always late irritates them.

Object

They complain that he is al­ ways late.8

Predica­ tive

The problem is that he is al­ ways late.

Adjunct

They were already irritated when he arrived.

Modifier

They were irritated because he was always late. Phrase

Comple­ ment

of Prepo­ sition

They were arguing about who was at fault.

of Noun

The assertion that he is always late is false.

Modifier

of Adjec­ tive

They were certain that he would be late.

of Noun

The student who was always late failed his finals.

According to Table 21.1, clausal complements of verbs may function as subjects, objects, and predicatives.9 In Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 53) subjects are classified as complements, but not ones of ‘equal status’ with others. The subject is considered to be an ‘external complement (outside the VP)’. It differs from objects which are said to be ‘in­ ternal complements’, and which are licensed by some verbs but not others. Finally it should be noted that when the clausal complement is a subject, it is often extraposed, with It irritates them that he is always late being preferred to That he is always late irri­ tates them (see Kaltenböck, this volume, for a discussion of extraposition). (p. 443)

The subordinate clause in They were irritated because he was always late is analysed in Table 21.1 as containing a subordinator or subordinating conjunction because, which serves a similar function to when in They were already irritated when he arrived. We find this sort of analysis in most traditional grammars, including Quirk et al. (1985). In an al­ Page 5 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination ternative analysis, found in Huddleston and Pullum (2002), because is classified as a preposition taking a finite clausal complement.10 Many of the examples in Table 21.1 contain the subordinator that. However, it is by no means the case that all subordinate clauses contain a subordinator. Thus the main and subordinate clauses in (5) comprise the exact same string of lexemes as the last two main clauses in (4). (4)

(5)

(6)

In (4) the implied direct object of the verb tell in the ditransitive construction is under­ stood to be the current time. She told him and He had to leave constitute two separate tone units, signalled in writing by punctuation and capitalization. In (5), on the other hand, which consists of just one tone unit and is written as a single sentence, the explicit direct object of tell is the clause he had to leave. Its occurrence in this slot in the ditransi­ tive construction confirms its subordinate status. Should we wish to make this status even more explicit, we can do so by inserting that, as in (6). Addressees are aided in their interpretation of the status of post-verbal subordinate clauses, as in (5), by their familiarity with the construction types in which the verbs in question typically occur. No such clues are available for finite clauses in subject position, as in (7) and (8). (p. 444)

(7)

(8)

The subordinate status of finite clauses in subject position has to be signalled explicitly, in order to avoid the addressee interpreting them as main clauses. In (7) this signal takes the form of the presence of That, without which an addressee would take succeeded to be a main clause predicate. In (8) the subordinate status of the clause is signalled by the oc­ currence of its subject he in the position immediately following How, with no intervening

Page 6 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination verb. The fact that this subject is not preceded by a verb is sufficient for addressees to ex­ clude the alternative interpretation that they are faced with a question. In addition to who and how, various other wh-forms, when followed by elements with the requisite Subject–Verb constituent order, can introduce subordinate clauses, as in (9)– (11). Other common markers of subordination when a finite clause functions as a comple­ ment are if/whether as in (12). (9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

There is a much wider range of possibilities in the case of modifying subordinate clauses functioning as adjuncts, which may encode various types of relationship to main predica­ tions, such as temporal (13), conditional (14), concessive (15), and reason (16), among others. (13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

Note again that some scholars (e.g., Huddleston and Pullum 2002) would analyse the modifiers in one or more of these examples as preposition phrases in which the preposi­

Page 7 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination tions take clausal complements. In actual usage adjunct subordinate clauses (or preposi­ tion complement clauses) will often contain pro-forms or ellipsis, as in (17) and (18). (17)

(18)

When a subordinate clause is employed to modify a noun, as in the final example of Table 21.1, it is called a relative clause. Relative clauses differ from subordinate claus­ (p. 445)

es functioning as complements of nouns, in that they may be used to modify any noun, whereas only a minority of nouns take complements. They are also distinctive in estab­ lishing an interpretive link between the head noun and an element of the clause. In (19) there is a ‘gap’ in the object position after wrote, the object of which is understood to be the essays which the relative clause modifies. This missing element may be overtly ex­ pressed by a fronted relative pronoun, or left unexpressed. In (20) the gap is in the com­ plement position of the preposition for, understood as the lecturer, and again overt ex­ pression of this element by a fronted relative pronoun is optional.11 (19)

(20)

In some instances overt marking of relativization is obligatory, most notably when the subject in the relative clause is understood as being coreferential with the head noun (the noun being modified), as in (21) and (22). (21)

(22)

In these examples the overt marking cannot be omitted for reasons similar to those that apply to complement clauses in subject position, as in (7) and (8). The function of a rela­ tive clause such as the one in (21) is to pin down the referent of the head noun The stu­ dents. Because of this restricting function, it is commonly known as a restrictive relative clause. In (22) the relative clause merely adds some extra information about the head noun. It is called non-restrictive.12 Relative pronouns are always required in non-restric­ Page 8 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination tive relative clauses, irrespective of the function of the head noun. Compare in this re­ spect the non-restrictive clause in (23) to the restrictive one in (24). (23)

(24)

When a restrictive relative clause contains a subject that is not coreferential with the head being modified, as in (24), we can choose not to re-encode the referent of the head by means of a relative pronoun. To sum up, in this section we have distinguished between main clauses and finite subordinate clauses. We have seen that finite clauses may function as both complements and modifiers on the clause and phrase level. Various means of signalling subordination have been described. Finally, we distinguished between restrictive and non-restrictive rel­ ative clauses. (p. 446)

21.2.3 Non-finite subordinate clauses Non-finite clauses are almost always subordinate.13 There are four main forms of non-fi­ nite clause, illustrated by (25)–(28). (25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

In some analyses the verb inside the -ing clause in (27) would be called a gerund, or gerund-participle (see Aarts section 2.3.2, this volume, for a discussion of the merits of various classifications). The -ed clause in (28) is also called a past participle clause. This clause, which may be seen as a reduced relative clause (as in the bathroom (which was) located …), functions as a modifier in a noun phrase. The underlined strings in (25)–(27) function as complements of the higher-clause verb. Table 21.2 presents an overview of the Page 9 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination main functions of non-finite subordinate clauses, analysing them as complements and modifiers in the same manner as the finite clauses in Table 21.1. Note that the analysis of some non-finite clauses functioning as post-verbal complements is controversial; this is further discussed below.

Page 10 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination Table 21.2 Main functions of non-finite subordinate clauses Level

Relation

Function

Example

Clause

Comple­ ment

Subject

(Him/his) arriving late irritates them. (For him) to arrive late would be disastrous.

Object14

They dislike (him/his) always being late. They like (him) to arrive on time.

Predica­ tive

The problem is (him) arriving late. The question is to arrive late or not. She forced him to arrive late. She wanted a taxi booked for eight o’clock.

Modifier

Adjunct

They took a taxi to arrive on time. They were overjoyed, arriving on time for once. Given the chance, they always arrived on time.

Phrase

Comple­ ment

Modifier

of Prepo­ sition

They were irritated because of his arriving late.

of Noun

He grasped the opportunity to arrive on time.

of Adjec­ tive

They were certain to arrive late.

of Noun

The student arriving late failed his finals.

Page 11 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination The time to arrive is printed on the ticket. The time stipulated on the tick­ et is fixed. Some of the examples of clause level complements in Table 21.2 contain an NP between the matrix verb and the complement clause predicate. In most, but not all, of the exam­ ples, this NP is analysed in the table as part of the non-finite clause. However, the exact status of these NPs is a matter of considerable dispute (see Borsley section 15.3, this vol­ ume). Indeed, the analysis of sentences containing NPs in this position involves various questions not posed by sentences containing just one verb. Consider in this respect (32)– (34), which may be compared to (29)–(31). (29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(p. 447)

(33)

(34)

In (29) his policies is the direct object of liked. In (30) him is the indirect object and some questions the direct object of asked. In (31) him is the direct object of elected and presi­ dent is an object complement/predicative, i.e. the function of president is predicated of the object him. When we replace the final NPs in (29)–(31) with non-finite clauses, as in (32)–(34), the picture becomes more blurred, especially in the case of those constructions containing three arguments. The analysis of (32) is relatively straightforward. Since there is no implication of the(ir) liking him, the latter is analysed as forming part of the object Page 12 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination clause.15 In (33) and (34), on the other hand, there is no doubt that it is the referent of him that is asked and elected. Him is therefore taken to be an object in both cases. It is however problematic to maintain the distinction between ditransitive and complex-transi­ tive constructions (to adopt Quirk et al.’s terminology) (p. 448) when the final constituent is a clause, since him is in both cases the understood subject of the verb in the comple­ ment clause. Quirk et al. (1985: 1216–20) address this problem by positing a cline of verb classes according to a small handful of criteria. Huddleston and Pullum (2002) adopt a very different approach to non-finite complement clauses than that of Quirk et al. (1985). In particular they reject the parallel drawn above between clauses with only nominal complements, as in (29)–(31), and those with non-fi­ nite complements, as in (32)–(34). They argue that the material differences between the two types, the most important of which is the blurring of the distinction between objects and predicatives, are so great as to preclude their being usefully subsumed into the same set of categories. Instead, they propose to group together constructions containing postverbal non-finite complements and constructions containing auxiliary verbs. Thus he liked to clean the pool and he liked cleaning the pool would be grouped with he ought to clean the pool and he was cleaning the pool rather than with he liked pools. Conflating these two construction types necessitates the analysis of auxiliary verbs as head of the verb phrase rather than dependents of the following main verb. The correct analysis of auxil­ iaries has been much debated in the literature. Huddleston and Pullum present various arguments in favour of auxiliaries as heads (2002: 1209–20; section 10.5, this volume). They label all constructions with post-verbal non-finite complements as catenative con­ structions, of which there are two main subtypes. They distinguish between these accord­ ing to whether there is an NP between the catenative verb (i.e. the auxiliary or matrix verb) and the verb in the catenative complement. Constructions without such an interven­ ing NP are called simple catenative constructions. Constructions with such an NP are called complex catenative constructions. Non-finite constructions like those in Table 21.2 are sometimes said to be ‘deranked’ or ‘desententialized’ compared to finite constructions (Lehmann 1988, Cristofaro 2003: 54, Croft 2001: 321). Also said to be deranked are subordinate clauses in which the verb is in the subjunctive as in (35) and (36), which may be compared to (37) and (38). (35)

(36)

(37)

Page 13 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination (38)

In all four examples (35)–(38) the underlined clauses are complements of the verb recom­ mend, and follow the verb just as a nominal object normally does (compare The doctor recommended exercise). In addition all contain explicit marking of the subordinative rela­ tionship: that plus the subjunctive form of get in (35), subjunctive get without that in (36), the to-infinitive in (37), and the -ing form in (38). Example (38) differs from the other three in that the subject of getting is implicit, in the sense that it cannot be identified with any other element in the sentence. We understand it to refer to the doctor’s addressee be­ cause the doctor is a definite nominal (if we replace the (p. 449) doctor with the indefinite doctors, we would understand the subject of getting as people in general). According to Cristofaro (2003: 55), deranking takes two main forms. That is, there are two main differences between verb forms that can occur in main clauses and verb forms that are restricted to subordinate clauses. The first difference is the lack on the part of the latter of one or more distinctions such as tense, aspect, and person. It is this element of subtraction of meaningful components that is behind the term ‘deranking’. The second difference involves the addition of components in the form of marking not allowed in main clause verbs, such as the to of the to-infinitive and the -ing form. Examples (35)–(38) all exhibit the loss of tense. Examples (37) and (38) both exhibit the second difference, in the form of the presence of to in the former and -ing in the latter. Unlike finite clauses, non-finite subordinate clauses, which lack a grounding predication of their own (i.e. which are not tensed), depend on the verb in the main clause for their location vis-à-vis the point of utterance.16 Thus, when occurring as a complement, the to-infinitive may be interpreted as coding a general validity or a forward-looking predica­ tion, depending on the type of verb it complements (Egan 2008: 97). (39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43) Page 14 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination

(44)

With attitudinal verbs, like love in (39), the predication in the subordinate clause has gen­ eral validity, in the sense that it is likely to be realized by the subject whenever circum­ stances allow, in the case of (39), or allowed in the case of (40). Note that the form of the subordinate clause is the same in both examples. The temporal location of the activities in them is dependent on the tense of the matrix verbs. With a verb expressing a judgement, such as believe, a to-infinitive complement codes a situation taken to pertain at the same time as the main verb. In (41) her living in London is posited as being true at present, in (42) it is posited as having been true in the past (although it may, of course, also be true in the present).17 With the majority of verbs, (p. 450) however, a predication in a subordi­ nate clause coded by a to-infinitive is understood to take place, if at all, at a time posteri­ or to that of the main verb. This is the case for mental process verbs like intend and plan, as in (43) and (44), communication verbs like advise and persuade, enablement verbs like allow and help, causation verbs like force and compel, effort verbs like attempt and try, and aspect verbs like begin and start. In the case of some of these verbs there may be some temporal overlap between the matrix verb situation and the situation in the comple­ ment clause, but the complement situation may never precede the main verb situation in the case of non-perfective to-infinitives. The bare infinitive resembles the to-infinitive in occurring in forward-looking construc­ tions, as in (45), in which the rewriting cannot precede the imposition of force, and sametime predications, as in (46), in which the hearing and the tolling are understood to hap­ pen at one and the same time. (45)

(46)

The -ing form of the verb resembles the bare infinitive in occurring in forward-looking (47) and same-time (48) predications. In addition it occurs with backward-looking main verbs, as in (49), and can also encode mere objects of contemplation, as in (50). (47)

(48)

Page 15 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination

(49)

(50)

We saw in 21.2.2 that when a finite clause functions as a subject it must contain a subor­ dinator, or a wh-word. Similarly, infinitives in subject position require to, as in (51), or, in cases where the subject of the to-infinitive clause is mentioned in the clause itself, for… to, as in (52). -Ing forms, as in (53), do not require any mark of subordination apart from the -ing ending itself. (51)

(52)

(53)

Moreover, when the identity of the subject of a non-finite complement clause is different to that of a matrix verb, as in (54)–(55), it must be stated explicitly in the construction. (54)

(55)

In (54) and (55) him has accusative or objective case, but also serves the function of logical subject (trajector in Cognitive Grammar terminology: see Taylor 5.2.2, this vol­ ume) of the verb in the complement clause. Indeed it is the actual, and not just the under­ stood, subject of the complement verb in (54), despite its accusative form. One exception to the requirement that the subject be coded explicitly is in the case of communication constructions where the subject is understood as either a specific addressee, as in (38) (The doctor recommended getting more exercise), or a generic addressee (Doctors rec­ ommend getting more exercise). (p. 451)

Page 16 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination In what are known as same-subject (or simple catenative) constructions, i.e. construc­ tions in which the subject of the matrix verb is also understood to be the subject of the verb in the complement, as in (56) and (57), this subject is not encoded twice. (56)

(57)

Many grammarians consider the subject of the non-finite subordinate clauses to be unex­ pressed but understood in sentences like (56) and (57). Jespersen, for instance, considers the subject of infinitives in sentences like (56) to be latent or implied. He maintains that in such cases ‘the latent S is obvious because it is the same as the subject […] of the (main) sentence’ (Jespersen 1909–1949, V: 153). Formalist grammars label the under­ stood subject of the verb in complement clauses such as these PRO (‘big PRO’; short for ‘pronominal’). The construction is said to exhibit ‘subject control’ with the understood subject of the modifying clause being ‘controlled’ by, i.e. understood to be identical to, the subject of the main clause (see Duffley section 17.4, this volume). An alternative analysis is that She in (56) and (57) actually is the subject of both verbs like and visit (Matthews 1981: 186, Hudson 1987: 128, Egan 2008: 14). There are several tests for subjecthood in finite clauses, such as verb agreement and auxiliary inversion in interrogatives. These tests cannot be applied in the case of constructions containing deranked verbs. We find the same lack of repetition of subjects in clause-level modifiers or adjuncts, as in (58). (58)

In (58), the subject (or logical subject/trajector) of to get, which is coreferential with the subject of the main clause, is not encoded a second time. Again this understood subject would be labelled ‘[PRO]’ in formal representations. To sum up, we have seen in this section that, like finite clauses, non-finite clauses may function as both complements and modifiers on the clause and phrase level. Lacking pri­ mary tense, non-finite clauses are largely dependent on the main clause predicate for their temporal interpretation. Various means of signalling subordination have been de­ scribed. Finally, we have seen that understood subjects in subordinate clauses may be coreferential with various nominals in the main clause.

Page 17 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination (p. 452)

21.3 Coordination

The term ‘coordination’ denotes a relationship between two or more items, neither of which is subordinate to the other.18 In this section I will concentrate on structures con­ taining just two coordinates. There are generally taken to be three basic coordinating conjunctions in English, conjunctive and, disjunctive or, and contrastive/adversative but. I introduce briefly coordination on the phrase level in 21.3.1 and on the clause level in 21.3.2, before considering some more problematic aspects of coordination in 21.3.3.

21.3.1 Coordination at the phrase level At the phrase level we find coordination of various types of heads and dependents (modi­ fiers/complements). Table 21.3 contains just a small illustrative sample of some of these possibilities. Table 21.3 Coordination in and of phrases

Noun phrases

Bare heads

Heads with dependents

young [men and women]19

[young men] and [older women] [many young men] and [some older women]

Adjective

extremely [bright

[quite bright] and [extremely

phrases

and eager]

eager]

Adverb phrases

very [slowly and stealthily]

[quite slowly] and [very stealthily]

Preposition

[up and down] the

[a bit up] and [right down] the

phrases

hills

hills [in Britain] and [on the conti­ nent]

Verb phras­

[washed and dried]

[slowly washed] and [thor­

es

the dishes

oughly dried] the dishes [cleared the table] and [washed the dishes]

All of the examples in Table 21.3 contain the conjunction and. We could replace and with or in the phrases in the table, indicating that just one or other of the two elements, but not both, is included in the predication containing the disjunction.20 It would not be equally felicitous to replace and with but in the five types of coordination in the ta­ (p. 453)

Page 18 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination ble, since but requires the presence of contrasting predicative elements. If, however, we were to replace bright with dim in the adjective phrases, but gives a more felicitous utter­ ance than and. But may also be used to indicate contrasts between the other sorts of phrases in Table 21.3, noun phrases, as in (59), adverb phrases, as in (60), preposition phrases, as in (61), and verb phrases, as in (62). (59)

(60)

(61)

(62)

21.3.2 Coordination at the clause level On the clause level, subjects, objects, both direct and indirect, predicatives and adjuncts may all comprise conjoined items. In addition clauses themselves may be coordinated with other clauses, as in (63)–(65). (63)

(64)

(65)

In all three examples (63)–(65) we can employ the coordinate and to join the clauses, whether main clauses as in (63) or subordinate clauses as in (64) and (65). We can also employ but in order to contrast the activities. Using or would sound odd in these exam­ ples since there is no reason to think that the two conjoined activities described should not both be realized, involving as they do two different agents. However, it would be nat­ ural in an example involving only one agent such as They hoped he would cook dinner or put the children to bed. In examples of this kind, where the agent of the activity in the Page 19 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination second conjunct is identical to the agent in the first conjunct, it is common to employ el­ lipsis. In this instance we have ellipsis in the second conjunct not only of the subject he, but also the modal would. Similarly, if the second conjunct in a sentence like (63) encodes a similar proposition to the first one, we generally employ pro-forms or ellipsis, as in He cooked dinner and [so did she/she did too]. When it is a verb that is subject to ellipsis, as in (66), we cannot illustrate the rela­ tionship between the clausal conjuncts by linear bracketing, as in examples (63)–(65). (p. 454)

(66)

Example (66) differs from (63)–(65) in that it only contains one verb, which has two sets of complements, each consisting of a subject and an object. What is conjoined is the ac­ tion of washing the kitchen by him and the bathroom by her. We can, however, show it as in (67). (67)

The process whereby the language user omits to repeat the predicator in cases like (66) is generally referred to as ‘gapping’ in the literature, because of a perceived ‘gap’, where one would normally expect to find a verb, between the subject and object in the second conjunct (see Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1337 ff.).

21.3.3 Non-prototypical coordination Tokens displaying non-prototypical coordination may instantiate constructions containing no coordinators or less prototypical coordinators, or they may contain less prototypical coordinates. Since I am discussing less common phenomena in this section, I will for the most part eschew made-up examples in favour of corpus data, taken from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA; Davies 2008–) and the British National Corpus (BNC). If a string of words contains a coordinator such as and we can be sure that it is related to some other string. In the absence of a coordinator, how do we decide whether two con­ stituents are related? In some cases we may rely on word order or constituent order to signal coordination, as in the case of the two predicative noun phrases in (68). (68)

Page 20 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination Although it would be perfectly possible to add an and between the two noun phrases in (68), this is not necessary to signal the coordination. Coordination with an explicit coordi­ nator is called ‘syndetic’, coordination without is called ‘asyndetic’. When it comes to syndetic coordination, Quirk et al. have posited a cline from subordi­ nate to coordinate relationships and proposed various criteria for situating coordinators and subordinators along that cline (Quirk et al. 1985: 927, Aarts 2005: 253). Closest to the three conjunctions on this cline is the conjunct yet, whose distribution is in many re­ spects similar to that of but, as in (69) and (70). (p. 455)

(69)

(70)

One important difference between but and yet is that one can insert and before yet but not before but. Like determiners, conjunctions are taken to be mutually exclusive. Even the common combination and/or means ‘and or or’ not ‘and and or’. Another conjunct which functions like a coordinating conjunction in many respects is so (Quirk et al. 1985: 928, Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1318), as in (71) and (72). (71)

(72)

Plus is in some respects even more like a conjunction in that it cannot be preceded by and. It is semantically incompatible with or and but. However, plus, unlike and, always sig­ nals more of the same sort of thing. She went upstairs, plus she washed her hair sounds distinctly odd, since these actions are too disparate to allow easily of the sort of addition­ al interpretation coded by plus. Moving from less prototypical coordinators to less prototypical coordinates, we have al­ ready noted that coordinators generally link like with like. Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1326) state that ‘In the great majority of cases, coordinates belong to the same syntactic category, but a difference of category is generally tolerated where there is a likeness of function’. They point out that the coordination of different syntactic categories is perfect­ Page 21 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination ly acceptable in predicatives. For instance, in (73) and (74), there are noun phrases coor­ dinated with adjective phrases. (73)

(74)

In (73), which displays asyndetic coordination, the noun phrases precede the adjective. In (74), which contains both syndetic and asyndetic coordination, the adjective phrase comes first. In the predicative construction in (73) and (74) was functions as a copula in relation to all the coordinates. However the verb be has two additional functions, as an auxiliary in both progressive and passive constructions. In the examples of syndetic coor­ dination (75)–(77), in which the coordinates belong to different categories, be plays differ­ ent roles in relation to the coordinates. (75)

(p. 456)

(76)

(77)

In (75) and (76) be serves both as a copula and a progressive auxiliary, in different order in the two examples. In (77) it serves as both a passive and progressive auxiliary. Despite these dual roles, the predication in (77) is readily comprehensible since being in turn functions as a passive auxiliary. Moreover the subject of both verb phrases, their child, plays one and the same thematic role, that of PATIENT. Similarly, he is the THEME of the predications of crying and lost in (76). Example (75) differs, however, in that the subject I is THEME with regard to sober, but AGENT with regard to holding and letting. The fact that (75) appears a perfectly felicitous utterance shows that thematic equivalence of sub­ ject is not a prerequisite for coordinating predications. Another sort of non-canonical coordination involves two forms from the same syntactic category which occur in contexts in which they would not have occurred individually. Page 22 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination (78)

(79)

Examples (78) and (79) contain coordinated heads on the phrase level, which together function as subjects on the clause level. Being plural, they naturally occur with a plural form of the verb in (78). This type of coordination is called ‘extraordinary balanced coor­ dination (EBC)’ by Johannessen (1998: 1). It is balanced because both coordinates share the same (objective) form. It is extraordinary because, occurring as they do in subject po­ sition, one might expect them to be subjective in form, as in He and I shared a tent. As Jo­ hannessen (1998: 60) puts it, ‘EBC is the case where a coordinated structure has differ­ ent grammatical features from a simplex structure in the same surroundings’. However extraordinary the construction may seem, it is by no means uncommon, espe­ cially in spoken English. Rather more unusual is the form of coordination which Johan­ nessen dubs ‘unbalanced coordination’, illustrated here by (80)–(82). (80)

(81)

(82)

(80)–(82) contain coordinate phrases in each of which one of the coordinates is subjective in form and the other objective. According to Johannessen (1998), only the type in (80) actually occurs in English. She writes ‘I have not encountered any example of un­ balanced coordination in English in which both conjuncts were overtly case-marked pro­ nouns, and where only the pronoun in the first conjunct had deviant case’ (Johannessen 1998: 63). To my mind, (81) and (82) seem equally (in)felicitous to (80). The point is by no means moot, in view of Johannessen’s general thesis that in cases of unbalanced coordi­ nation in SVO languages, it is always the second coordinate that has deviant case. (p. 457)

Page 23 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination

21.4 Coordination or subordination? Given that a relationship between two strings has been established, it remains to deter­ mine whether that relationship is one of equals, instantiating coordination, or of un­ equals, instantiating subordination. Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1289) point out that ‘while the central or prototypical cases of coordination and subordination are sharply dis­ tinct, there is no clear boundary between the peripheries of the constructions’. In some cases the presence of a coordinator or subordinator may point us in the direction of one or other relationship (though here we must be aware of the risk of circular reasoning). Thus the to of the to-infinitive always signals subordination, while the conjunction but always signals coordination. But even in the case of the most prototypical of all coordina­ tors, and, we may still be in doubt. Here I limit the discussion to just three constructions, try and V, go and V, and CONDITIONAL and. (83)

(84)

(85)

(86)

The construction in (83)–(85) seems at first sight very similar to the one in (86), with try and V being equivalent to ‘try to V’. This similarity might incline one to conclude that the ‘and V’ string is subordinate to the verb try. Indeed Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1302) reach this very conclusion, maintaining that ‘In spite of the and […] this construction is subordinative, not coordinative: and introduces a non-finite complement of try’. (p. 458) Certainly the try and V construction cannot code clausal coordination since the truth con­ ditions of the second coordinate are not identical to those of the first. Example (83), for instance, asserts that metaphor has been used to try something, not to capture some­ thing. Whether anything has in fact been captured is left in doubt, the predication in the putative ‘and V’ clause being non-factive. However, if this is a case of complementation, why should it be restricted to the base form of try, exemplified by the to-infinitive in (83), Page 24 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination the first person plural present in (84), and the bare infinitive in (85)? Why can we not say *he tries and goes or *he tries and go to mean he tries to go? The fact that we cannot do so indicates that the construction may actually instantiate phrasal rather than clausal co­ ordination, in particular the coordination of verb phrase heads. The construction may be illustrated as in (87) which may be contrasted with the subordinative construction in (88). (87)

(88)

Quirk et al. (1985: 978) describe the construction as ‘pseudo-coordinative’. I consider it preferable to interpret it as a genuinely coordinative low-level construction in its own right, one in which the second coordinate refers to a proposition, the realization of which depends on the expenditure of effort signalled by the first coordinate. The second construction containing and that seems to straddle a strict subordination–co­ ordination divide is the go and V construction, illustrated here in (89) and (90). (89)

(90)

Unlike the try and V construction where the ‘and V’ string appears at first sight to resem­ ble the complement of a matrix verb, in the go and V construction it is the ‘go and’ string that appears subordinate to the second verb. Another difference to the ‘try to V’ construc­ tion is that both verbs in go and V may be grounded (tensed), as demonstrated by the past tense morphology of the verbs in (90). Moreover, one can omit the ‘go and’ string without altering the truth conditions of the utterance. The semantic contribution of ‘go and’ is limited to the implication of irritation or surprise on the part of the speaker. According to Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1303), ‘In this colloquial use of go, the verb has lost its mo­ tional meaning and has a purely emotive role’. The absence of any implication of a change in location is reminiscent of a similar lack in the ‘going to’ future construction, as in I am going to stay on here. And just as the older motion sense of ‘going to’ may still be encoun­ tered with a purposive to-infinitive adjunct, as in she is only going to please her mother, so the motion sense of ‘go and’, as in she went and pleased her mother, is still flourishing side by side with the non-motion sense. In the ‘go and’ construction, the verb go has been bleached of its motion sense, and has been bleached of its coordinative sense, while the combination (p. 459) of the two has acquired a new sense, not predictable from the two in­ Page 25 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination dividual items. The order of the two, with and following immediately upon go, and admit­ ting no intervening elements, has been fossilized. This fossilization, combined with the el­ ements of semantic bleaching and pragmatic enrichment, is typical of grammaticalization in the sense of Hopper and Traugott (2003). We may conclude that ‘go and’ has grammat­ icalized as a subordinate marker of speaker attitude. The final and construction to be considered here is exemplified by (91)–(93). (91)

(92)

(93)

The construction in (91) contains two clauses, one imperative, the other declarative, joined by and.21 The initial constituents in (92) and (93) do not contain a verb. In all three the constituent before and encodes a condition for the realization of the situation encoded in the final clause. The obvious question is whether we are to assign subordinate status to the first constituent, considering it as a unit up to and including and. The consensus among linguists of both a functional and formal bent is to reject this hypothesis, arguing that the putative subordination is purely semantic, not syntactic (Bolinger 1977: 158, Culicover and Jackendoff 2005: 475). Quirk et al. (1985: 931) classify and conditionals as one of eight types of semantic rela­ tionship that may be connoted by and. Some of the other types are illustrated in (94)–(96) with Quirk et al.’s own examples. (94)

(95)

(96)

Page 26 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination Constructions like (94) are labelled ‘CONSEQUENCE’, constructions like (95) ‘SE­ QUENCE’, and constructions like (96) ‘CONCESSIVE’ by Quirk et al. (1985: 930–1). Ap­ plying the same sort of reasoning as in the case of and conditionals, one could argue that the first clauses in these three sentences are subordinate to the second ones, insofar as they could be paraphrased Because he heard an explosion, he phoned the police; After I washed the dishes, I dried them; and Although she tried hard, she failed. Quirk et al. (1985: 1041) describe more correspondences of this sort. However, they still maintain the distinction between the coordinative constructions and their semantically similar subordi­ native counterparts. To sum up, two of the three and constructions in this section have been deemed coordinative, albeit on different levels, the try and V construction on the phrase level, and CONDITIONAL and on the clause level. The third construction, go and V, has been deemed subordinative, with go and having grammaticalized as a marker of speaker atti­ tude. Other marginal uses of and are discussed in Quirk et al. (1985: 978–81). The impor­ tant point here is that and does not always code coordination, which of course is not to say that it, in itself, codes subordination. (p. 460)

21.5 Summary and conclusion This chapter has described the forms and functions of the main types of subordinate clauses, as well as various types of coordination. We have seen that it is not always easy to distinguish coordination from subordination, nor indeed to distinguish between the various sub-types of subordination. We have also seen that grammarians differ in their analyses of some of these phenomena. Subordination and coordination are two very broad categories, and both comprise a wide variety of grammatical relationships. With respect to subordination, I have only looked at subordinate elements in the form of clauses, i.e. constructions containing verbs. We have seen that these verbs may be both finite and non-finite and that both forms of clause can function as complements and modifiers in phrases and clauses. We have also looked at various means of signalling subordination in both finite and non-finite clauses and noted that, while the former are independently grounded, their non-finite counterparts, lacking primary tense, are dependent on the main clause predicate for their temporal interpreta­ tion. As for coordination, we saw that both bare heads and heads with dependents may be coordinated and that, although we normally coordinate like with like, the items being co­ ordinated do not necessarily have to be identical in form. I also described some construc­ tions that present problems in classification as either subordinate or coordinate. That we should encounter such constructions is by no means surprising when we are operating at such a coarse-grained level of analysis involving just two categories of relationship. While it would obviously be impossible to engage in grammatical analysis without positing some type of classification, we need to bear in mind that superordinate classes of relationship, such as those labelled subordination and coordination, subsume a multitude of lowerclass relationships that differ from one another in various ways. Page 27 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Beck Sinar, internal reviewer Ash Asudeh, and an anonymous exter­ nal reviewer for their incisive comments on the first version of this paper, and Jill Bowie and Bas Aarts for their very helpful advice on various questions that arose during the re­ vision process.

Reference Aarts, Bas (2005). ‘Subordination’, in Keith Brown (ed), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. (vol. 12). Oxford: Elsevier, 248–55. Aarts, Bas (2007a). Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press. Bolinger, Dwight (1977). Meaning and Form. London: Longman. Croft, William (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fawcett, Robin P. (2000). A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amster­ dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hopper, Paul J., and Elisabeth C. Traugott (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the Eng­ lish Language. In collaboration with Laurie Bauer, Betty Birner, Ted Briscoe, Peter Collins, David Denison, David Lee, Anita Mittwoch, Geoffrey Nunberg, Frank Palmer, John Payne, Peter Peterson, Lesley Stirling, Gregory Ward. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaltenböck, Gunther (2011). ‘Explaining diverging evidence: The case of clause-initial I think’, in Doris Schönefeld (ed), Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Is­ sues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 81–112. Kruisinga, Etsko (1909–1932). A Handbook of Present-Day English. Groningen: Noord­ hoff. Lehmann, Christian (1988). ‘Towards a typology of clause linkage’, in John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), Clause Combining in Discourse and Grammar (Typological Studies in Language, 18). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181–225. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 28 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination Newmeyer, Frederick J. (2010). ‘What conversational English tells us about the nature of grammar: A critique of Thompson’s analysis of object complements’, in Kasper Boye and Elizabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds), Usage and Structure: A Festschrift for Peter Harder. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 3–43. Poutsma, Hendrik (1904–1929). A Grammar of Late Modern English I–V. Groningen: No­ ordhoff. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985). A Compre­ hensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Siewierska, Anna (1991). Functional Grammar. London: Routledge. Thompson, Sandra A. (2002). ‘“Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realis­ tic account.’ Studies in Language 26(7): 125–64. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and Randy J. LaPolla (1997). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Notes: (1) Note that in some formal approaches to grammar clauses are treated as phrases (see Borsley, section 15.5.1, this volume). (2) For more on phrasal heads, see Borsley section 15.2, Huddleston and Pullum section 10.3, Keizer section 16.4.1, and Taylor section 5.2.2, all this volume. Note that some ap­ proaches would analyse the in the girl as the head of the phrase (see Keizer section 16.3, this volume). Such an approach has no material consequences for our analysis of subordi­ nate clauses. (3) See Footnotes 2 and 4 for references to relevant material in other chapters. (4) Further details of phrasal complementation and modification may be found in Borsley section 15.4 and Keizer section 16.3, both this volume, and of clausal complementation and modification in Duffley section 17.3 and Herbst sections 7.4 and 7.5, both this vol­ ume. For an exhaustive description, the reader is referred to the major reference gram­ mars of Quirk et al. (1985) and Huddleston and Pullum (2002), as well as the earlier grammars of Poutsma (1904–1929), Kruisinga (1909–1932), and Jespersen (1909–1949). (5) For the distinction between finite and non-finite predications, see Depraetere and Tsangalidis, this volume. (6) One structure that has given rise to considerable debate in the literature consists of what are sometimes referred to as comment clauses, such as I think in I think he gave her flowers. For various analyses of these, see Thompson (2002), Newmeyer (2010), and Kaltenböck (2011).

Page 29 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination (7) Various grammars adopt different approaches to the classification of subordinate clauses. For instance, Quirk et al. (1985) favour a functional analysis, dividing subordi­ nate clauses into ‘noun clauses’, ‘adjective clauses’, and ‘adverb clauses’, according to whether the role they play resembles more that of a noun, an adjective, or an adverb. Huddleston and Pullum (2002), on the other hand, favour classifying them on the basis of their internal structure into ‘content clauses’, ‘relative clauses’, and ‘comparative clauses’ (see Huddleston and Pullum, section 10.8, this volume). (8) Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1017 ff.) prefer not to extend the label ‘object’ to in­ clude such finite subordinate clauses, arguing that they behave quite differently from NP objects (although they make an exception for examples like That he lost his temper I find odd, containing a preposed object in a complex-transitive clause). (9) Not all grammarians would accept that subjects should be classified as complements. Approaches that do not recognize subjects as complements include Generative Grammar (Siewierska 1991: 132) and Systemic Functional Grammar (Fawcett 2000: 112). Ap­ proaches that include subjects as complements of equal status with other obligatory ele­ ments in a construction include Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 2008a: 210, Taylor sec­ tion 5.2.2, this volume), Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 31), and Word Grammar (Hudson 2010a: 282). (10) For more on items such as because, variously classified as subordinators and preposi­ tions, see Aarts section 2.4.1, Huddleston and Pullum section 10.7, and Taylor section 5.2.4, all this volume. (11) Some grammars analyse that in examples like (19) and (20) not as a relative pronoun which provides overt expression of an otherwise missing element but as a subordinator which simply marks subordination (e.g., Huddleston and Pullum 2002). (12) Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1058 ff.) prefer to distinguish ‘integrated’ and ‘supple­ mentary’ relative clauses, noting instances where the information is presented as integral to the message but does not serve to narrow down the referent (e.g., He has a wife he can rely on). (13) One exception consists of exclamations such as Oh, to be in England. (14) Note that Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1207) do not in general employ the term ‘ob­ ject’ for non-finite clausal complements in sentences, arguing that they comprise a dis­ tinct kind of complement. However, they make an exception for the first post-verbal con­ stituent in sentences containing object predicatives, such as She considers consulting mo­ bile phones at table very rude. (15) Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1179–81), however, argue against such an analysis on syntactic grounds, seeing it as an instance of mismatch between semantics and syntax. (16) For a somewhat different interpretation of the temporal integration of non-finite sub­ ordinate clauses see Duffley, sections 17.4 and 17.5, this volume. Page 30 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subordination and Coordination (17) It is also possible to use a perfect form of the infinitive to indicate that the situation in the complement clause pertained prior to the time of the matrix verb, especially in con­ structions containing seem, appear, and verbs expressing judgements, as in He believed her to have lived in London (see Depraetere and Tsangalidis, this volume). As shown by Bowie and Wallis (2016), the construction with the infinitival perfect has been in decline for several centuries. It is now archaic with some matrix verbs, such as remember in the pattern I remembered to have seen a photograph of her. (18) Note that in some formal approaches the coordinated items are considered to be sub­ ordinate to the coordinator, which is then considered to be the head of the construction. Other approaches analyse such constructions as having two (or more) heads, or as having none (see Herbst section 7.3.1 and Borsley section 15.7, both this volume). (19) On an abstract theoretical level the exact constituent structure of a string like young men and women may be unspecified. In a given utterance context it could be ambiguous, allowing for the interpretation [young men] and women. In practice the context will nor­ mally indicate the intended interpretation. (20) There are also some contexts in which or is not genuinely disjunctive, where it actual­ ly implies and. Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1297) give the example They are obtainable at Coles or Woolworths, which means that they are obtainable at both. The reason behind the use of or in such contexts is that one has a choice of shops to visit to obtain them. (21) For a discussion of the pragmatic force of such constructions see König section 18.5, this volume.

Thomas Egan

Thomas Egan is Emeritus Professor of English Linguistics at Inland Norway Universi­ ty of Applied Sciences. His research interests encompass topics within the areas of corpus linguistics, contrastive linguistics, cognitive linguistics, and historical linguis­ tics, including grammaticalization. He is the author of a monograph on complementa­ tion, entitled Non-Finite Complementation: A Usage-Based Study of Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English (2008, Rodopi). More recently he has (co-)authored some dozen articles contrasting various prepositional constructions in English and French and/or Swedish and Norwegian.

Page 31 of 31

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure

Information Structure   Gunther Kaltenböck The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.18

Abstract and Keywords This chapter provides an overview of central concepts in the study of information struc­ ture and their application to grammatical structures of English. The first part focuses on the notions of given and new information, more specifically presupposition, assertion, and the activation of discourse referents, as well as on the concepts of topic and focus. The second part investigates how these concepts conventionally manifest themselves in mor­ phosyntactic structure. This includes a brief discussion of the general principles of end-fo­ cus, end-weight, and lexico-grammatical construal as well as specific information packag­ ing constructions, viz. fronting and postponement structures, argument reversal, and clefting. The chapter ends with a brief look at the position of information structure in the study of grammar more generally. Keywords: given/new information, presupposition, assertion, topic, focus, end-focus, end-weight, construal, infor­ mation packaging constructions

22.1 Introduction WHEN we use language, we usually do so to convey information.1 The information we convey is, however, not of equal informational value. Rather there is an ‘informational asymmetry’ (Prince 1981a: 224): we can expect some of the information to be already known to the hearer, while other information will be new. This basic distinction plays an important role in the lexico-grammatical expression of utterances, as speakers ‘tailor’ their utterances to meet the perceived mental states of the hearer. Arranging information lexico-grammatically to fit the communicative needs of the situation is generally sub­ sumed under ‘information structure’, a term coined by Halliday (1967). Other terms used include ‘Functional Sentence Perspective’ (e.g., Firbas 1992), ‘information packaging’ (Chafe 1976), and ‘informatics’ (Vallduví 1992). A useful definition of informa­ tion structure is given by Lambrecht (1994: 5) as

Page 1 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure [t]hat component of sentence grammar in which propositions as conceptual repre­ sentations of states of affairs are paired with lexicogrammatical structures in ac­ cordance with the mental states of interlocutors who use and interpret these structures as units of information in given discourse contexts. In terms of its formal manifestation, information structure comprises the whole range of lexico-grammatical means, including prosody, morphological marking, syntactic struc­ tures, and ordering constituents in the sentence. Of particular interest to the study (p. 462) of information structure are word-order variations, so-called ‘information packag­ ing constructions’, which express the same proposition in formally and pragmatically di­ vergent ways. Consider, for example, the following simple event: the transfer of a book from John to Mary. This can be expressed linguistically in a number of different ways, in­ cluding those in (1). (1)

To capture the specific functions of each constructional variant, the study of information structure makes use of categories, such as ‘given/new’ information, ‘presupposition’, ‘top­ ic’, and ‘focus’. There is, however, no generally agreed set of categories, and the terms used, as well as their definitions, differ widely to the extent that some scholars have lamented the terminological profusion, and indeed confusion, prevalent in this field (Levinson 1983: x). This chapter will therefore foreground areas of agreement, while still comparing different approaches and pointing out differences between them. Given the limitations of space, an overview of such a diverse field will, however, necessarily be in­ complete. The chapter is organized as follows: section 22.2, first of all, examines the notions of ‘giv­ en’ and ‘new’ information, more specifically presupposition and assertion (22.2.1) and the activation of discourse referents (22.2.2). Sections 22.3 and 22.4 discuss the concepts of topic and focus respectively. Section 22.5 highlights some principles that may affect the structural realization of information structure, end-focus (22.5.1), end-weight (22.5.2), and the strategy of information status construal (22.5.3). Section 22.6 then surveys major information packaging constructions, such as those illustrated in the examples above. The

Page 2 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure conclusion in section 22.7 briefly looks at the position of information structure in the study of grammar more generally.

22.2 Given and new information The notions of given and new have been discussed under a range of different labels: ‘giv­ en’ information has been referred to, for instance, as old, known, ground, anaphoric, con­ text-dependent, activated, salient, or familiar information, and there is no uniform defini­ tion of the concept of givenness. In section 22.2.1 we will look, first of all, at givenness and newness at the propositional level, i.e. presupposition and assertion. Section 22.2.2 discusses the givenness and newness of discourse referents, more specifically their differ­ ent degrees of (assumed) activation in the mind of the hearer. (p. 463)

22.2.1 Presupposition and assertion

For Lambrecht (1994) all information is stored in the form of propositions. Propositions are, however, not understood in a narrow logico-semantic sense as something that is true or false, but rather as ‘conceptual representations of states of affairs’ (Lambrecht 1994: 334). These propositions are structured in terms of a speaker’s assumptions about the hearer’s current state of mind. ‘Old’ information accordingly consists of all the proposi­ tions evoked by a sentence which the speaker assumes are already available in the hearer’s mind at the time of utterance, that is, propositions which the hearer is assumed to know. These are referred to as ‘presuppositions’ (or more precisely ‘pragmatic presup­ positions’). ‘New’ information, on the other hand, is the proposition which the speaker thinks his/her sentence contributes to the hearer’s store of propositions. This is referred to as ‘assertion’. Lambrecht’s view of presupposition closely corresponds with that of oth­ er approaches although they use different labels, such as ‘common background belief’ (Stalnaker 1974), ‘speaker presupposition’ (Kempson 1975, Stalnaker 1978), ‘com­ mon ground’ (Stalnaker 1978), and ‘antecedent’ (Clark and Haviland 1977: 4). Such a propositional view of information has important implications for the identification of ‘new’ (asserted) information, as an uttered sentence cannot be neatly subdivided into old and new components. What is being asserted is not just the non-presupposed proposi­ tion but a proposition (or propositions) which combines old and new components, since ‘what is new is normally new with respect to something that is already given’ (Lambrecht 1994: 51). In this sense assertion is relational with regard to presupposition. Take an ex­ ample such as (2): What is asserted (new) in B’s response is not strictly speaking the word wallet but the state of affairs that ‘John found a wallet in the street’, i.e. a whole proposition which relates the word wallet to some given proposition (‘John found some­ thing in the street’) to create a new proposition unknown to the hearer (capitals indicate a stressed word). (2)

Page 3 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure

This is different from approaches where an informational value may be attached to indi­ vidual lexical and phrasal elements of the sentence, such as wallet in (2). In a proposition­ al view such as Lambrecht’s, the information expressed by a sentence is not neatly seg­ mentable into sentence constituents with each being identified as either old or new. Propositions also play a role in other approaches to information structure but usually only in connection with a specific class of focus–presupposition constructions, such as it-clefts, wh-clefts, inversions, and preposings (e.g., Chomsky 1971, Jackendoff 1972, Culicover and Rochemont 1983, Prince 1992, Birner and Ward 1998), which will be discussed in section 22.6. These structure the proposition they express into two parts: (i) a so-called ‘open proposition’, which typically conveys information that is already (p. 464) assumed to be part of the common ground (Vallduví 1992), and (ii) the instantiation of a variable in the open proposition, which represents new information and is identified as the focus. In a sentence such as (3), for instance, the open proposition is ‘I like X’ (which is equivalent to the presupposition ‘I like somebody’),2 with the focus being ‘X = Graham’. (3)

The concept of focus, however, differs from Lambrecht’s notion of assertion and will be discussed in more detail in section 22.4.

22.2.2 Activation In the previous section we looked at givenness and newness on the clausal-propositional level. But information status is also—probably more commonly—associated with dis­ course referents (typically expressed by noun phrases), which we will investigate in the present section. Discourse referents, in Lambrecht’s view (1994: 74), are entities, typical­ ly expressed by noun phrases, but they may also be propositions, if expressed by a subor­ dinate clause or a pronoun. Birner and Ward (2006: 305), by comparison, include in their analysis of sub-propositional information status not only entities but any element which is part of a larger proposition, including attributes and relations. Despite differences in identifying the actual carrier of information status there is some agreement in classifying possible degrees of activation of an information unit. Lambrecht (1994: 109) proposes the taxonomy in Figure 22.1, which builds on various (p. 465) previ­ ous classification systems, notably those of Chafe (e.g., 1976, 1987, 1991) and Prince (1981a) (cf. also Kuno 1972, Clark and Haviland 1977, Allerton 1978).3

Page 4 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure

Figure 22.1 Lambrecht’s (1994) assumed mental representation of discourse referents (alternative terms by Prince and Chafe in brackets)

Lambrecht’s classification of seven possible states of the assumed mental representation of discourse referents involves two main categories: (i) identifiability, the speaker’s as­ sumption whether the hearer ‘knows’ an entity or state of affairs, in the sense that it al­ ready has a representation in the hearer’s mind, and (ii) activation, the speaker’s assess­ ment whether and to what degree an identifiable referent is ‘activated’, that is, in the consciousness of the hearer at the time of the utterance. This is because ‘[k]nowing some­ thing and thinking of something are different mental states’ (Lambrecht 1994: 93). Let us briefly look at the different categories in turn. Unidentifiable entities, or brandnew ones in Prince’s (1981a) terms, can be of two types: either unanchored, as in (4a), or anchored, as in (4b), where the NP I acts as the anchor that links the new expression a guy to a given discourse entity (Prince 1981a: 236). Inactive referents, or unused in Prince’s (1981a) terminology, are typically expressed by an accented lexical (i.e. nonpronominal) phrase, such as Chomsky in (4c). Active referents, on the other hand, are ful­ ly given in the sense that the addressee is assumed to be thinking about them, often be­ cause the referent is given in the immediately preceding text or situation of discourse. They are typically, but not necessarily, coded pronominally with lack of prosodic promi­ nence, such as we in example (4d). Accessible or semi-active referents, finally, can be of three types: (i) textually accessible, where a previously active referent has become de­ activated (after not having been mentioned for a while in the discourse), as in (4e), (ii) situationally accessible, where a referent is accessible on account of its presence in the text-external world, as in (4f), and (iii) inferentially accessible, where a referent can be inferred from a cognitive schema or frame, such as ‘house’ in (4g). (4)

Page 5 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure The inferential link of an entity to some previously activated referent, as in (4g), has been explored in more detail by Ward (1988), Ward and Prince (1991), and Birner and Ward (1998). They argue that this link involves a contextually licensed so-called (p. 466) ‘partial­ ly ordered set’ relationship, which can take various forms. For example, in (4g) above the kitchen is in a ‘part–whole’ relationship to the ‘trigger’ entity house, since kitchens are typically part of houses. Other types are, for instance, entity–attribute, set–subset, and equality relations. Birner and Ward’s (e.g., 1998) taxonomy of information status, however, differs from Lambrecht’s as they adopt Prince’s (1992) classification system, which is a further devel­ opment of her 1981 ‘assumed familiarity’ model. In her 1992 taxonomy, Prince distin­ guishes more clearly between hearer- and discourse-status of an entity with the cate­ gories of her original model reappearing in a matrix of crosscutting dichotomies: dis­ course old/new and hearer old/new (see Table 22.1). Table 22.1 Prince’s (1992) model of hearer-status and discourse-sta­ tus and correspondences with Lambrecht (1994) and Prince (1981a) Discourse-new

Discourse-old

Hearer-new

Brand-new

(non-occurring)

Hearer-old

Unused

Accessible, active

Prince’s model has been modified by Birner (2006, inter alia) to the extent that inferen­ tially accessible referents are located in the (previously empty) discourse-old/hearer-new category.

22.3 Topic The concept of ‘topic’ has probably received the most wide-ranging interpretations of all information structuring concepts. It usually figures in a pair of complementary notions, such as ‘topic–comment’, ‘topic–focus’, and also under the guise of ‘theme’ in a ‘theme– rheme’ structure (used mainly by the Prague School and Halliday).4 The most common characterization of Topic is in terms of ‘what the sentence is about’.5 This definition can be traced back to the notion of ‘psychological subject’ used by grammarians of the nine­ teenth century (e.g., von der Gabelentz 1972: 369–70), which in turn (p. 467) goes back to Aristotle. A classic definition in terms of aboutness is given by Hockett (1958: 201): ‘the speaker announces a topic and then says something about it’. The notion of aboutness has been adopted by various other scholars (inter alia Strawson 1971, Kuno 1972, Gundel 1976, Dik 1989, Downing 1991) and has become the most pervasive of all accounts of top­ ichood.6 Reinhart (1982) compares this use of topic to a file card with a particular head­ ing under which the comment is stored. Thus, sentence (5a) expresses information to be

Page 6 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure stored under Adele, whereas in (5b) it is to be stored under One of the most successful pop singers.7 (5)

As shown by (5), aboutness topics are frequently associated with clause-initial position. But this is not necessarily so: compare (6), where B’s response is about the children. (6)

8

Although the concept of aboutness is notoriously difficult to identify, various tests have been proposed, such as the ‘as for’ test (As for Adele, she…) and the ‘said about’ test (He said about Adele that…) (e.g., Gundel 1976, Reinhart 1981b). They have, however, been criticized for only limited applicability (e.g., Prince 1984, Ward 1988). Lambrecht (1994: e.g. 131) is one of the linguists who uses ‘topic’ in terms of ‘aboutness’ but gives it a new ‘relational’ definition.9 It is relational in the sense that it pragmatically construes a relation between a referent and a proposition such that the proposition is in­ terpreted as ‘being about’ that referent. Such an aboutness relation is highly context-de­ pendent and cannot be identified for sentences in isolation. Compare the examples in (7), where only (7a) has a topic in Lambrecht’s sense. In (7b), there is no topic in Lambrecht’s account (1994: 121ff.); rather, the entire proposition is in focus (note that in other ac­ counts such all-new sentences have been analysed as having a topic that is its spatio-tem­ poral index; e.g., Gundel 1985). (p. 468)

(7)

As an essentially pragmatically construed relation, the notion of topic is not tied to a spe­ cific form of codification. Although topic expressions usually have low pitch, as in (7a) above, and often take the form of pronouns in sentence-initial position, neither of these features is a necessary requirement for topics (see also section 22.6.1 for typical topic structures). A topic referent does, however, need to be pragmatically accessible in the discourse for a proposition to be construable as being about it (see Lambrecht 1994: 131; Page 7 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure section 22.5.3 below on construal).10 It follows from this that the more cognitively activat­ ed a discourse referent is (e.g., active, accessible in the taxonomy in Table 22.1 above), the easier it is to be interpreted as a topic. Unactivated (e.g., brand-new) discourse refer­ ents, on the other hand, cannot easily be construed as topics.

22.4 Focus Like topic, the concept of focus has received a number of different interpretations. De­ spite the differences in definition it is generally agreed that in English focus is typically signalled by prosodic prominence, such as a nuclear accent (also called tonic or pitch ac­ cent), and represents information that is new, or in some sense ‘relevant’ or ‘important’ (e.g., Quirk et al. 1985: 1362, Sgall et al. 1986, Büring 1997: 169, Winkler 2012). What exactly is understood by these terms of course varies widely. For Ward and Birner (2001: 120), for instance, it is ‘that portion which augments or updates the hearer’s view of the common ground’. Similarly, for Jackendoff (1972) it is the informa­ tion that is not shared by speaker and addressee. Erteschik-Shir (2007: 38), on the other hand, defines focal information more in terms of speaker intentions as the constituent of the sentence ‘which the speaker intends to direct the attention of his/her hearer(s) to’. This is reminiscent of Halliday’s (1967: 204f.) definition of information focus as ‘one kind of emphasis, that whereby the speaker marks out a part (which may be the whole) of a message block as that which he wishes to be interpreted as informative’.11 The concept of focus is usually seen as part of a complementing pair, such as presupposi­ tion–focus, topic–focus, ground–focus (see e.g., Vallduví 1992, Vallduví and Engdahl 1996 for overviews). A different approach is taken by Lambrecht (1994), who defines focus in relational terms as adding new (unpredictable, non-recoverable) (p. 469) information to the pragmatic presupposition and thereby turning it into an assertion. The focus is thus ‘the element of information whereby the presupposition and the assertion differ from each other’ (Lambrecht 1994: 207). In an example such as (8), what is presupposed in B’s reply is the proposition ‘Speaker went to some place’. The new information or assertion, on the other hand, is the abstract proposition: ‘The place the speaker went to for holiday was Mallorca’. The focus is therefore Mallorca, as this is what makes the assertion news­ worthy: only by adding Mallorca to the proposition and construing a pragmatic relation to it does B’s reply become informative. (8)

Depending on which part of the sentence is in focus in a given context, Lambrecht (1994: 221f.) distinguishes three conventional types of focus-structure, as illustrated in (9) to (11): (i) ‘predicate focus’ used for focusing on the entire verb phrase broke down, thus predicating a property of a given topic (i.e. the car), (ii) ‘argument focus’ for identifying an argument for a given proposition, and (iii) ‘sentence focus’, where the whole sentence Page 8 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure is in focus, for reporting an event or introducing a new discourse referent.12 Note that sentence-focus structures do not have a topic in Lambrecht’s framework. The same is true for argument-focus, which is for Lambrecht (1994: 122) a case of open proposition. (9)

(10)

(11)

As a pragmatic category which refers to different kinds of pragmatically structured propositions, focus (like topic) is not per se tied to any specific formal realization. In Eng­ lish the three focus types are mainly marked prosodically by accent placement. Lambrecht’s argument-focus can therefore be related to what is sometimes called ‘nar­ row focus’, where a word is singled out by accent placement, often for contrastive pur­ poses, while his sentence-focus corresponds with ‘broad focus’, where the whole sen­ tence is in focus (e.g., Ladd 1980, Selkirk 1984). Note, however, that Lambrecht’s argu­ ment focus includes ‘contrastive focus’ (as suggested by the contrast of car with bike in example 10), which in other approaches is identified as a separate type of focus (e.g., Chafe 1976). The special status of contrastive focus can be justified by its distinctive prosodic form, such as a steeper fall (e.g., Selkirk 2002, Gussenhoven 2004). Accent placement may, however, not always mark the focus unambiguously. In a sentence such as Mary bought a car, for instance, the nuclear accent will be on the same (p. 470) word (car) for all three of Lambrecht’s focus types as well as for narrow and broad focus. Compare the following: (12)

(13)

(14)

There are two reasons for this overlap. First, accented constituents are not necessarily coextensive with focal elements. This problem has been discussed in the generative litera­ ture under the terms of ‘focus projection’ (e.g., Selkirk 1984, Rochemont 1986) or ‘focus Page 9 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure integration’ (e.g., Jacobs 1993) in response to examples such as the ones above where the nuclear accent is on the rightmost element in a verb phrase but where the focus may be on either the verb phrase as a whole (bought a car), the object noun phrase (a car), or the entire sentence. Second, in English the ‘default’ position for nuclear accent placement (broad focus) is on the last content word of the sentence (e.g., Chomsky and Halle 1968). To avoid any ambiguities, speakers may however resort to other means of focus marking: lexically, with the help of focus particles such as only or even (e.g., Jackendoff 1972, König 1991), or structurally with the help of specific focus constructions such as clefts and ‘fo­ cus movement’ (see section 22.6).13

22.5 Information structure and syntactic form Having looked at the central concepts of information structuring in the preceding sec­ tions, let us now take a closer look at how they interact with the level of syntactic form, that is, how they conventionally manifest themselves in morphosyntactic structure. Be­ fore turning to some specific construction types in section 22.6, this section gives a brief overview of some general principles: the end-focus principle (22.5.1), the end-weight principle (22.5.2), and lexico-grammatical construal (22.5.3).

22.5.1 End-focus As noted above, the concepts of topic and focus are not seen in most accounts as being tied to a specific formal realization. Nonetheless, for English there is a systematic (p. 471) correspondence between these pragmatic concepts and their grammatical and phonologi­ cal realization: topic correlates with givenness, preverbal position, and lack of pitch prominence, while focus correlates with newness, postverbal position, and pitch promi­ nence (e.g., Lambrecht 1994: 43). This ordering preference was originally discussed by the Prague School under the heading of ‘Functional Sentence Perspective’, then taken up by Halliday in his ‘Thematic structure’, and is probably best known by the name of ‘endfocus principle’ or ‘given-before-new principle’ (e.g., Leech 1983, Quirk et al. 1985, Gun­ del 1988). It is illustrated by the following example where the end-focus principle correct­ ly predicts that (15a) is a more appropriate response to the question than (15b). (15)

This given-before-new arrangement of information can be accounted for in cognitive terms, as ‘given’ information anchors the sentence to already existing knowledge and in this way acts as an address in memory which indicates where the new information is to be integrated. It thus facilitates both the production and processing of new information. Clark and Haviland (1977) refer to this conventionalized way of arranging information as Page 10 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure the ‘given-new contract’ between speaker and listener: an implicit agreement between the interlocutors based on the co-operative principle (Grice 1975). Although givenness and topic (in the aboutness definition, as discussed above) represent distinct informational categories, they tend to coincide in initial position, typically occu­ pied by the subject (e.g., Strawson 1971, Prince 1981a, 1992). Diachronically, the relation between subject and topic has been emphasized by Givón (e.g., 1979a), who takes sub­ jects to have derived from grammaticalized topics (although he defines topics in terms of discourse continuity rather than aboutness). As we will see in section 22.6, end-focus is an important principle which explains the exis­ tence of special word-order variants, such as the preference for the passive sentence in (15a) above. However, end-focus is not the only ordering principle. As Givón (e.g., 1983) has argued, there is also an alternative principle, which he calls ‘first-things-first’ (cf. also Gundel 1988). It stipulates ‘attend first to the most urgent task’ (Givón 1983: 20) and therefore may involve a ‘new-before-given’ order. What seems to be a contradiction to the end-focus principle may however be explained by a greater degree of spontaneity or lack of planning.

22.5.2 End-weight Another factor evoked in connection with the linear ordering of sentences is that of syn­ tactic weight. It figures under various terms, such as ‘end-weight principle’ (Quirk et al. 1985: 1362), ‘light subject constraint’ (Chafe 1991), ‘principle of increasing (p. 472) complexity’ (Dik 1989: 345), and ‘principle of relative weight’ (Jespersen 1909–1949, VII: 57). They all stipulate that the relative weight of a constituent affects its position in a clause or sentence with lighter/shorter constituents typically preceding heavier/longer ones. For constructional variants as in (16) this means that the extraposed version in (16a) will normally be preferred over the non-extraposed version in (16b) owing to the length difference between matrix predicate and subordinate clause. (16)

Although the concept of weight is in principle distinct from that of information structure, there is a close correspondence between the two, as information which is new often needs to be stated more fully and can therefore be expected to be longer. Given informa­ tion, by contrast, can be referred to by short and simple expressions, often pronouns. The typical given-before-new distribution of information in the clause, as discussed in the pre­ vious section, is therefore in accordance with the principle of end-weight. The distribution of weight can be viewed from two different perspectives, that of the speaker and that of the hearer. Hawkins (e.g., 1992), for instance, adopts a hearer-orient­ ed approach and claims that ‘words occur in the orders they do so that speakers can en­ Page 11 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure able hearers to recognize syntactic groupings and their immediate constituents…as rapid­ ly and efficiently as possible’ (Hawkins 1992: 197). This recognition is facilitated by a principle of Early Immediate Constituents, which ensures that the overall constituent structure of the sentence can be parsed as early as possible by the hearer. Wasow (1997), on the other hand, adopts a speaker-oriented approach. For him the main reason for post­ poning complex constituents is that it facilitates utterance planning and production. The listener thus prefers early commitment to make the remainder of the sentence more predictable, while the speaker prefers late commitment, which keeps options open and buys time for further planning (cf. Wasow 1997: 354). In most cases, however, the two perspectives can be expected to ‘conspire’ towards the same aim: placing light con­ stituents before heavy ones.

22.5.3 Lexico-grammatical construal of information status As noted above, there are certain conventionalized ways of presenting information in lin­ ear grammatical form. These coding preferences include above all the tendency for given information to occur early in the clause as the topic of a sentence, typically in pronomi­ nal, unaccented form, while new information tends to be non-initial, non-pronominal, ac­ cented, and sentence focus. The firmly established nature of this convention affords the speaker with a useful rhetorical strategy: construing a referent’s information status by grammatical means independent of its actually assumed degree of activation, provided the hearer is able and willing to accommodate it. Consider the following example (adapted from Lambrecht 1994: 110, 113; capi­ tals indicate stressed words). (p. 473)

(17)

The two versions differ in their pragmatic construal of his lover. Version (17a) presents his lover in prototypical topic position (as subject), stressed but without nuclear accent, and as a potentially identifiable referent (Mark’s lover). As such, it construes the referent of his lover as in some form ‘given’ (accessible), irrespective of whether the hearer actual­ ly knows that Mark has a lover. Version (17b), in contrast, construes his lover as ‘new’ (inactive, unused) information by virtue of its postverbal focus position and nuclear accent. Thus, while (17b) informs the hearer that Mark has a lover, (17a) ‘conveys a re­ quest to the hearer to act as if the referent of the NP were already pragmatically available’ (Lambrecht 1994: 114) and update the common ground accordingly, if neces­ sary. Thus (17a) requires ‘pragmatic accommodation’ on the part of the hearer (see Lam­ brecht 1994: 66). For such accommodation to be possible, however, the referent needs to be at least pragmatically accessible in a given discourse.

Page 12 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure

22.6 Information packaging constructions Although English has a fairly fixed SVO word order—historically conditioned by the loss of most case endings—it does allow for some limited word order variation. This section gives a brief overview of some of the non-canonical constructions used for structuring in­ formation, also called information packaging constructions. They have been grouped into structures involving fronting of canonical elements (22.6.1), postponement of canonical elements (22.6.2), argument reversal (22.6.3), and clefting (22.6.4). Since they all have canonical word-order counterparts which are semantically (but not pragmatically) equiva­ lent, they are often considered as members of a pair of so-called ‘allosentences’ (Daneš 1966, Lambrecht 1994), such as active–passive, clefted–canonical (Halliday e.g. 1994 us­ es the term ‘thematic system’ for these). Restricting their analysis to a simple comparison with their non-canonical counterpart is, however, problematic as it ignores potential func­ tional overlaps between information packaging constructions. It should be noted that the terms fronting, postponement, reversal and clefting are used here simply to refer to deviation from canonical SVO word order. They do not imply a transformational movement account which derives word order variation from an underly­ ing, more basic construction, as is the case in generative models of grammar (see Chap­ ter 8). In many cognitive-functional accounts, such as Construction (p. 474) Grammar, on the other hand, each of these structures is taken as a construction in its own right (see Chapter 6). There is some evidence, however, that speakers may store generalizations of a common meaning between formally different constructions, which would suggest a common category even in constructional terms (Perek 2012). It should also be noted that, despite the close association of these constructions with specific information-structure patterns, their felicitous use cannot be reduced to information structure alone. For a com­ plete description of their functional potential other factors also have to be taken into ac­ count, such as stylistic and subtle semantic differences from their canonical counterparts, which cannot be discussed here for reasons of space.

22.6.1 Fronting: left-dislocation and topicalization Left-dislocation and topicalization both involve placing an argument, typically a noun phrase, in the left-periphery of the clause. The two constructions differ in that left-dislo­ cation fills the original argument position with a personal pronoun (which is coreferential with the preclausal constituent), as illustrated in (18), whereas topicalization, as in (19), does not. (18)

Page 13 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure (19)

Topicalization, as the name suggests, is generally thought to mark the preposed con­ stituent as the sentence topic (e.g., Halliday 1967, Gundel 1976, Reinhart 1981b), but this seems to be too restrictive a view (Birner and Ward 1998: 39), not least since preposing, unlike left-dislocation, is possible with elements other than noun phrases, such as the ad­ jective phrase in (20). (20)

In informational terms, two types of topicalization can be distinguished. In one use, such as (19) above, the preposed element is given information, more precisely accessible or discourse-old. In the other use, often called ‘focus movement’ (Prince 1981b), the pre­ posed element is the focus, with the rest of the utterance representing a salient open proposition, as illustrated in (21) below. In both cases, however, the preposed element stands in a set relationship to previously evoked information (section 22.2.2; Ward 1988). (p. 475)

(21)

Left-dislocation is also topic establishing (e.g., Lambrecht 1994: 176ff.), but differs from topicalization in that it does not involve the option of an open proposition and, in its most typical use, has a left-dislocated element that introduces new information (e.g., Geluykens 1992). This is illustrated by example (18) above, where left-dislocation is a useful strategy for avoiding a new referent in subject position (see section 22.5.1). There is also another use, however, identified by Prince (1997) as marking the preclausal noun phrase as con­ trastive and inferrable. As such, it stands in a set relation to some previously evoked enti­ ty, such as ‘member of’ in example (22). (22)

There is thus some functional overlap between topicalization and left-dislocation, as both may involve an inferrable pre-clausal noun phrase (Gregory and Michaelis 2001). At the same time, the two constructions have been shown to differ syntactically and prosodical­ ly, with topicalized elements being syntactically integrated in the following clause, while Page 14 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure left-dislocated elements are syntactically independent ‘orphans’, which therefore have more in common with parenthetical expressions (Shaer and Frey 2004).

22.6.2 Postponement: existential there, indirect object shift, rightdislocation, it-extraposition Postponement (with the exception of right-dislocation) tends to mark the postponed con­ stituent as new (Birner and Ward 2006: 305), thereby bringing a construction in line with a given-before-new distribution of information (section 22.5.1) and shifting a heavy con­ stituent to the right (section 22.5.2). In an existential there construction the logical subject NP has been postponed by the use of expletive there in canonical subject position. Existential there thus functions as a ‘presentative signal’ (Breivik 1981) which allows for the introduction of a ‘new’ discourse referent in non-initial position, as in (23) and (24). In Lambrecht’s (1994: 177ff.) terms, existential there is a topic-promotion construction which serves to introduce a brand-new or unused referent into the discourse. (23)

(24)

We can distinguish two types of existential there constructions based on the type of verb they contain: (i) existential there-sentences proper, which contain be as their main verb, as in (23), and (ii) presentational there-sentences, which contain some other verb, as in (24) (e.g., Rochemont and Culicover 1990, Martínez Insúa 2004). These two types have been shown to differ also in their information structure (Birner and Ward 1998: 99): while both introduce a ‘new’ noun phrase referent, it is always ‘hearer-new’ in existential there-sentences whereas presentational there-sentences are less restrictive, admitting referents that are hearer-old as long as they are discourse-new. Moreover, existential there-sentences proper can be further divided into extended existentials, with an exten­ sion, typically in the form of a locative complement, following the postponed logical sub­ ject, as in (23a), and bare existentials, lacking such an extension, as in (23b) (e.g., Hud­ dleston and Pullum 2002: 1392–6). Note that only the extended existential has a canoni­ cal counterpart (An otter is in the garden) but not the bare existential (*Plenty of milk is). (p. 476)

Indirect object shift, also known as dative movement, ‘shifts’ a ‘new’ indirect object (the recipient or beneficiary) out of its canonical postverbal position to the right of the clause, where it takes the form of a prepositional phrase, as in (25).14 It thus represents a Page 15 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure positional variant for a ditransitive (‘double-object’) construction, as in (26). This pair of constructional variants is also known as dative alternation and includes the special case of benefactive alternation, which involves the preposition for: e.g., He baked a cake for Mary. (25)

(26)

Various studies have identified a preferred information structure for the two alternants: the first object is typically discourse given, pronominal, animate, definite, and shorter than the second object. For the second object the reverse applies: it is discourse-new, nonpronominal, inanimate, indefinite, and relatively long and grammatically complex (e.g., Erteschik-Shir 1979, Thompson 1990, Collins 1995, Arnold et al. 2000, Bresnan et al. 2007). Compare, for instance, the corpus examples in the (a)-examples below and their constructed, less natural counterparts in (b): (27)

15

(p. 477)

(28)

The choice between the dative alternants, in other words, enables the speaker to bring the utterance in line with the cognitive principles of end-focus and end-weight. Informa­ tion structuring is, however, not the only factor determining the choice. The two alter­ nants have been shown, for instance, to differ in verb semantics, with ditransitives prefer­ ring verbs of direct face-to-face transfer and indirect object shifts preferring verbs of transfer over a distance (e.g., Thompson and Koide 1987, Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004a). Other researchers argue for distinct constructional meanings of the two variants (e.g., Goldberg 1995; see also Chapter 6, section 6.4.1 in this volume). In contrast to existential there and indirect object shift, right dislocation has a clause-fi­ nal noun phrase which is discourse-old. More precisely, it conveys ‘information that has been evoked, either explicitly or implicitly, in the prior discourse’ (Birner and Ward 1998: Page 16 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure 146). This can be seen in example (29), where the pipes have already been mentioned in the preceding text. (29)

As with left-dislocation, there is a coreferential pronoun in the canonical position of the dislocated element. The clause is thus grammatically complete, with the final noun phrase being added to give the referent of the pronoun in full. Not surprisingly, therefore, right-dislocations have often been characterized as repair mechanisms (e.g., Tomlin 1986, Geluykens 1994). Other studies, however, distinguish between right-dislocation and after­ thought (repairs), such as Ziv and Grosz (1994), who argue that afterthoughts are sepa­ rated from the clause by a pause whereas right-dislocations are not. Similarly, Birner and Ward (1998: 147) point out that there is not necessarily a need for referent clarification, as in example (29) above, where the pronominal referent is unambiguous. Rather, the fi­ nal noun phrase represents discourse-old (accessible) information which may be topical. For Lambrecht (1994: 202–3), the function of right-dislocation (in his terminology ‘anti­ topic’) is precisely that of promoting a topic: it allows the speaker to present a given ref­ erent as topic and not talk about it in the same clause, which is preferable for processing reasons (cf. Lambrecht’s Principle of the Separation of Reference and Role). In promoting an already given referent as topic, right-dislocation thus provides an important alterna­ tive to the topic promotion of brand-new and unused referents noted above for existential there. Like right-dislocation, it-extraposition also ‘shifts’ a constituent to the right of the clause, only this time a clausal subject,16 and replaces it with a pronoun, anticipatory it, (p. 478) in its canonical position. Examples (30) and (31) illustrate the canonical and ‘ex­ traposed’ version respectively (cf. also example (16)). (30)

(31)

The functional motivation for choosing it-extraposition over its canonical counterpart lies in avoiding a weighty and highly informative clause in subject position: the ‘extraposed’ subject typically (though not exclusively) conveys discourse-new information (irrecover­ able from the preceding context) and is longer than its matrix predicate (Collins 1994, Kaltenböck 2004). In spoken language the function of it-extraposition is somewhat differ­

Page 17 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure ent though, as it shows a substantial portion of given complements with a clarification of reference or repair function (Kaltenböck 2005), as illustrated in (32). (32)

It-extraposition allows for the construal of information status in an interesting way, as a result of its unusual topic–comment structure, which presents the topic in syntactically subordinate position following (rather than preceding) the comment, and its frequent use of factive matrix predicates (i.e. predicates such as be significant, odd, exciting; Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970), which lexico-grammatically presuppose their complements. This en­ ables the speaker to present new information in the complement clause as if it were known (Kaltenböck 2005), as in example (33) (compare also it-clefts below for a similar function). (33)

22.6.3 Argument reversal: passive, inversion Argument reversal involves both fronting and postponing of a constituent. The bestknown information-structural pair of this kind is the active–passive alternation. Although the choice between them is constrained by a number of factors (such as the availability of a by-phrase agent and the willingness to express it, as well as the semantics of the verb; e.g., Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004a), a major one is that of appropriately adjusting the in­ formation structure. Once again, the principles of end-focus and end-weight play an im­ portant role, but the major constraint is that the subject should not be newer (in dis­ course familiarity terms) than the by-NP (p. 479) (Birner 1996, Birner and Ward 1998). This allows for the following sequences of subject NP and by-NP: old–new, as in (34), but also new–new, and old–old, as illustrated by the first and second instances in (35) respec­ tively. The final by-NP can also be expected to be relatively longer than the subject NP (e.g., Biber et al. 1999: 941). (34)

(35)

Page 18 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure

If the information structure of the two NPs is reversed, as in the following example (adapted from (34) above), where the first NP is discourse-new while the by-NP is dis­ course-old, the result is an infelicitous use of the passive. (36)

The same information structure can be found with cases of inversion, as in (37), where the (logical) subject (a moat of burning gasoline) is in postverbal position while a canoni­ cally postverbal constituent, typically a locative expression (next to it), takes preverbal position. (37)

As with passive structures, the preverbal element (and the verb, if other than be) of inver­ sion must be at least as familiar from the discourse as the postverbal subject (e.g. Birner 1994). This has been explained in cognitive terms by a ground-before-figure analysis of inversion (Chen 2003), according to which the preverbal element functions as ground, which serves to locate the postverbal figure, and as such needs to be anchored in the pre­ ceding discourse. Inversion thus first directs the hearer’s attention to the ground, which is anchored by a link to a previously established landmark—either in the preceding lin­ guistic co-text or the discourse context. This landmark then functions as a signpost which navigates the hearer to the figure, in other words the focus of the hearer’s attention. In terms of discourse functions inversion therefore lends itself particularly well for topic management (topic shift and topic introduction) (Kreyer 2006; see Chapter 30, this vol­ ume, for the ‘immediate observer effect’) and has been noted to carry interpersonal meaning in the form of ‘emotivity’ and ‘subjectivity’ (Dorgeloh 1997). (p. 480)

22.6.4 Clefting: it-clefts and wh-clefts

Clefting not only changes the canonical order of a clause but also its internal structure by splitting (cleaving) it into two clauses, as illustrated in (38). It includes it-clefts (38b), wh-clefts (or pseudo-clefts) (38c), and reverse wh-clefts (or reverse pseudo-clefts) (38d).17 (38) Page 19 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure

In contrast to the previous allosentences we are dealing here with a larger set of word or­ der alternants. It-clefts have therefore been set in relation to both the canonical, i.e. predicational, variant (38a) and the specificational (identifying) copulative wh-cleft (38c)18 (e.g., Delahunty 1982, Declerck 1988, Davidse 2000, Patten 2012). In terms of in­ formation structure, it-clefts represent a focus–presupposition structure (section 22.2.1), where the constituent following it+BE in the first clause, the ‗‘highlighted element’. (Collins 1991), represents the focus and the subordinate clause the open proposition. The actual distribution of information, however, does not have to match the focus–presupposi­ tion structure. In fact, different types of it-clefts have been identified. Prince (1978) dis­ tinguishes between Stressed-focus it-clefts, as in (39), and Informative-presupposition it-clefts, as in (40) and (41). The former has a highlighted element which is new and heav­ ily stressed, while the second clause is only weakly stressed and contains information that is ‘given’. The latter conveys ‘new’ information in the second clause. Declerck (1988) fur­ ther splits the class of Informative-presupposition it-clefts into Unaccented anaphoric fo­ cus clefts, where the focus element is ‘given’, as in (40), and Discontinuous clefts, where it is ‘new’, as in (41), which occurs at the start of an article. (39)

(40)

(41)

In the case of Informative-presupposition it-clefts there is an interesting mismatch between the ‘newness’ of the information in the subordinate clause and its presentation as the presupposition in lexico-grammatical terms. This allows the speaker to construe new information as if it were already known and to ‘mark a piece of information as fact’ (Prince 1978: 899). (p. 481)

Page 20 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure For wh-clefts, the typical information structure is that of an open proposition expressed by the wh-clause, conveying ‘given’ information, and the part immediately following the copula within the superordinate clause (e.g., a cocktail in (38c)) providing the focus, i.e. ‘new’ information. They are thus focus–presupposition structures like it-clefts but also very much in keeping with the principle of end-focus (e.g., Prince 1978, Collins 1991). Wh-clefts have been shown by Hedberg and Fadden (2007) to differ from it-clefts and re­ verse wh-clefts in being much more restricted in their information structure. All three cleft types have in common that they split a proposition into two parts, identified by Hed­ berg and Fadden (2007) as topic and comment (where ‘topic’ is defined in terms of about­ ness and typically, though not necessarily, expresses ‘given’ information, while ‘comment’ is identified by primary stress and thus equivalent to focus as discussed in section 22.4). With wh-clefts, however, the distribution of topic and comment is highly constrained: the initial wh-clause is exclusively the topic (conveying typically discourse-old information) and the subsequent constituent is the comment (conveying always discourse-new infor­ mation), as in example (42). (42)

Reverse wh-clefts, by comparison, as well as it-clefts show more flexibility in allowing for both a topic–comment structure, as in (43), and a comment–topic structure, as in (44); as well as comment–comment structure. Topic–comment structure is, however, the more fre­ quent pattern for reverse wh-clefts (as observed also by Heycock and Kroch 2002), which is in accordance with the end-focus principle (see section 22.5.1). (43)

(44)

22.7 Concluding remarks: information struc­ ture and the study of grammar As the discussion in this chapter has shown, the study of information structure subsumes a number of pragmatic-cognitive concepts and principles, such as the (p. 482) assumed givenness and newness of information, topic, and focus, all of which play an important Page 21 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure role in communication. A central question in this respect is how these principles relate to the linguistic form of utterances. In other words, how exactly do the formal and commu­ nicative aspects of language interact? The answer to this question depends on one’s mod­ el of grammar. Most approaches to the study of grammar distinguish different components or levels along the lines of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics or similar subdivisions. Where the approaches differ is in the relationship between these components. While in formalist, generative models they are generally taken to be autonomous,19 cognitive-functionalist approaches see them as interdependent. Attempts at integrating the different levels can be found for instance in Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008 and Chapter 9, this volume), Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997), and more recently Construction Grammar (e.g. Goldberg 1995, Croft 2007a, Hoffmann and Trousdale 2013, and Chapter 6, this volume), where morphosyntax, semantics, and pragmatics are taken to be integrated aspects of grammatical constructions. Lambrecht (1994), who also adopts a constructionist view, argues for an intermediate po­ sition. While conceding some degree of structural independence, he emphasizes the prag­ matic motivation of grammatical form, which he sees as arising diachronically under pressure from information-structural constraints (Lambrecht 1994: 29). Information structure is, however, not expressed by syntactic form alone: ‘What syntax does not code, prosody does, and what is not coded by prosody may be expressed by morphology or the lexicon’ (Lambrecht 1994: 31). The great challenge in studying information structure thus lies in its complex relationship with all grammatical levels of a language and their com­ peting, interactive nature in relating an utterance to a particular communicative context.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the editors, particularly Jill Bowie for her invaluable feedback, Evelien Keizer, Ekkehard König, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and corrections.

Reference Allerton, D. J. (1978). ‘The notion of “givenness” and its relation to presupposition and to theme.’ Lingua 44: 133–68. Arnold, Jennifer E., Anthony Losongco, Thomas Wasow, and Ryan Ginstrom (2000). ‘Heav­ iness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on con­ stituent ordering.’ Language 76: 28–55. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman. Birner, Betty J. (1994). ‘Information status and word order: An analysis of English inver­ sion.’ Language 70(2): 233–59. Page 22 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure Birner, Betty J. (1996). ‘Form and function in English by-phrase passives.’ Chicago Lin­ guistic Society 32: 23–31. Birner, Betty J. (2006). ‘Inferential relations and noncanonical word order’, in Betty J. Birner and Gregory Ward (eds), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Stud­ ies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 31–51. Birner, Betty J. (2013). Introduction to Pragmatics. Malden, MA.: Wiley-Blackwell. Birner, Betty J., and Gregory Ward (2006). ‘Information structure’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 291–317. Breivik, Leiv Egil (1981). ‘On the interpretation of existential there.’ Language 57(1): 1– 25. Bresnan, Joan W., Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and R. Harald Baayen (2007). ‘Predicting the dative alternation’, in Gerlof Bourne, Irene Kraemer, and Joost Zwarts (eds), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 69– 94. Brown, Gillian, and George Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Büring, Daniel (1997). The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge. Büring, Daniel (2016). ‘(Contrastive) Topic’, in Caroline Féry and Shin Ishihara (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chafe, Wallace L. (1976). ‘Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view’, in Charles N. Li (ed), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 22–55. Chafe, Wallace L. (1987). ‘Cognitive constraints on information flow’, in Russell S. Tomlin (ed), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21–51. Chafe, Wallace L. (1991). ‘Grammatical subjects in speaking and writing.’ Text 11: 45–72. Chen, Rong (2003). English Inversion: A Ground-Before-Figure Construction. Berlin: Mou­ ton de Gruyter. Chomsky, Noam (1971). ‘Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation’, in Danny Steinberg and Leon Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183– 216. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harp­ er and Row. Page 23 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure Cinque, Gugliemo, and Luigi Rizzi (2008). ‘The cartography of syntactic structures.’ Stud­ ies in Linguistics, University of Siena CISCL Working Papers, 2: 42–58. Clark, Herbert H., and Susan E. Haviland (1977). ‘Comprehension and the given-new con­ tract’, in Roy O. Freedle (ed), Discourse Production and Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1–40. Collins, Peter (1991). Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English. London/New York: Routledge. Collins, Peter (1994). ‘Extraposition in English.’ Functions of Language 1(1): 7–24. Collins, Peter (1995). ‘The indirect object construction in English: An informational ap­ proach.’ Linguistics 33(1): 35–49. Culicover, Peter W., and Michael S. Rochemont (1983). ‘Stress and focus in English.’ Lan­ guage 59: 123–65. Daneš, Frantisek (1966). ‘A three-level approach to syntax’, Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1: 225–40. Davidse, Kristin (2000). ‘A constructional approach to clefts.’ Linguistics 38(6): 1101–31. Declerck, Renaat (1988). Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Delahunty, Gerald P. (1982). Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of English Cleft-Sen­ tences. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Dik, Simon C. (1989). The Theory of Functional Grammar: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Dorgeloh, Heidrun (1997). Inversion in Modern English: Form and Function. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Downing, Angela (1991). ‘An alternative approach to theme: A systemic-functional per­ spective.’ Word 42(2): 119–43. Dryer, Matthew S. (1996). ‘Focus, pragmatic presupposition, and activated propositions.’ Journal of Pragmatics 26: 475–523. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1979). ‘Discourse constraints on dative movement’, in Talmy Givón (ed), Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, 441–67. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (2007). Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press. Fries, Peter H. (1981). ‘On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse.’ Fo­ rum Linguisticum 6(1): 1–38. Page 24 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure Gabelentz, Georg von der (1972). Die Sprachwissenschaft, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Polyfoto Dr. Vogt. Geluykens, Ronald (1992). From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left Dislocation in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Geluykens, Ronald (1994). The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English. Evidence from Conversational Repair. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Givón, Talmy (1979a). ‘From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy’, in Talmy Givón (ed), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12. Discourse and Syntax. New York: Acade­ mic Press, 81–112. Givón, Talmy (1979b). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press. Givón, Talmy (1983). ‘Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction’, in Talmy Givón (ed), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–41. Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argu­ ment Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Gómez-González, María Ángeles (2001). The Theme–Topic Interface: Evidence from Eng­ lish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gregory, Michelle L., and Laura A. Michaelis (2001). ‘Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited.’ Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1665–706. Grice, H. Paul (1975). ‘Logic and conversation’, in Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 183–98. Reprinted in Grice (1989: 22–40). Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch (2004a). ‘Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. Gundel, Jeanette K. (1976). The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Bloom­ ington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Gundel, Jeanette K. (1985). ‘Shared knowledge and topicality.’ Journal of Pragmatics 9: 83–107. Gundel, Jeanette K. (1988). ‘Universals of topic-comment structure’, in Michael Ham­ mond, Edith Moravcsik, and Jessica Wirth (eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amster­ dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 209–39. Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski (1993). ‘Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse.’ Language 69(2): 274–307. Page 25 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure Gussenhoven, Carlos (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967a). ‘Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2.’ Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967b). Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mou­ ton. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Ed­ ward Arnold. Hawkins, John A. (1992). ‘Syntactic weight versus information structure in word order variation.’ Linguistische Berichte 4: 196–219. Hedberg, Nancy (2013). ‘Multiple focus and cleft sentences’, in Katharina Hartmann and Tonjes Veenstra (eds), Cleft Structures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hedberg, Nancy, and Lorna Fadden (2007). ‘The information structure of it-clefts, wh-clefts and reverse wh-clefts in English’, in Nancy Hedberg and Ron Zacharski (eds), The Grammar–Pragmatics Interface: Essays in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 49–76. Heycock, Carolyn, and Anthony Kroch (2002). ‘Topic, focus and syntactic representa­ tions’, in Line Mikkelsen and Christopher Potts (eds), WCCFL 21: Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 141–65. Hockett, Charles F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillian. Huddleston, Rodney (1991). ‘Further remarks on Halliday’s Functional Grammar: A reply to Matthiessen and Martin.’ Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 5: 75–129. Huddleston, Rodney (1992). ‘On Halliday’s Functional Grammar: A reply to Martin and to Martin and Matthiessen.’ Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6: 197–211. Jackendoff, Ray S. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jacobs, Joachim (1993). ‘Integration’, in Marga Reis (ed), Wortstellung und Information­ sstruktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 64–116. Kaltenböck, Gunther (2004). ‘Using non-extraposition in spoken and written texts: A func­ tional perspective’, in Karin Aijmer and Anna-Brita Stenström (eds), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 219–42. Kaltenböck, Gunther (2005). ‘It-extraposition in English: A functional view.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10(2): 119–59.

Page 26 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure Keenan-Ochs, Elinor, and Bambi Schieffelin (1976). ‘Topic as a discourse notion’, in Charles N. Li (ed), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 335–84. Kempson, Ruth M. (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kiparsky, Paul (1985). ‘Some consequences of lexical phonology.’ Phonology 2: 85–138. Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky (1970). ‘Fact’, in Manfred Bierwisch and Karl Erich Heidolph (eds), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 143–73. König, Ekkehard (1991). The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. Lon­ don: Routledge. Kreyer, Rolf (2006). Inversion in Modern Written English: Syntactic Complexity, Informa­ tion Status and the Creative Writer. Tübingen: Narr. Krifka, Manfred (2008). ‘Basic notions of information structure.’ Acta Linguistica Hungar­ ica 55(3–4): 243–76. Kuno, Susumo (1972). ‘Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English.’ Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320. Ladd, D. Robert (1980). The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Martínez Insúa, Ana E. (2004). Existential There-constructions in Contemporary British English. München: Lincom. Patten, Amanda (2012). The English It-cleft. A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Perek, Florent (2012). ‘Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental gram­ mar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment.’ Cognitive Linguistics 23(3): 601–35. Prince, Ellen F. (1978). ‘A comparison of Wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse.’ Language 54: 883–907. Prince, Ellen F. (1981a). ‘Toward a taxonomy of given-new information’, in Peter Cole (ed), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 223–55. Prince, Ellen F. (1984). ‘Topicalisation and left-dislocation: A functional analysis’, in Sheila J. White and Virginia Teller (eds), Discourses in Reading and Linguistics. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 213–25.

Page 27 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure Prince, Ellen F. (1992). ‘The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status’, in William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-raising Text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 295–325. Prince, Ellen F. (1997). ‘On the functions of left-dislocation in English discourse’, in Akio Kamio (ed), Directions in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins, 117–43. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985). A Compre­ hensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Reinhart, Tanya (1981b). ‘Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics.’ Philosophica 27: 53–94. Reinhart, Tanya (1982). Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Rochemont, Michael (1986). Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Rochemont, Michael S. and Peter Culicover (1990). English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rooth, Mats (1992). ‘A theory of focus interpretation.’ Natural Language Semantics 1: 75– 116. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Struc­ ture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Selkirk, Elisabeth (2002). ‘Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English’, in Bernard Bel and Isabel Marlin (eds), Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Speech Prosody. Aixen-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage, 643–6. Sgall, Petr, Eva Hajicová, and Jarmila Panevová (1986). The Meaning of the Sentence and its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel. Shaer, Benjamin, and Werner Frey (2004). ‘“Integrated” and “non-integrated” left-periph­ eral elements in German and English.’ ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35(2): 465–502. Stalnaker, Robert C. (1974). ‘Pragmatic presuppositions’, in Milton K. Munitz and Peter Unger (eds), Semantics and Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 197–213. Stalnaker, Robert C. (1978). ‘Assertion’, in Peter Cole (ed), Pragmatics, Syntax and Se­ mantics, vol. ix. New York: Academic Press, 315–32. Strawson, Peter F. (1971). ‘Identifying reference and truth-values’, in Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Lin­ guistics and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 86–114. Page 28 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure Thompson, Sandra A. (1990). ‘Information flow and dative shift in English discourse’, in Jerold A. Edmondson, Feagin Crawford, and Peter Mühlhäusler (eds), Development and Diversity: Language Variation across Space and Time. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 239–53. Thompson, Sandra A., and Yuka Koide (1987). ‘Iconicity and “indirect objects” in English.’ Journal of Pragmatics 11(3): 399–406. Tomlin, Russell S. (1986). Basic Word Order: Functional Principles. London: Croom Helm. Vallduví, Enric (1992). The Informational Component. New York: Garland. Vallduví, Enric (2016). ‘Information structure’, in Maria Aloni and Paul Dekker (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 728–55. Vallduví, Enric, and Elisabet Engdahl (1996). ‘The linguistic realization of information packaging.’ Linguistics 34: 459–519. Ward, Gregory L. (1988). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing. New York/London: Garland. Ward, Gregory L., and Betty J. Birner (2001). ‘Discourse and information structure’, in Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), The Handbook of Dis­ course Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 119–37. Ward, Gregory, and Ellen F. Prince (1991). ‘On the topicalization of indefinite NPs.’ Jour­ nal of Pragmatics 16: 167–77. Wasow, Thomas (1997). ‘End-weight from the speaker’s perspective.’ Journal of Psycholin­ guistic Research 26(3): 347–61. Winkler, Susanne (2012). ‘The information structure of English’, in Manfred Krifka and Renate Musan (eds), The Expression of Information Structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ziv, Yael, and Barbara Grosz (1994). ‘Right-dislocation and attentional state.’ Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference and of the Workshop on Discourse. The Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics, 184–99.

Notes: (1) The notion of conveying information of course subsumes not only assertions but also other speech acts such as requests, commands, promises (e.g., Gundel 1988). As noted by Lambrecht (1994: 55), for instance, ‘by asking a question, a speaker may inform his ad­ dressee of his desire to know something’. A detailed discussion of different speech acts,

Page 29 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure however, goes beyond the scope of this chapter. For more information on speech acts see Chapter 18. (2) Although the notions of open proposition and presupposition are often conflated, it has been argued (e.g., Dryer 1996) that only full propositions (e.g., I like somebody), not open ones (e.g., I like X), can be believed and, therefore, presupposed (cf. also Birner 2013: 216). (3) For a somewhat different classification system compare Gundel et al.’s (1993) Given­ ness Hierarchy for referring expressions, which foregrounds how the different categories are implicationally related to each other. (4) For a useful overview of different approaches to the concept of topic see e.g., GómezGonzález 2001. I am disregarding here the notion of discourse-topic, which is much wider in that it covers also larger text passages. It has been defined in terms of immediate con­ cern (e.g., Keenan-Ochs and Schieffelin 1976: 342–3) of a particular stretch of discourse, or in terms of what it is about (e.g., Brown and Yule 1983: 71–3). (5) A different view is expressed, for instance, by Halliday, whose term topic refers to one particular type of theme, which is defined as ‘the point of departure of the message’ (Halliday 1994: 37), i.e. the left-most constituent of the sentence. The close the­ oretical association of theme with initial position has, however, received considerable crit­ icism (e.g., Fries 1981, Downing 1991, Huddleston 1991, 1992). (6) The concept of topic (together with focus) has also been extensively discussed in the domain of generative syntax and formal semantics/pragmatics. For useful overviews see e.g., Krifka 2008, Büring 2016, and Vallduví 2016. (7) Note, however, that reverse specificational sentences such as (6a) need not have the topic in initial position but may also have comment + topic structure (see Heycock and Kroch 2002, den Dikken 2006, and Hedberg and Fadden 2007). (8) I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for this example. (9) A similar relational view of topic and focus has been proposed by Gundel (e.g., 1988), who distinguishes relational givenness–newness (i.e. topic–comment) from referential givenness–newness (see section 22.2.2 above). Her account differs from Lambrecht’s, however, in that it is not explicitly proposition-based and in that topic is seen as a comple­ mentary notion to comment. (10) Compare also Gundel’s (e.g., 1988) Topic-Familiarity Condition, which stipulates that the referent of a felicitous topic must be already familiar in the sense that the addressee has an existing representation in memory. (11) A somewhat different take on focus is provided by Rooth (1992) in the framework of Alternative Semantics, adopted for instance by Krifka (e.g., 2008: 247), who proposes that

Page 30 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure ‘[f]ocus indicates the presence of alternatives that are relevant for the interpretation of linguistic expressions’. (12) One of the advantages of Lambrecht’s approach is that it accounts for the fact that the three focus-structure types are consistently expressed in distinct formal categories across languages (although in some languages, including English, argument-focus and sentence-focus are (near-)homophonous). (13) Note, however, that focus particles may add more to the meaning of a sentence than specifying the focus. Moreover, their association with different types of focus may lead to truth-conditional differences, as in John only showed Mary the PICTURES versus John on­ ly showed MARY the pictures (see Krifka 2008: 244). Similarly, focus constructions such as clefts can also be ambiguous as to their focus marking (e.g., Hedberg 2013). (14) The syntactic status of the to-PP phrase has been analysed in different ways: as a spe­ cial realization of an indirect object (e.g., Biber et al. 1999), as a complement in a mono­ transitive clause (e.g., Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 248), or as part of a larger (Trans­ fer)-Caused-Motion construction (Goldberg 1995). (15) ICE-GB stands for the British component of the International Corpus of English (Nelson et al. 2002). The contrast in (27) is discussed in Aarts (2011: 325). (16) I am ignoring object extraposition here (e.g., She considered it essential [to talk to him]), which is usually obligatory, as well as extraposition from noun phrases (e.g., A man appeared [with a gun]). (17) For a discussion of it-clefts and wh-clefts from a Construction Grammar perspective see Chapter 6, section 6.4.3, this volume. (18) Specificational or identifying constructions, such as it-clefts and wh-clefts, express an identifying relationship between two entities, where one serves to specify the identity of the other (as opposed to attributive constructions, which denote a relationship between an entity and some attribute ascribed to it). (19) A notable exception in the generative tradition is the cartographic approach (e.g., Rizzi 1997, Cinque and Rizzi 2008), which integrates functional categories such as topic and focus into formal structures (proposing TopP and FocP as part of an X-bar schema).

Gunther Kaltenböck

Gunther Kaltenböck, who previously held a professorship at the University of Vienna, is currently Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Graz. His research interests lie in the areas of cognitive-functional grammar, corpus linguistics, prag­ matics, phonetics, variation and change, as well as Thetical Grammar. Apart from nu­ merous book chapters and contributions to international journals, his publications in­ clude a monograph on It-Extraposition and Non-Extraposition in English (2004, Braumüller) and several co-edited volumes, such as New Approaches to Hedging Page 31 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Information Structure (2011, Emerald), Outside the Clause (2016, John Benjamins), and Insubordination: Theoretical and Empirical Issues (2019, de Gruyter).

Page 32 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis

Grammar and Lexis   Doris Schönefeld The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.27

Abstract and Keywords This chapter is concerned with lexis and grammar and discusses the relationship between them from the perspective of a selected number of specific, formal and functional, linguis­ tic theories. The assumptions held can basically be associated with two positions. One considers the two phenomena as distinct parts of language (dual-system theories, repre­ sentative of formalist frameworks), and the other suggests that lexicon and grammar are gradient phenomena sitting on a continuum (single-system models, representative of functional approaches). Both positions are elaborated and evaluated as to how well obser­ vations from language use fit into them. The existence of lexical and grammatical units (having different properties) as well as many ‘mixed’ units containing lexical and gram­ matical elements (exhibiting properties of both) suggest no clear dividing line between lexis and grammar. Instead, their relation can be understood in terms of Aarts’ (2007a: 163) ‘intersective gradience’, as intersecting sets of properties rather than intersecting categories. Keywords: lexis, grammar, formal and functional linguistic theories, dual-system theories, single-system theories, language use

23.1 Introduction IN this chapter, grammar (understood in the sense of morphology and syntax) and lexis will be discussed as core components of human language, focusing on their interrelation. The layman’s assumption is straightforward: grammar and lexis are two different things. The former is described in grammar books, the latter is contained in dictionaries. And for learning and/or using a language, one needs to know both. This understanding has repercussions in linguistic theorizing as well. Up until the early mid-twentieth century it was common practice for a linguist to be concerned with either lexical or grammatical matters, that is linguistic phenomena (such as sounds, words, meanings, inflectional endings, structures, etc.) were allocated to one or the other ‘do­ main’. Generally speaking, everything assumed to be stored/memorized went into the lex­ Page 1 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis icon, while grammar contained everything regularly variable and everything needed for the combination of stored elements, that is a language’s ‘combination rules’. The regulari­ ties in the variation of words were considered a matter of morphology, those in the combi­ nation of words (and variations thereof) a matter of syntax. This ‘compartmentalization’ reverberates in the assumption that in speakers’ minds lan­ guage (as an encapsulated module itself) consists of different (sub)components or mod­ ules, e.g., the mental lexicon and the mental grammar. Such a view, known as the modu­ larity hypothesis (Fodor 1983), implies that lexicon and grammar represent distinct lin­ guistic subcomponents interacting in one way or another, e.g., in that lexical entities are embedded in syntactic constructions in a slot-and-filler mode. Structure-building would be licensed by a language’s syntax, which, in turn, seems to be constrained by the speaker’s choice of (morphologically manipulated) lexical items that are best suited to communicate the intended message. Thus, syntax would license an English NP structure like Det (Adj) N, which will then be filled in with items listed in the lexicon as Det (the, this, that etc.), as N (woman, child etc.) and Adj (p. 486) (clever, alive, etc.). If the speaker chose the adjective alive, this would put a constraint on syntax because it is used in copu­ lar clauses (X be alive) rather than in NPs (*an alive N). Linguistic models adhering to such a modular view, also known as ‘dual-system theories’ (see Snider and Arnon 2012 for a brief overview), need to specify two things: the definitional criteria for lexis and gram­ mar, on the one hand, and the ways in which the two components interact on the other. More holistic accounts of language (seeing language as a non-autonomous phenomenon making (special) use of the human general cognitive apparatus) suggest that lexicon and grammar are gradient phenomena1 sitting on a cline. They seek to identify not only what makes lexis and grammar different, but also what they have in common. Firstly, lexis and grammar in such models are assumed to do the same type of work: they sanction expres­ sions on the basis of categorization and composition/unification of smaller units into larg­ er ones. Secondly, lexis and grammar comprise elements of the same nature, namely signs, that is forms with a meaning/function. They are, however, different with respect to such properties as schematicity (abstractness), generality of meaning, or complexity, all affecting their locations on the postulated cline. Lexical units are specific units, such as woman or white elephant, and grammatical units are schematic, such as Det N or NP V NP NP. The latter are understood to emerge as generalizations language users make when they experience similar specific expressions, associated with such more general meanings as referring to an instance/instances of a class of things (Det N), or an event of transfer (NP V NP NP). Models adopting these assumptions, aka single-system models (see Snider and Arnon 2012), have to specify how abstraction and generalization can ‘pro­ duce’ knowledge of rules (or (schematic) patterns), and they need to account for the in­ teraction between the specific and the (more) abstract entities making up speakers’ knowledge of their language. In linguistic models that draw a sharp boundary between the lexicon and the grammar, linguistic elements are classified as belonging to one or the other on the basis of the con­ cepts of regularity/compositionality and idiosyncracy. Elements that are idiosyncratic, i.e. Page 2 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis whose meaning cannot be derived from the meaning of their parts, are stored in the lexi­ con. The grammar, on the other hand, comprises the rules by which everything that can be derived as a sum of its parts, i.e. everything that is compositional, is computed …’ (cf. Taylor 2002: 539–41 for a similar description). A proposal along these lines was already made by Bloomfield (1933: 274), who claimed that ‘[t]he lexicon is really an appendix of the grammar, a list of basic irregularities’, and since then has been widely adopted. Di Sciullo and Williams (1987: 3) speak of the lexicon as a prison containing the ‘lawless’, and Stowell and Wehrli (1992: 1) view it as ‘the repository of all idiosyncratic and unpre­ dictable properties of individual lexical items’. This dichotomous understanding of lexicon and grammar has become a basic tenet in generative theorizing, where the elements of the former are assumed to be used (p. 487) in the computation by the latter (Marantz 1995: 361). That is, grammar, employing its repertoire of rules, computes structure into which elements of the lexicon are inserted. Individual models differ with respect to the particulars of what is available in the lexicon: only simple words (sun, move), or simple and complex words (sunny, sunnier, sunshine, moved, movement),2 only fully lexical idioms (a blessing in disguise, break a leg) or schematic idioms as well (take N to task, the X-er, the Y-er). Such items have turned out to be crucial in the debate about a clear-cut boundary between lexicon and grammar. Anoth­ er problem for drawing a clear line is posed by frequent regular (i.e. compositional) phrases, such as write a letter, read the newspaper, I’ve seen that before etc.). They are not idiosyncratic, but (in all probability) stored. The issue of complex words touches on the more fine-grained differentiation of grammar into syntax and morphology. Syntax is clearly ‘grammatical’ (schematic, regular), but morphology seems to be concerned with both lexical (specific, idiosyncratic) and gram­ matical aspects. The association with the lexicon is straightforwardly clear for a language’s free morphemes, whose form-meaning relations are specific and idiosyncratic, i.e. unpredictable, in principle. But bound morphemes, though specific (= lexical) too, may be required by structural, i.e. syntactic, needs (such as structural case or agreement markers) and they contain schematic information regarding the set of elements they com­ bine with (such as -ed or -ing requiring V). This speaks for a close interaction between lexical and grammatical (schematic) elements. Moreover, the combinations of free and bound morphemes (i.e. elements of the lexicon), no matter whether semantically motivat­ ed and/or required by syntactic position, clearly exhibit combinatory patterns, or can be said to be produced ‘on the fly’ by ‘grammatical’ rules. That is why morphology is often compared with syntax, although the combinatorics is not generally assumed to be the same.3 From this perspective, some complex words are compositional (almost all inflec­ tion and some derivation) and some complex words (non-compositional derived words and word-forms) are idiosyncratic, ending up in the lexicon. In the next section, I turn to the lexicon-grammar issue in a number of specific linguistic theories. To make the task manageable, given the allotted space, as well as my own ex­ pertise, I have selected only a number of current formal and functional theories, aiming to be as representative as possible. The discussion is organized as follows. Section 23.2.1 Page 3 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis covers generative (or formal) models of language, with the focus being on some of the ‘mainstream’ frameworks of this type: the Government & Binding Model (G&B), the Mini­ malist Program (MP), Distributed Morphology (DM), Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), and Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG).4 Section 23.2.2 is concerned with functional models, picking the models by Dik (1989, 1997) and Halliday (1976b, 1994). Section 23.2.3 elaborates on the impact of corpus-linguistic studies on the issue, bridging the way to section 23.2.4, which discusses usage-based theories. I opted for the usage-based model developed in great depth by Langacker (1987, 1991) and the con­ struction-grammar approach by Goldberg (1995, 2006a). Section 23.3 concludes with a summary of the investigation.

23.2 Lexis and grammar in linguistic theorizing 23.2.1 Generative models Here I will look at some details of what particular generative models assume with regard to the character of a language’s lexicon, syntax, and morphology, and their interrelations.5 Theories within this approach adhere to the modularity hypothesis, and since the modules are assumed to cooperate on an input-output basis rather than interac­ tively, they must be clearly distinct from one other.

23.2.1.1 Generative syntax: the Government & Binding Model (G&B) and the Minimalist Program (MP) The Chomskyan theory of syntax has been developed over more than fifty years resulting in a number of (successive) models. The discussion here will make reference to the G&B model, the first model of the Principles and Parameters (P&P) theory,6 and the MP, the lat­ est version of the theory. In G&B, the rule system of grammar consists of four subcomponents, namely (i) lexicon, (ii) syntax (subsuming a categorial (iia) and a transformational component (iib)), (iii) a phonological component (PF), and (iv) a logical component (LF). The components (i) and (iia) constitute the base and interact to produce an underlying (D-) structure, in that lexi­ cal items from (i) make available their arguments and are combined according to the structure rules of (iia). The transformational component (iib), consisting of a movement rule, maps D-structure onto S-structure,7 a structure close to the surface form of the sen­ tence. For example, passive S-structures are derived (p. 489) from the D-structure by mov­ ing the verbal complement to the subject slot (cf. Chomsky 1981: 5). The lexicon is defined as ‘the repository of all (idiosyncratic) properties of particular lexi­ cal items’ (Chomsky 1995: 39). Among those are the item’s word category and its ‘(predi­ cate-) argument structure’ (comprising its subcategorization frame and θ-grid).8 That is, a lexical item contains information about its syntactic class and the number and semantic roles of the arguments it takes, thus practically steering its own grammatical behaviour. Information about the semantic features of its arguments, aka selectional restrictions, Page 4 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis can be derived from the semantic roles of the arguments and need not be stipulated in its entry (cf. Chomsky 1995: 30–1). Assumptions like these reflect theoretical insights of the time, as ascertained by Pinker (1989: 4), for example, who argues that a lot of grammar has been found to follow from properties of the lexical items used. This is why ‘[r]ecent theories of grammar specify rich collections of information in lexical entries and relative­ ly impoverished rules or principles in other components of grammar.’ The categorial component in the G&B model specifies—separately from the individual ar­ gument structure information given in the lexical entries—all the possible subcategoriza­ tion frames a language provides for the insertion of lexical items (cf. Chomsky 1981: 32), i.e. it contains the general X-bar schema with the parameters set for the respective lan­ guage.9 In previous variants of the model, this information was represented in phrasestructure rules (PSR). But since the categorial environment of a particular word derives from its argument structure, the information contained in the PSRs is actually redundant and they have been done away with.10 The X-bar schema, in close co-operation with Case Theory, generates the repertoire of phrase- and sentence structures into which lexical en­ tries with the required argument structure can be inserted, like plugging fillers into schematic slots. The Projection Principle11 then guarantees the syntactic adequacy of the resulting struc­ ture.12 What seems to be left for the exclusive specification by the categorial component is the canonical serialization of phrases in larger segments, and the positions of relatively inde­ pendent phrases, such as adjuncts. That means that for the production of a (p. 490) gram­ matical utterance, a speaker must know the argument structure of the lexical entries in­ volved and the parameterized X-bar schema inclusive of case theoretical aspects motivat­ ing the required movements of arguments to receive case. Different surface realizations of a verb’s argument structure (such as dative shift, or causativization) are captured by lexical operations in the lexicon. These change the θ-grid before the verb projects its structure (cf. Harley 2010: 427f.), e.g., causativization adds an agent role to an otherwise intransitive event. The MP is the most recent (Chomskyan) model of generative linguistics (for detailed ac­ counts see Chomsky 1993, Marantz 1995, Al-Mutairi 2014, for example). We will briefly sketch what is new concerning the lexicon-grammar issue in this model. Basically, the as­ sumptions about the lexicon have not changed dramatically. It contains phonological, morpho-syntactic, and semantic information in the form of feature bundles. Syntactic structure is now assumed to be generated in one component, the computational system (CHL). This is achieved by drawing on a token list of the lexical items selected from the lexicon for a particular utterance, the ‘numeration’. The latter sets the scope within which structure, the derivation, can be formed in CHL (cf. Richards 2015: 812) by such op­ erations as Merge, Move, and Agree.13 For example, suppose the numeration contains the items SHE 1, HATE 1, CAT 1. Grossly simplified, the sentence she hates cats would be computed by the operations of merge (e.g., hate + cat; she + hate cat), and move (move­ Page 5 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis ment of SHE—to receive nominative case—to the subject position). Finally, the derivation can converge at the two interface levels PF and LF (cf. footnote 7), if it contains legiti­ mate PF and LF objects (cf. Bošković 2011: 327), i.e., if it is legible there (cf. Al-Mutairi 2014: 35–43). In later developments within the MP, it is argued that the syntactic computation does not use the full set of the numeration exhaustively before transferring its structure to the in­ terfaces. One suggestion is that computation proceeds stepwise, drawing on lexical sub­ arrays (rather than the complete set), and that each derivational step is immediately transferred to the interfaces for evaluation (cf. Richards 2015: 830f.). This change does not seem to affect the role of lexical items in the model. However, a predicate’s argument structure is no longer required to be projected from the lexicon, because predicates, as functions, must combine with arguments anyway to be interpretable at LF. In other words, due to the ‘Full Interpretation requirement’ no further mechanisms are required to regulate the interaction of syntactic structure and lexical information (cf. Harley 2010: 431) thus obviating the syntactic trigger function of a word’s argument structure. A further shift towards syntactic centricity in this model becomes obvious when the place of G&B’s lexical operations (aka redundancy rules), which account for general argumentstructure alternations, is considered. In the MP, such alternations (p. 491) ‘can be … treat­ ed entirely within the syntactic component, via the same Merge and Move operations which construct any syntactic constituent’ (Harley 2010: 430). Finally, as far as the place of morphology is concerned, it has been a controversial issue in generative models where morphological processes are located, in the grammar (iib) or in the lexicon.14 Chomsky (1970) had formulated what became known as the ‘lexicalist hy­ pothesis’, according to which syntactic operations cannot apply to parts of words, so that morphological processes must be distinct from them. This idea marks the beginning of lexicalism, excluding from syntax derivational morphology (weak lexicalism) or both in­ flectional and derivational morphology (strong lexicalism) (cf. Scalise and Guevara 2005: 170f., Harley 2015: 1134f.). G&B and also early work within the MP locate morphological processes in the lexicon (lexicalist approach), but later work assumes morphological structure-building to work in the same way as syntactic computation, so that it is natural­ ly included in a language’s syntax. In the next sections, I will address such a non-lexical­ ist approach (Distributed Morphology) (see also Spencer (this volume: Chapter 11)) as well as models taking a lexicalist stance (such as LFG, and HPSG).

23.2.1.2 Distributed Morphology (DM) Proponents of DM (first articulated by Halle and Marantz 1993) have developed a model of language without a lexicon in the traditional sense. Instead, the computational system is assumed to employ elements from lists of atomic entities (morphemes) to bring about all the combinations required: complex words, as well as syntactic phrases. That is, de­ parting from the lexicalist hypothesis, complex words are also derived by the principles of minimalist syntax, namely the syntactic operations of Merge and Move (cf. Embick and Noyer 2007: 244, Alexiadou 2015: 1115), which makes DM in a way complementary to Page 6 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis Minimalism (for details, see Spencer, this volume: Chapter 11). The atomic (non-computa­ tional) elements come from three lists: i. a list of syntactic atoms, i.e. lexical roots (phonological sequences without mean­ ing, such as [√/wɔ:k/]) and functional features (also called abstract morphemes, such as the word-category feature [noun] or [pl]), ii. a list of vocabulary items providing phonological representations to the abstract morphemes, such as [noun] /ø/ and [num][pl] /-s/, together with conditions on insertion, and iii. a list of the idiosyncratic meanings of roots or idioms. In the derivational process, the computational system takes elements from list (i) as in­ gredients to generate complex words and phrases as well as larger syntactic units. Vocab­ ulary items from list (ii) provide the phonological forms, and specify their places of inser­ tion. Hence, we would get [√/wɔ:k/] merging with the abstract (functional) (p. 492) mor­ pheme of the noun category [[√/wɔ:k/] n] and [[num][pl], /s/ added to the right. List (iii) would contribute the meaning of ‘pieces in particular contexts’, such as [[√WALK] n] (an entity of slow self-propelled motion), or walk the line (behave properly) (for more details see Harley and Noyer 1999, Scalise and Guevara 2005, Embick and Noyer 2007, Bobaljik 2015, and Spencer, this volume: Chapter 11). All of this feeds the processes of the mor­ phemes’ morpho-phonological realization and semantic interpretation at the interfaces PF and LF respectively. The semantic interpretation (at LF) follows compositionally from the elements employed in the generation of structure in the computational system (cf. Marantz 1997: 218, Harley 2010: 429–31). In terms of the issue pursued here, DM postulates a powerful syntactic component gener­ ating all structure (inclusive of complex words) by interacting at various stages of the grammatical computation with diverse individual linguistic elements that in other ap­ proaches are seen as unified in the lexicon. This characteristic is alluded to also by the model’s name, ‘distributed’ (cf. also Harley and Noyer 1999: 3), and it makes DM ‘a syn­ tacticocentric, realisational, piece-based, non-lexicalist theory of word (and sentence) formation’ (Harley 2015: 1140).

23.2.1.3 HPSG In HPSG, a model developed in the 1980s mainly by Carl Pollard and Ivan Sag, the rela­ tion between lexis and grammar is ‘skewed’ to the other component, making it a ‘more lexical’ approach. Comparable to G&B, the parsimony of the syntax is facilitated by ‘rich’ lexical entries containing the syntactic information required for the building of structure around them, such as information about the function, the semantic role(s), and the case of their complement(s) (including subjects) (cf. Pollard and Sag 1994: 30). Since HPSG adheres to lexicalism, word-internal structure is a product of the lexicon and opaque to syntax (cf. Nordlinger and Sadler 2019). To capture potential regular derivations of one lexical entry from another, such as inchoative and causative verb uses (The glass broke versus Somebody broke the glass), or nominalizations, HPSG employs lexical rules (analo­ gously to G&B (section 23.2.1.1)) (cf. Müller 2015: 956). Other kinds of generalizations in Page 7 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis the lexicon are captured by inheritance hierarchies (cf. Müller 2015: 962). For example, features common to all representatives of a particular word class are subsumed in ‘gener­ ic’ entries and as such ‘inherited’ by individual entries of this class. Grammatical functions (subject, object etc.) are also lexically defined, so only their con­ figurational realization is left to be determined syntactically by ‘immediate-dominance rules’ (cf. Pollard and Sag 1994: 40). Similarly to PSRs, these contain information about general dependencies (between heads, complements, and specifiers) and their serializa­ tions, inclusive of regulations for special arrangements, such as cleft or pseudo-cleft con­ structions (for English) and others. This implies that the syntactic rules produce the sur­ face structure directly (cf. Jackendoff 2002: 145). Given this architecture, HPSG can be characterized as a (strongly) lexicalist approach. The model builds on a richly structured lexicon (inclusive of the mechanisms of morpho­ logical structure-building), which is the input to the syntactic component containing the mechanisms of syntactic (surface-)structure building. (p. 493)

23.2.1.4 Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG)

LFG, a model mainly developed by Joan Bresnan (1982, 2001),15 distinguishes lexicon and grammar in a similar way. Though the internal mechanisms of their interaction are spelled out differently (cf. Schönefeld 2001: 132–8, Dalrymple 2015, for example), the lex­ icon is just as richly annotated as in HPSG and contains lexical rules, too. Syntax consists in phrase-structure configurations (c-structures, containing also functional information), which determine the serialization of constituents and account for constituents indepen­ dent of argument-structure requirements. Morphology is assumed to operate in the lexi­ con, providing word forms compatible with the requirements of c-structure (cf. Neidle 1994: 2149).

23.2.2 Functional models In this section, we look at the relationship between lexis and grammar in models taking an expressly functional approach to language.16 In such an approach, language is under­ stood as a means of communicative verbal interaction, and its features are assumed to be basically determined by its use (cf. Dik 1989: 3, 1991: 247). This assumption is in sharp contrast with the generative perspective since it requires that language in use (perfor­ mance) be taken into account when modelling speakers’ grammars.

23.2.2.1 Dik’s model The main ideas of Dik’s understanding of language are laid down in Dik (1989, 1997: 58– 71). He assumes that a language, or grammar, comprises two components, the ‘fund’ and ‘expression rules’. The fund contains terms and predicates, i.e., expressions naming enti­ ties and expressions naming relations or properties. They are either stored in the mental lexicon or constructed by applying productive rules of predicate and term formation. Speakers produce a ‘predication’ on the basis of an augmented predicate frame contain­ ing information on the predicate’s argument structure, the terms chosen for ‘filling’ these Page 8 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis arguments, potential satellites (for adjunct terms), predicate operators for tense and as­ pect, as well as syntactic and pragmatic functions of the terms and sentence type. Expres­ sion rules regulate the transfer of these annotated predications into expressions, deter­ mining the form of the ‘constituents’ and their distribution in the sentence. (For more de­ tails, see Dik 1989: 45–65, 1991: 247–58.) For illustration, imagine the frame ‘give’ with the selected arguments of ‘my mother’ (as subject), ‘the present’ (as object), ‘my brother’ (as complement), the adjunct ‘finally’, the operator for past and the information that it is a contrastive statement. The expression rules would determine the resulting sen­ tence: My mother finally gave the present to my brother, with focal stress on the last PP. In such a model, lexical and grammatical aspects seem to be closely intertwined. The expressions stored in the ‘fund’ are of a lexical nature. The rules for predicate and term formation, e.g., those ‘regulating’ word-formation, can be relegated to grammar, more specifically to (derivational) morphology. Syntax comes in when the constituents of a predication are linked to syntactic functions, like subject, object or adjunct, on the basis of their semantic features. This procedure follows a universal strategy, the Semantic Function Hierarchy of alignments of semantic and syntactic functions (cf. Dik 1991: 261– 3), thus in a way mediating between the lexicon and the syntax. Pragmatic functions, (p. 494)

such as a constituent’s informational value (as topic or focus, for example), follow from guidelines of contextual embedding rather than syntactic rules, but may affect functional alignment, too. The only truly syntactic procedure is the serialization of the total predica­ tion on the basis of expression rules. They regulate how the particular semantic and/or syntactic functions are marked by case, adposition, or other markers, thus also handling inflectional morphology. These assumptions make Dik’s model lexico-centred, and the idea that (constituent-) structure follows from the lexical items selected (cf. Dik 1989: 69–70) suggests a similari­ ty with HPSG and LFG, at least when it comes to the parsimony of syntax.

23.2.2.2 Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) In Halliday’s view, a language is a system network of choices available to the user for the making of meaning (Halliday 1985: xxvii). It specifies all possible combinations of choices, thus indicating the permitted paths through it (cf. Halliday 1976a: 4). The speaker’s choices (e.g., what to say, his/her intention and focus) will become explicit to the hearer by the use of particular verbal means. This holds for words and larger constructs alike. The former can be illustrated by one of Fawcett’s examples (1988: 189, 195, 203, 208–9), the network of choices associated with the personal pronoun her. Using this pronoun, the speaker indicates the path through the network shown in Figure 23.1 (adapted from Faw­ cett 1988: 195).

Page 9 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis

Figure 23.1 Network of choices associated with her

The more complex structures, e.g., particular phrase or sentence types, order of con­ stituents, or transitivity structure signal more general choices, e.g., the absence of a (p. 495) subject in an (English) utterance indicates the speaker’s intention of requesting something (cf. Halliday 1976a: 6). Such signals are conceived of as ‘realization’ state­ ments of choices rather than rules. The fact that speakers’ choices for making meaning are always signalled in lexically specific forms may be why Halliday posits that grammar and lexicon mean basically the same phenomenon ‘seen from opposite perspectives’ (Halliday 1994: 15). The perspective in grammar starts from the general choices provided by a language and their structural realizations, such as clause type and mood, and proceeds to ever more specific choices. Halliday (1994: xxvii) shows that for the system network for English the clause, which represents the process type to be com­ municated and associated participant roles, is taken as the entry point into the network. At the most specific level are the choices between particular lexical items ‘which … repre­ sent the most delicate distinctions that the system embodies’ (Halliday 1976b: 21). In this sense the lexicon can indeed be seen as the ‘most delicate grammar’ (Hasan 1987: 184), and is thus incorporated into the category of (lexico-) grammar. Unlike the models discussed so far, Halliday’s conception of grammar and lexis as one system network does not differentiate between what is regular/compositional and what is idiosyncratic, or what speakers compute and what they retrieve from memory. Instead, the system seems to be organized along the dimension of generality/specificity (of choic­ es). The more specific (or delicate) the level of choices is, the more lexical the realizing structures are. As for the place of inflectional morphology, it is part of the lexico-grammatical continuum (cf. Fawcett 1988: 187). It signals choices from closed systems and structures with gener­ al meanings, such as tense (the domain of grammar), rather than from the open sets of words and collocations with specific meanings (lexis) (see also Halliday 2004: 43).

23.2.3 Corpus Linguistics: new methods opening up new perspectives The choices at the ‘lexical end’ of the continuum were the starting point of corpus linguis­ tic analyses revealing the lexical patterning of language. Since then, corpus data have been used as a source for investigating many other aspects of language, e.g., grammati­

Page 10 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis cal constructions, conceptual phenomena (such as metaphor), discourse organization, lan­ guage change, etc.,17 producing new theoretical claims and insights.18 In the early days of corpus-linguistic research, corpora were neither part-ofspeech (POS) tagged, nor parsed, so that research concentrated on the usage of words. In the tradition of British Contextualism (as represented by Firth 1957 and Sinclair 1991, for example), the analyses focused on a word’s contexts to elucidate meaning via the lexical and structural patterns in which it occurs. Such investigations were based on KWIC (key word in context) analyses of corpora. Over time, they became ‘more grammatical’, explor­ ing the lexical potential of particular structural slots, such as a N of, and it became obvi­ ous that structural and lexical choices are mutually dependent (cf. Francis 1993: 143). This interdependence is reminiscent of Halliday’s concept of lexicogrammar, but seen from the lexical end: lexis is taken to drive syntax in that lexical items trigger structures into which they fit ‘comfortably and conveniently’ (Francis 1993: 142). (p. 496)

In principle, this idea alludes to the projection principle of G&B (see footnote 11) and the assumption of a richly specified lexicon in HPSG and LFG. However, the (corpus-linguis­ tic) discovery of lexical patterns, like collocations (e.g., quick shower, fast train, or take a break), chunks with variable slots (e.g., become Adj, a(n) N of) or idioms (e.g., give me the creeps), suggests that the grammar and the lexicon do not interact in the proposed ‘slotand-filler’ procedure. Instead, two other principles appear to be at work in language use, namely the idiom principle and the open-choice principle, differentiated on the basis of storage versus computation (cf. Sinclair 1991: 109–15). The former denotes the fact that native speakers of a language have stored and use a large number of virtually prefabri­ cated lexically specific syntactic segments. If these are experienced sufficiently frequent­ ly, they can be recalled as practically one choice rather than being constructed by filling syntactic structures with words (cf. Sinclair 1987: 319–21, Sinclair 1991: 112). That speakers are simultaneously aware of the grammatical structure of such segments is sup­ ported by the existence of fixed phrases and idioms allowing for some variability (e.g., take NP to task, get one’s head around NP).19 The open-choice principle refers to the abili­ ty of speakers to combine words online on the basis of the structural patterns (schemata or syntactic rules) they know. But, given the sheer amount of lexical patterns, this princi­ ple must be assumed to be secondary (cf. Sinclair 1987: 324). These assumptions have not gone unchallenged and researchers have tried to collect in­ dependent empirical evidence for or against them. One such example is Snider and Arnon (2012), who hypothesize that in a lexical decision experiment, subjects should be faster with holistically stored units (complex words) than with expressions to be assembled (phrases, n-grams). The evidence is mixed, speaking for both storage AND computation for both compositional AND non-compositional phrases. This finding is difficult to accom­ modate in dual-system theories, which correlate storage (the lexicon) with non-composi­ tionality/idiosyncrasy and computation (the grammar) with compositionality/regularity. Single-system theories, on the other hand, can account for the (p. 497) storage of frequent

Page 11 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis compositional units or patterns,20 and perhaps also for the computation of non-composi­ tional expressions. Models of this type have been developed within usage-based research.

23.2.4 Usage-based theories Usage-based theories give prominence to language use21 and aim at showing how a speaker’s knowledge of language can ‘emerge’ from usage, thus obviating the need for assuming innate linguistic knowledge for the explanation of language acquisition. Early arguments about the validity of such an idea, such as Hopper (1979, 1987), used the term ‘emergent grammar’, borrowing the term ‘emergent’ from cultural anthropolo­ gy. Hopper (1987: 142) uses this term to suggest that ‘structure, or regularity, comes out of discourse and is shaped by discourse as much as it shapes discourse in an on-going process’. This implies that grammar is dynamic and that there is no final or ‘steady state’ in a speaker’s grammatical competence, thus also accounting for such phenomena as lin­ guistic variation and language change across the lifespan (as investigated by Sankoff and Blondeau 2007, for example). MacWhinney (2001) substantiates the concept of emer­ gence by analysing some types of the (biological, psychological, and language) processes involved. He elaborates on how linguistic structure can plausibly be assumed to emerge as a flexible and dynamic system, adapting itself to usage (cf. Bybee and Hopper 2001: 2f.). Some particulars of how language experience can shape a speaker’s grammar were ad­ dressed by Bybee (2006, 2010, 2013), for example, who understands grammar ‘as the cognitive organization of one’s experience with language’ (Bybee 2006: 711). In her view, it is central to find out how linguistic structure can be derived ‘from the application of do­ main-general processes’, that is, processes known to be part of the human cognitive appa­ ratus in general, such as categorization or chunking (Bybee 2010: 1, 7). For the cognitive representation of language experience, Bybee suggests an exemplar-based model, where each speech event is recorded in the mind in a huge network of exemplars that emerges on the basis of associations between them (for a detailed description, see Bybee 2006). In our discussion of the notions of lexicon and grammar it is crucial to consider what such assumptions mean for the issue of storage versus computation, as well as the (non-)compositionality issue reported in the previous section. As for storage, it is as­ sumed that speakers store and access the units of usage (Bybee and Hopper 2001: 8), (p. 498) such as words (rain; exceptional), collocations (acid/tropical/heavy rain; excep­ tional circumstances/cases/quality/talent), words with slots around them (X gonna V; V X into V-ing (Z)), and also schemata (such as Det + N; P + NP), with the complete network depending on speakers’ linguistic experience. As for computation, speakers are assumed to unify stored schematic or partially schematic units with stored specific (i.e., lexical) material, such that the lexical items ‘fill’ the unspecified elements in the stored (partially) schematic patterns (cf. also Bybee and Hopper 2001: 3).

Page 12 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis Another consequence of exemplar storage would be the availability of the instances of a syntactic construction, even when a generalization has been made (Bybee 2010: 15). This suggests that it does not matter for storage if some form is lexical (specific) or grammati­ cal (schematic). What matters is frequency of experience, because repetitive experience is assumed to strengthen the stored representation.22 Given these assumptions, usagebased accounts do not have to compartmentalize speech units into lexicon and/or gram­ mar. Instead, considering such usage phenomena as token and type frequencies, they dif­ ferentiate conventional units with respect to their specificity, complexity, flexibility, or productivity. These units contain material of all ‘classical’ sorts: lexical, morphological, and syntactic. To my knowledge, the most comprehensive models of language working from these premises have been designed by cognitive-functional linguists, such as Ronald Langacker and Adele Goldberg.23 As usage-based models, they naturally draw on usage data for the elucidation of knowledge of language.24 Moreover, their assumption of ‘meaningful grammar’ (cf. Croft and Cruse 2004: 1) marks them as accounts of language which con­ sider lexicon and grammar to contain the same types of elements, namely signs (cf. sec­ tion 23.1). In what follows, we will look at Langacker’s (1987) and Goldberg’s (1995, 2006a) models of language, focusing on what can be concluded about lexical and grammatical knowl­ edge from their usage-based perspective and what this means for the concepts of lexicon and grammar.25

23.2.4.1 Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar In Langacker’s model, ‘the actual use of the linguistic system and a speaker’s knowledge of this use’ (Langacker 1987: 494) have been prominent from early on. Being exposed to language, a speaker is assumed to acquire (and know) a hierarchically structured inven­ tory of conventional linguistic units (cf. Langacker 1987: 73, 1988: 131f.), with (p. 499) lexical entries at the most specific (bottom) level and schematic constructions at the top. These units are understood as cognitive routines, i.e. as stored or entrenched units whose use is a matter of retrieval rather than computation. This is uncontroversial for elements traditionally associated with the lexicon, but what about schematic and partially schemat­ ic constructions? The former compare to the structural patterns or rules discussed earlier in the text (such as SVO (or NP V NP) for transitive clauses; Det + N for NP), the latter to structural patterns associated with particular words (such as English ‘V one’s way to X’ (the way-construction), ‘V Y into V-ing (Z)’ (the into-causative),26 or ‘a bunch of N’). In Langacker’s model (and from a usage-based perspective), the (partially) schematic constructions are assumed to emerge from the experience of a number of similar utter­ ances, or parts thereof, by generalization/abstraction from what is variable between them (see Langacker 1999: 96f.; Bybee and Hopper 2001: 14). They are stored as (partial) schemata which are retrievable as unitary entities, and they unify with other, less, or nonschematic linguistic units to represent fully-fledged usage events. For example, the expe­ rience of such units as read a book/a letter/an article/a story etc., may trigger schematiza­ Page 13 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis tion of the variable slot N (giving the partial schema read a(n) N), and experiencing other determiners may trigger read NP (i.e. Det + N). Such assumptions have received strong experimental backing in psycholinguistic research into language acquisition, as carried out by Tomasello (e.g., 2003), Lieven (e.g., 2008, 2016), and many others. All this amounts to understanding linguistic knowledge as a network of signs organized along a cline of specificity (degree of abstraction/schematization). Besides this, the signs available to speakers differ with respect to entrenchment (stored or constructed) and symbolic complexity (simple or complex). These parameters jointly determine the place of a unit in the network. The typical units at the lexical end, the traditional lexicon, are high­ ly specific (less complex) and entrenched. The typical units at the grammar end (the fully productive schemata in the classical sense of syntactic rules) are characterized by com­ plexity and schematicity and need to be unified with specific units in a usage event. Quite naturally, partially schematic constructions containing both lexical and schematic materi­ al find their place in the middle, as entrenched and rather complex, but not yet fully spe­ cific, units (see also Langacker 1987: 35).27 They are numerous and were shown to be the ones problematic to position in models stipulating a strict distinction between lexicon and grammar. Langacker’s model comprises them all, positing for cognitive grammar a grada­ tion uniting lexicon, morphology, and syntax (cf. Langacker 1987: 36), and suggesting ‘that any specific line of demarcation would be arbitrary’ (Langacker 1999: 122). The explicit incorporation of morphology into the cline follows from the fact that classical morphology exhibits the same typology of constructions. They may be fully (p. 500) specif­ ic (move-ment, invest-ment) and hence lexical, or (partially) schematic (V-mentN; VsuffixN), and hence (more) grammatical. Finally, Langacker also argues that the emergence of schematic units by abstraction from (variable) instances suggests the co-existence in a speaker’s mind of both instances and schemata (e.g., movement, as well as V-mentN, V-suffixN; or give X a kiss, make a state­ ment as well as V NP NP and V NP respectively). This explains why for a large number of speakers of English, such expressions are retrieved from storage, although they can just as well be assembled from words and the respective schemata. More specific sub-schema­ ta, such as give NP NP or send NP NP instantiating the more general V NP NP, may also be stored, providing the user with a network of interrelated schemata at various levels of schematicity. This conception of linguistic knowledge makes the cognitive approach to language description both maximalist and non-reductive (cf. Langacker 1987: 42) in the sense that the abstraction of schemata does not erase the underlying more specific in­ stantiations from memory.

23.2.4.2 Goldbergian Construction Grammar28 Goldberg also (1995, 2006a) makes a strong argument for the existence of syntactic structures (e.g., the ditransitive construction) as signs, claiming that ‘[p]articular seman­ tic structures together with their associated formal expression must be recognized as

Page 14 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis constructions independent of the lexical items which instantiate them’ (Goldberg 1995: 1). She uses the term construction29 to include all linguistic signs (from morphemes to clause-level constructions), irrespective of their level of specificity/schematicity. With this, she takes a position comparable to Langacker’s in acknowledging the existence in speakers’ linguistic knowledge of both specific expressions (instances or instantiations) and schemata. She makes a point of motivating clause-level constructions by the experi­ ence of humanly relevant basic scenes or event types,30 and assumes them to co-exist with lexical items that are associated with the more richly specified concepts of particular events (such as give, hand or tell for the transfer-of-object scene). Her claims are tested on data from language acquisition (Goldberg 1995: 20, 42f.), where she finds that the child can recognize (schematic) clause-level constructions, if a sufficiently large number of lexical variation is encountered in expressions of the respective basic scenes. As a re­ sult, the child will know individual instances, partially schematic constructions, in addi­ tion to the (generalized) clause-level construction (Goldberg 1995: 140), providing for both the ability to construct a complex expression from more elementary units and its memorization if it is entrenched as a fully specified construction. The same procedure can account for acquiring knowledge of morphological constructions. (p. 501)

A final aspect to be mentioned relates to the interaction of components in partial­

ly and fully schematic constructions, where schematic slots and lexical fillers need to uni­ fy. As first suggested by corpus-based investigations,31 this process is constrained in that schematic slots in constructions, e.g., the verb slot in the ditransitive, prefer particular lexical fillers (here: particular verbs) over others of the same word category. Conversely, particular words also have preferences for the constructional slots they fill. Such prefer­ ences have been operationalized by using association measures, such as collostruction strength, introduced by Gries and Stefanowitsch (Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003, 2005, 2009, Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004a, 2004b). This measure has been found to be a good indicator of the attractions between words and schemata, accounting in part for the ef­ fects in language use that Sinclair described as the ‘idiom principle’ (see section 23.2.3 above). Other association measures have been suggested, such as Delta Π. Unlike col­ lostruction strength, indicating mutual attraction, Delta Π is informative of the direction of the attraction: from schema to word or vice versa.32

23.3 Summary I will now summarize the main points that emerge from this survey of linguistic theories for understanding the lexicon-grammar issue. Dual-system theories, assuming a dichoto­ my of lexis and grammar, are widely found within the generative formalist framework. In such models, the allocation of a linguistic unit to lexis or grammar is an either-or deci­ sion, most commonly based on such criteria as an item’s regularity/compositionality and idiosyncracy, although the individual models are quite different with respect to what they qualify as lexical or grammatical. Single-system models, assuming a cline between lexis Page 15 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis and grammar, are more naturally related to functionally oriented approaches. They can provide for knowledge of linguistic units, such as the phrase answer the door, as both a lexical and grammatical pattern, covering the fact that it is known as a collocation (i.e., a lexical/specific phrase) and is simultaneously associated with a schematic template, namely [V NP]. Despite these different ‘solutions’ to the issue, some of the criteria used for deciding on a linguistic unit’s nature as lexical or grammatical are substantially similar, such as the cri­ teria of storage, specificity, and irregularity (for lexis) and computation, schematicity, and regularity (for grammar). However, as the previous example suggests, these criteria do not always converge, i.e., schematic units may be stored as lexically specific instances, and specific instances, such as the word undoability, may be computed on the basis of a schema ([Vtrans –ability]) rather than retrieved from memory. Such units have features of both lexicon and grammar, which is inconsistent with a dichotomous view. If, however, the assumption is that lexicon and grammar are (p. 502) positioned along a continuum and the criteria jointly constitute the prototypes of lexis and grammar, there is room for less typi­ cal units as well. At one end of the cline, we have the lexical units, which are PROTOTYPI­ CALLY specific, unpredictable form-meaning pairings (such as words and morphemes), retrieved from storage. At the other end sit grammatical units, which are PROTOTYPI­ CALLY schematic, regular (such as phrasal and clausal schemata (or syntactic structure)), and employed in computational processes. In between we find partially schematic units (of various complexity) containing both lexical and schematic information, such as the in­ to-causative [V X into V-ing (Z)]. The mid-level is also occupied by morphological construc­ tions, such as [V-mentN], drawing on material from the lexicon and arranging it according to structural templates of co-occurrence similar to those at the syntactic end in principle.33 All in all, this understanding is better compatible with what usage data reveal about the (patterned) nature of linguistic knowledge and how it is used in communication—also in light of recent findings in the neurosciences. In a paper discussing the neuronal plausibil­ ity of grammatical theories, in particular of usage-based construction grammar, Pulver­ müller et al. (2013) test neuroscientific evidence for some of its basic tenets, among them the assumed lexicon-syntax continuum. Experimental findings demonstrate that, for ex­ ample, a particular brain response, called Mismatch Negativity, shows up differently de­ pending on whether it is tested in the comprehension of words/pseudo-words or gram­ matical/ungrammatical strings. The authors conclude (p. 412f.) that ‘word-level units (“lexical items”)…are very different things, in neuromechanistic terms [i.e. in terms of the brain mechanisms underlying them, DS], from above-word-level units’, and argue that they should be kept distinct. In their view, this conclusion does not rule out a continuum view, if prototypical lexical and grammatical units are understood to sit at its opposite ends. The space in between is occupied by the linguistic units (as cognitive routines) containing both lexical and grammatical material. The importance and the variety of such ‘mixed’ constructions has amply been shown by research in usage-based construction grammar, Page 16 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis suggesting a populous area at the mid-level of schematicity in a network of constructions. They comprise polymorphemic words, phrases, and constructional idioms with schematic slots (such as the English way-construction). Studies in morphology, such as Booij (2010), also cannot but notice the mixed nature of a language’s linguistic units. Focussing on the differences and commonalities of ‘word level constructs’ and ‘phrase level constructs’ from a construction-grammar perspective, he finds that syntactic and morphological schemata are crucially employed in the making of lexical expressions, so that a strict boundary cannot be drawn (cf. Booij 2010: 191, 210). Therefore, it seems more appropriate to consider a speaker’s knowledge of language to comprise lexical and grammatical units (as signs with different properties) as well as (p. 503) many ‘mixed’ units containing lexical and grammatical elements (exhibiting prop­ erties of both). In this sense, the relation between lexis and grammar can be understood in terms of Aarts’ (2007a: 163) ‘intersective gradience’ as ‘the occurrence of situations in which elements conform to an intersection of sets of properties, rather than an intersec­ tion of categories’. According to the usage-based theories surveyed here, the picture of lexis and grammar is more complex than traditionally assumed. A language does not only have a (classical) lex­ icon, housing the stored units with an unpredictable form-function pairing (from mor­ pheme to idiom) and a (classical) grammar, containing the rules for regular combinations (from complex word to clause), but also a large amount of constructs showing ‘mixed’ fea­ tures, such as storage AND computation, or specificity AND schematicity. The importance of such mixed units in a speaker’s knowledge of language is not a new discovery. It became apparent in studies of language in use, for example, in Sinclair’s (1991) postulation of the idiom-principle (cf. section 23.2.3). Along similar lines, Bybee (1998: 270f.) argued that speakers make use of a large number of formulaic expressions, rather than employing abstract rules, and that these are a mark of native competence be­ yond knowledge of a large vocabulary and the command of grammatical rules. With the development of usage-based theories, these findings could be incorporated into a theoret­ ical framework of language as a whole, systematically accounting for mixed-type con­ structions of all types (complex words, collocations, constructional idioms etc.) as well. They add to the (stored) ‘idiosyncratic’ part of a language and leave a lot less room for the (computational) ‘free’, or unconstrained, use of the rules/schemata of grammar in lan­ guage use.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors of this book for extremely helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the chapter, whose quality was greatly enhanced by their constructive criticism. Needless to say that all re­ maining errors and inconsistencies are the responsibility of the author.

Page 17 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis

Reference Al-Mutairi, Fahad Rashed (2014). The Minimalist Program: The Nature and Plausibility of Chomsky’s Biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman. Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice (2012). Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. Berlin: De Gruyter. Bobaljik, Jonathan David (2015). ‘Distributed Morphology’, MS accessed at: http:// bobaljik.uconn.edu/papers/DM_ORE.pdf on 5 April, 2019. Booij, Geert (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bošković, Željko (2011). ‘Last resort with move and agree in derivations and representa­ tions’, in Cedric Boeckx (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press, 327–53. Bresnan, Joan (ed) (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cam­ bridge, MA: MIT Press. Bybee, Joan L. (2006). ‘From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition.’ Lan­ guage 82(4): 711–33. Bybee, Joan L., and Paul J. Hopper (eds) (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguis­ tic Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L., and Paul J. Hopper (2001). ‘Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure’, in Joan Bybee L. and Paul J. Hopper (eds), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–24. Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publica­ tions. Chomsky, Noam (1993). ‘A minimalist program for linguistic theory’, in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Syl­ vain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52. Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dalrymple, Mary (2015). ‘Morphology in the LFG architecture’, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications (http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/). Di Sciullo, A.-M., and Williams E. (1987). On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Page 18 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis Dik, Simon C. (1991). ‘Functional grammar’, in Flip G. Droste, and John E. Joseph (eds), Linguistic Theory and Grammatical Description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins, 247–74. Divjak, Dagmar (2015). ‘Frequency and entrenchment’, in Ewa Dbrowska and Dagmar Di­ vjak (eds), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53–74. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer (2007). ‘Distributed morphology and the syntax–morpholo­ gy interface’, in Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Lin­ guistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 239–88. Fawcett, Robin P. (1988). ‘The English personal pronouns: An exercise in linguistic theo­ ry’, in James D. Benson, Michael J. Cummings, and William S. Greaves (eds), Linguistics in a Systemic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 185–220. Firth, John Rupert (1957). Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press. Fodor, Jerry A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Francis, Gill (1993). ‘A corpus-driven approach to grammar’, in Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), Text and Technology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins, 137–56. Givón, Talmy (1971). ‘Historical syntax and synchronic morphology.’ Chicago Linguistics Society 7: 394–415. Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argu­ ment Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Goldberg, Adele E. (1998). ‘Patterns of experience in patterns of language’, in Michael Tomasello (ed), The New Psychology of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 203–19. Greenberg, Joseph (1966). Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hier­ archies. The Hague: Mouton. Gries, Stefan Th. (2012). ‘Frequencies, probabilities, and association measures in usage-/ exemplar-based linguistics.’ Studies in Language 11(3): 477–510. Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch (2004b). ‘Covarying collexemes in the Into-causative’, in Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer (eds), Language, Culture, and Mind. Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications, Stanford, 225–46. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz (1993). ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflec­ tion.’ in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–76.

Page 19 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis Halliday, M. A. K. (1976a). ‘A brief sketch of systemic grammar’, in Gunther Kress (ed), Halliday: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press, 3–6. Halliday, M. A. K. (1976b). ‘The form of functional grammar’, in Gunther Kress (ed), Halli­ day: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press, 7–25. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., (2004) 3rd edn, revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. An Introduc­ tion to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Harley, Heidi (2010). ‘A minimalist approach to argument structure’, in Cedric Boeckx (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 426–47. Harley, Heidi (2015). ‘The syntax/morphology interface,’ in Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexi­ adou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1128– 54. Hasan, Ruqaiya (1987). ‘The grammarian’s dream: Lexis as most delicate grammar’, in M. A. K. Halliday and Robin Fawcett (eds), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics 1: Theory and Description. London: Pinter, 184–211. Haspelmath, Martin (1999). ‘Optimality and diachronic adaptation.’ Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18: 180–205. Haspelmath, Martin (2008). ‘Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymme­ tries.’ Cognitive Linguistics 19: 1–33. Hopper, Paul J. (1979). ‘Aspect and foregrounding in discourse’, in Talmy Givón (ed), Dis­ course and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 213–41. Jackendoff, Ray S. (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I. Theoretical Pre­ requisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II. Descriptive Ap­ plication. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lasnik, Howard, and Terje Lohndal (2010). ‘Government–binding/principles and parame­ ters theory.’ Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1–1: 40–50.

Page 20 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis Lieven, Elena (2008). ‘Building language competence in first language acquisition.’ Euro­ pean Review 16(4): 445–56. Lieven, Elena (2016). ‘Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from here?’ Language and Cognition 8(3): 346–68. MacWhinney, Brian (2001). ‘Emergentist approaches to language’, in Joan L. Bybee and Paul Hopper (eds), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 449–70. Marantz, Alec (1995). ‘The minimalist program’, in Gert Webelhuth (ed), Government and Binding Theory and Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, 349–82. Marantz, Alec (1997). ‘No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the pri­ vacy of your own lexicon.’ University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: vol. 4(2), article 14: 201–25. Müller, Stefan (2015). ‘HPSG – A synopsis’, in Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 937–73. Neidle, Carol (1994). ‘Lexical functional grammar’, in R. E. Asher and M. Y. Simpson (eds), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. New York: Pergamon Press: 2147– 53. Nordlinger, Rachel, and Louisa Sadler (2019). ‘Morphology in LFG and HPSG’, in Jenny Audring and Francesca Masini (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press. Pinker, Steven (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Bert Cappelle, and Yury Shtyrov (2013). ‘Brain basis of mean­ ing, words, constructions and grammar’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 396–416. Richards, Marc (2015). ‘Minimalism’, in Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommu­ nikationswissenschaft. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 803–39. Sankoff, Gillian, and Hélène Blondeau (2007). ‘Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French.’ Language, 83(3): 560–88.

Page 21 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis Scalise, Sergio, and Emiliano Guevara (2005). ‘The lexicalist approach to word formation and the notion of the lexicon’, in Pavol Stekauer and Rochelle Lieber (eds), Handbook of Word-formation. Dordrecht: Springer, 147–88. Schmid, Hans-Jörg (2007). ‘Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels’, in Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press, 117–38. Schönefeld, Doris (2001). Where Lexicon and Syntax Meet. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Schönefeld, Doris (2006). ‘Constructions.’ Constructions SV1-1/2006 (http:// journals.linguisticsociety.org/elanguage/constructions/article/download/ 16/16-5469-1-PB.pdf). Schönefeld, Doris (2011). ‘Introduction: On evidence and the convergence of evidence in linguistic research’, in Doris Schönefeld (ed), Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1– 31. Sinclair, John (1987). ‘Collocation: A progress report’, in Ross Steele and Terry Thread­ gold (eds), Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday. Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins, 319–31. Sinclair, John (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Snider, Neal, and Inbal Arnon (2012). ‘A unified lexicon and grammar? Compositional and non-compositional phrases in the lexicon’, in Stefan Th. Gries and Dagmar Divjak (eds), Frequency Effects in Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 127–63. Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries (2005). ‘Covarying collexemes.’ Corpus Lin­ guistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 1–43. Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries (2009). ‘Corpora and grammar’, in Anke Lüdeling and Merja Kytö (eds), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 933–52. Stowell, Tim, and Eric Wehrli (eds) (1992). Syntax and Semantics 26. Syntax and the Lexi­ con. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Taylor, John R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Webelhuth, Gert (1995). ‘X-bar theory and case theory’, in Gert Webelhuth (ed), Govern­ ment and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, 15–95.

Page 22 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis

Notes: (1) For a thorough discussion of gradience in language (with a focus on word-classes) see Aarts 2007a. (2) There is the issue of the place of productive word formation patterns, such as deriva­ tion or compounding for English. Whether they are part of the lexicon or part of grammar is a question answered differently, as will become apparent below. (3) Parallel mechanisms go well with morpheme-based approaches to morphology (for these and other approaches (word-based or paradigm-based) see Spencer, this volume: Chapter 11). (4) For a recent overview on the syntax-lexicon interface in formal models, see also Alexi­ adou (2015). (5) For an earlier argument on this topic, see Schönefeld (2001: 120–48). (6) The P&P theory is an approach to the study of human language aiming at the charac­ terization of a speaker’s knowledge of language and how this knowledge comes about. One of its central questions is what of this knowledge is innate and what aspects are ac­ quired by exposure to language experience (cf. Lasnik and Lohndal 2010: 40). (7) S-structure is then mapped onto PF, the interface with the articulatory-perceptual sys­ tem giving articulatory information and onto LF, the interface with the conceptual-inten­ tional system giving all the details needed for the interpretation of the sentence. (8) On argument structure see also Asudeh, this volume. (9) The X-bar schema is a generalization of the phrase-structure rules of (lexical) cate­ gories. It is thoroughly elaborated in Borsley (this volume). (10) The alternative, to keep the phrase-structure rules and to eliminate the predicate-ar­ gument structure, is ruled out because the latter is item-specific and does not derive from general principles (cf. Webelhuth 1995: 34). (11) This principle says that the representations at the syntactic levels (LF, and D- and Sstructure) are projected from the lexicon in accordance with the subcategorization prop­ erties of lexical items. (cf. Chomsky 1981: 29). (12) The procedure is assumed to run in another sequence in language use. Concepts en­ tertained by the speaker will activate lexical items associated with them, and these will choose their appropriate syntax in accordance with their predicate-argument structure and the principles of X-bar syntax (cf. also Grimshaw (1990: 1)). (13) Merge combines two syntactic objects α and β to form a complex syntactic object K (Al-Mutairi 2014: 38). Agree denotes a process by which a feature checking is initiated between a probe and its goal and an Agree relation is established if there is a match. On­ Page 23 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis ly then Move can take place (for more details, see Lohndal and Haegeman, this volume and Bošković 2011: 330). (14) For a recent discussion of the ‘syntax-morphology interface’ in generative syntax, see Harley 2015. (15) From the 1990s on, Bresnan has contributed massively to the further development of syntactic theory: she combined basic assumptions of LFG with those of Optimality Theory (OT), creating ‘Optimal Syntax’ (cf. Bodomo 2005: 154). (16) For an earlier discussion of this see Schönefeld (2001: 97–120). (17) From a more applied angle, corpus analyses have resulted in a number of language descriptions (mainly of English), such as the Collins Cobuild English Grammar (1990) with Sinclair as Editor-in-Chief, Pattern Grammar (Hunston and Francis 2000) and the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al. 1999). (18) An outline of ‘corpora in linguistic research’ is given by Schönefeld (2011: 9ff.); cor­ pus-linguistic methods and grammar are discussed by Wallis (this volume). (19) The issue of storage and computation of entities larger than words is addressed in Jackendoff (2002), for example. (20) The role played by frequency of experience for storing units is debated at length in Divjak’s (2015) article on frequency and entrenchment. (21) As said above, the idea of basing linguistic inquiry on language use has been common practice in the functional-linguistic framework. A lot of this work is situated in the field of language typology, such as Greenberg (1966), Givón (1979b), Haspelmath (1999, 2008), for example, and cognitive linguistics, such as Langacker (1987, 1991) and Goldberg (1995, 2006a). (22) The relationship between frequency and entrenchment is currently a hotly debated is­ sue in linguistics. The reader is referred to Bybee 2006, Schmid 2007, Blumenthal-Dramé 2012, and Divjak 2015, for example. (23) Their names are associated with the cognitive-linguistic approach, emerging in the 1980s as an alternative proposal to the formalist generative framework. (24) Usage data are not just corpora (as products of language use), but also include data informative about language use as process, i.e. data collected during language process­ ing, such as observations, experimentally elicited data, etc. (25) For an earlier argument on this topic, see Schönefeld (2001: 148–86). (26) The reader will recognize the allusion of such linguistic units to the notion of con­ struction in the traditional sense, where constructions are usually treated as special structures rather than signs. Page 24 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Lexis (27) The (more) schematic constructions account for the productivity of language. (28) See also Hilpert, this volume, on constructional approaches to English grammar. (29) A survey of the different readings of the term in linguistics is given in Schönefeld (2006). (30) For example, the ditransitive is motivated by the scene of someone causing transfer of an object to someone else (cf. Goldberg 1995: 39, Goldberg 1998). (31) For a broad discussion of how to generalize from corpus data, see Wallis, this volume. (32) For an informative discussion of such measures, see Gries 2012. (33) This similarity is corroborated by findings in grammaticalization research, where it has long been shown that a language’s morphology is related to earlier forms of syntactic co-occurrence (cf. Givón 1971, for example).

Doris Schönefeld

Doris Schönefeld is a Professor of Linguistics at the Institute of British Studies at the University of Leipzig (Germany). She works in the field of usage-based (cognitive) lin­ guistics with a special focus on Construction Grammar. In addition to research into particular constructions of English (such as copular GO constructions), she is inter­ ested in more general linguistic issues, such as the relationship between lexicon and syntax (Where Lexicon and Syntax Meet, 2001, Mouton de Gruyter) and methodolo­ gies in empirical linguistic research (co-authored articles (2005, 2010), and an edited book on Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research, 2011, John Benjamins).

Page 25 of 25

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology

Grammar and Phonology   Sam Hellmuth and Ian Cushing The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region, Phonetics and Phonology Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.2

Abstract and Keywords In the majority of theoretical linguistic frameworks, grammar and phonology are typically kept ‘separate’, which arguably leads to a somewhat reduced understanding of how lan­ guage works. In this chapter, we explore some of the historical reasons for this separa­ tion, framing the discussion around degrees of linguistic modularity and autonomy which different grammatical frameworks assume. After providing an overview of this debate, we then illustrate how phonology interacts with grammar. We discuss how grammar and phonology interact at word and sentence level, present a case study for the role that phonology plays in word class categorization, and finally, examine how two different grammatical paradigms (namely formal-generative and cognitive-functional grammar) in­ corporate phonology into their descriptions. Keywords: phonology, modularity, autonomy, morpho-phonology, syntax-phonology interface, cognitive grammar, generative grammar

24.1 Autonomy versus grounding THE title of this chapter is an oxymoron for many phonologists. If the hallmark of a gram­ mar is that it involves linguistically-defined structures and rule-governed systems across those structures, then it is not hard to argue that phonology is as much a part of the grammar as the narrow ‘grammar’ of morphosyntax, since the patterning of sounds with­ in and between varieties of English (and other languages) is systematic and amenable to structural analysis. Although we will focus in this chapter on phonology in the speech modality, the same gen­ eralization (that structures are linguistically-defined and operate within rule-governed systems) holds also of sign languages (e.g., Brentari 2011). This parallel across different modalities may be a clue to how phonology could be perceived as being on the periphery of the grammar ‘proper’: phonology is obliged to take seriously the question of how grounded a grammar is in the physical outworking of abstract cognitive or computational Page 1 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology categories, and phonological argumentation is increasingly explored by means of phonet­ ic evidence, in laboratory phonology approaches (Pierrehumbert et al. 2000). Many of the key debates in phonology revolve around the question of whether phonology and syntax are or should be either ‘autonomous from, or grounded on, extra-linguistic reality’, with phonologists holding a range of positions (Bermúdez-Otero and Honeybone 2006: 545), from the view that syntax and phonology are both autonomous (van der Hulst 2006), or that they are both grounded (Anderson 2006, Bermúdez-Otero and Börjars 2006), or that syntax is autonomous and phonology is grounded (Burton-Roberts and Poole 2006). The title of this chapter places phonology outside of the grammar, and thus expresses tacit adoption of the last of these three positions (autonomous syntax versus grounded phonol­ ogy). This title is thus an incomplete reflection of the range of views held by phonologists, though it may reflect a view commonly (if not exclusively) held by those working on mor­ phosyntax. This tension is exemplified on the theoretical level in the disjoint between the claim that the goal of linguistic analysis is to account for linguistic competence rather than performance (Chomsky 1965) and the very large body of work on formal structural analysis of phonological patterns within the Generative Linguistics tradition (e.g., Ken­ (p. 505)

stowicz 1993). On a more mundane level, it may be that phonological patterns are less ac­ cessible due to the simple fact of not being written down, resulting in primacy of the writ­ ten form (text) over spoken language (speech). Although this seems implausible, we cite the example of English Language A-level specifications in the UK, which claim to engage advanced high school learners in analysis of spoken language, in the form of transcrip­ tions of conversations, but in which it is rarely the sound patterns in those texts that are the focus of attention. Our response to the challenge of exploring the interaction of grammar and phonology in a single chapter is to focus on phenomena which, in our view, present the strongest chal­ lenge to the notion that English grammar can be investigated without reference to phonology. In other words, we seek to show when and why those who work on grammar, as narrowly defined (morphosyntax), could or should pay close attention to the phonologi­ cal facts. In section 24.2 and section 24.3 we provide an overview of phenomena at the in­ terfaces of phonology with morphosyntax, at the word and sentence level, respectively, across varieties of English, along with a snapshot of the theoretical debates which they have inspired. We then present a case study in section 24.4 of the role of phonological properties in word class categorization in English, which argues for inclusion of a phono­ logical component within the grammar as narrowly defined, if an adequately rich descrip­ tion of speakers’ linguistic knowledge and behaviour is to be achieved. Section 24.5 provides an overview of how phonology is handled in two distinct grammatical frame­ works, while section 24.6 brings the chapter to a close with some final reflections.

Page 2 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology

24.2 Word phonology The precise definition of what constitutes a word is much debated, but there is good evi­ dence for a basic distinction between a phonological word (identified by phonological fea­ tures) and a grammatical word (identified by grammatical features); the mapping be­ tween the two varies across languages, but can always be clearly defined (Dixon and Aikhenvald 2003). From the listener’s point of view, the main difficulty in identifying phonological words is that speech is presented to us as a continuous stream of sounds, as visualized in (1). (1)

Arguably the most important question that phonologists must answer is thus the follow­ ing: how do listeners determine where words begin and end? One answer (p. 506) comes from phonotactics, that is, the regularities in the combinations of sounds occurring in dif­ ferent positions in a syllable (and thus in a word). Phonotactic regularities provide cues for use in the listener’s task of word segmentation (Kaye 1989), which is the process of determining at which points in the continuous speech stream to attempt lexical retrieval. In English, phonotactic cues are a useful indicator of what is a possible word, precisely because there are phonological constraints on what is a possible word. English speakers, even without linguistic training, know that ‘blint’ is a possible word in English (even though it is not a real word), but that ‘bnint’ is not a possible word. It follows, then, that all and any instances of the sequence [bn] heard in a stream of English speech must con­ tain a word boundary between the [b] and [n], since [bn] is not a possible word-initial or word-final consonant sequence in English. The impossibility of word-initial [bn] in English is an example of phonotactic constraints at the segmental level (involving individual vowels and consonants and their combina­ tions). A speaker’s judgement of the grammaticality of ‘blint’, and the ungrammaticality of ‘bnint’, is likely to be just as clear as their acceptance of a word containing only phonemes found in English and their rejection of a word containing one or more non-Eng­ lish phonemes. Phonological knowledge thus encodes the ‘grammar’ not only of which units are permitted in the language (phonemes) but also of how they may combine (phonotactics). There are equally powerful prosodic or suprasegmental constraints on what is a possible word. All English words are obligatorily comprised of at least one stress foot, comprising either one heavy syllable or two light syllables; syllables which count as heavy in English include those which are closed by a coda consonant (CVC) or which contain a long vowel or diphthong (CVV). Thus, [li] (with a short vowel CV, not a long vowel CVV) is not a possi­ ble word in English, because a viable word in English must be heavy enough to be stressed. The word ‘lit’ [li] ‘bed’ is fine in French, of course, and this may be because Page 3 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology French is generally agreed to be a language without word-level lexical stress (DelaisRoussarie et al. 2015). French thus places fewer restrictions on the prosodic shape of pos­ sible words, to the extent that words may be comprised of a light syllable, and thus can be as small as a single segment, e.g., ‘eau’ [o]. The position of lexical word stress is governed by a number of interacting factors (Guion et al. 2003), but stressed syllables prove nevertheless to be a useful cue in word segmen­ tation. In a seminal study, Cutler and Norris (1988) found that English listeners’ attempts at lexical retrieval in a word-spotting task showed sensitivity to stressed syllables in tar­ get words, rather than to all syllables (the latter is the pattern shown by French listen­ ers). However, Mattys et al. (2005) show in a series of lexical decision tasks with British English listeners that higher order ‘top-down’ (non-phonological) information is also used in word segmentation; they found that listeners used both lexical and contextual semantic information to predict what type of word might be coming next in the stream of speech, in deciding the points at which to attempt lexical retrieval. Their study further shows that in ordinary listening conditions this top-down information is relied on more than ‘bottom-up’ cues, such as phonotactics or stress, with these latter relied on only in adverse listening conditions. As we discuss in section 24.4 below, (p. 507) phonological regularities distin­ guish word classes more generally in English, suggesting that phonology may contribute to the so-called top-down processing also. Once the phonological word has been identified, the mapping from this to the grammati­ cal word (or morphosyntactic word) is not always one-to-one. Selkirk (1996) argues for a different structure for weak and strong pronouns in English, based on their ability to bear stress. Unstressed weak function words must be cliticized to the phonological word (or ‘Prosodic Word’, PWd), within a higher level of phrasing (here, the Major Phonological Phrase, MaP) as shown in (2), in a recursive prosodic structure which mirrors syntactic structure. Phrase-final function words, on the other hand, are mapped to a PWd and can thus bear stress (Selkirk 1996: 206). (2)

Page 4 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology

The status of affixes in English is subject to debate, and there are different theoretical po­ sitions on how much of the patterning of affixes requires phonological explanation. For example, according to the Sound Pattern of English (Chomsky and Halle 1968), a pair of words like ‘electric’ and ‘electricity’ are related forms, and a rule of ‘velar softening’ is proposed to account for the [k]~[s] alternation between the two words. Other theories ar­ gue that there is no role for phonology in alternations of the type between ‘electric’ and ‘electricity’, which should instead be analysed as separate lexical items (Kaye 1995). A large body of work under the broad heading of Lexical Phonology has sought to account for the range of phonological effects observed when affixes are added to a stem or word in English. For example, some lexical affixes in English induce a stress shift (such as -al), but others do not (such as -ing): (3)

The stress-shift is analysed in Lexical Phonology as due to cyclic application of rules, and the theory further differentiates lexical and postlexical affixes. These different levels of analysis are conceived as cycles in derivational models (Kiparsky 1982b), and as strata in their more recent instantiation within Stratal Optimality Theory (BermúdezOtero 2008). In an early example of the ‘autonomy versus groundedness’ debate, postlexi­ cal rules were reanalysed as Phonetic Implementation Rules which fall outside the gram­ mar (Liberman and Pierrehumbert 1984), but this was rebutted as an over-simplification by Kiparsky (1985: 86ff.) who argued that ‘even gradient application might not suffice to ban a process from the phonology’, since some processes are phonetically gradient but (p. 508)

Page 5 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology appear nevertheless to be perceived as categorical (see e.g., Jansen 2007 on voicing in English).

24.3 Sentence phonology The example in (1) above over-simplifies matters, of course, since we are more likely to perceive the utterance as laid out in (4) below, in which the right edges of potential prosodic phrases are marked with an upwards arrow: (4)

The string of speech is broken up into prosodic ‘chunks’, known variously as phonological phrases, intonation units, or breath groups (Wells 2006), and classified as ‘tonality’ in the British School of intonation (Halliday 1967b). In the examples in (4), there are strong, and probably obligatory, boundaries at the right edge of full clauses (after ‘continuous’ and ‘end’); there is a weaker, probably optional, boundary (after ‘speech’) separating the sub­ ject constituent of the second clause from the verb phrase. Regular constellations of phonological and phonetic (i.e. acoustic) cues are observed at the edges of prosodic phrases. These cues include gradient phonetic effects such as lengthening of the final word in a phrase, as well as more salient categorical cues such as insertion of a pause or use of a particular intonational cue such as a rising or falling pitch contour. Other more subtle cues are also regularly found, such as increased tempo and amplitude (loudness) at the beginning of phrases, but slowing down and reduced amplitude at the end (Crutten­ den 2001). The ‘Prosodic Bootstrapping hypothesis’ (Pinker 2009) claimed that children could make use of regularities in the mapping between syntactic and prosodic constituency to tap in­ to the syntactic structure of the ambient language around them. Although it is indeed the case that infants are sensitive to some aspects of prosody from the earliest stages of lan­ guage acquisition (e.g., Jusczyk et al. 1993), the hypothesis is argued to be overly simplis­ tic, due to high cross-linguistic variability in the syntax-phonology (p. 509) mapping in real language use (Gerken et al. 1994, cf. Venditti et al. 1996). Nevertheless, there are suffi­ cient trends in the alignment of syntactic and prosodic constituency—such as those sketched above in example (4)—to tempt the proposal of ‘rules’ to predict the observed mappings in English (Chomsky and Halle 1968, Halle and Vergnaud 1987), many of which posit a representational layer of phonological constituents known as the Prosodic Hierar­ chy (Nespor and Vogel 1986, Selkirk 1986, 2000, 2011). Crucially, there are mappings which might be expected if phonological phrasing were determined entirely by syntax but which are not observed, and it is these lacunae which call for a ‘grammar’ of the syntaxphonology interface. For example, a well-known case of a phonological effect on syntactic phrasing is the case of Heavy Noun Phrase Shift, whereby a subject or object constituent is more likely to be moved to a peripheral position in the utterance if it is syntactically Page 6 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology complex and/or prosodically heavy (Zec and Inkelas 1990).1 We can see an echo of this ef­ fect in the example in (4), in which the subject of the second sentence can (optionally) be phrased into its own prosodic phrase (denoted by placing the upwards arrow within brackets). In contrast, in most contexts it would be odd to phrase the subject separately if it is short (that is, syntactically less complex and prosodically lighter) as in (5): (5)

Although a break after the subject is possible in (5), it is probably unusual (unless the subject is singled out as a contrastive topic, or in disfluent contexts such as hesitation), suggesting a preference for phrases of a minimal size, other things being equal. The exis­ tence of phonological constraints on the size of prosodic constituents is acknowledged by even the fiercest critics of the Prosodic Hierarchy (Scheer 2011), though there are many proposals in which prosodic constituency is derived entirely from the syntax (Cinque 1993, Zubizaretta 1998, Wagner 2010). Selkirk (2000) models cases in English, analogous to (5), in which prosodic constraints override a direct mapping from syntactic structure, by means of well-formedness constraints on the minimum size of prosodic phrases, within a wider model of variation in phrasing and in the distribution of sentence accents. The impact of top-down syntactic structure has also been shown to affect the fine-grained phonetic realization of individual words. In a study of lexical items in a large longitudinal corpus of New Zealand English, Sóskuthy and Hay (2017) show that those words which happen to occur most often at prosodic phrase edges (and thus undergo phonetic length­ ening) are over time lengthened in all positions (including phrase medially). They thus ar­ gue for an integrated model of language which incorporates a production-perception loop. The existence of such a production-perception (p. 510) loop—whereby we hear what we say, and take account of what we hear—provides a mechanism by which syntax and phonology may routinely interact. With regard to the distribution of prosodic prominences or sentence accents, or ‘tonicity’ in Hallidayan terms, Bolinger (1972) famously asserted that ‘accent is predictable (if you are a mind reader)’. Bolinger was making an important (and often overlooked) point, as there is rarely only one possible (and thus ‘grammatical’) way to produce an utterance. However, there are sufficient tendencies in how speakers do produce utterances, subject always to wider discourse and interactional goals (Wichmann 2000, Walker 2014), to have inspired attempts to derive the position of prosodic prominences from the semantic and/ or syntactic structure (Gussenhoven 1983, Féry and Samek-Lodovici 2006, Kratzer and Selkirk 2007).2 Ladd (2008) argues, however, for the role of phonological representation in modelling patterns of sentence accent distribution, and the argument again comes from the existence of patterns that you will generally not (i.e. rarely) hear, in a particular context, or for speakers of a particular dialect. An example is the case of de-accenting; a

Page 7 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology classic example in English is shown in (6), in which capital letters denote the word which bears the main prosodic prominence (or nuclear accent) in each clause: (6)

In (6a) the second instance of the noun ‘car’ is typically realized without a prosodic prominence, as shown. Katz and Selkirk (2011) show that deaccenting of the second in­ stance of ‘car’ in an example like this is due primarily to the fact that it is given rather than new information (Schwarzschild 1999), rather than by virtue of its position following a contrastive focus. A confound between these two potential triggers of reduced accentu­ al prominence is present in many studies of English focus prosody (e.g., Xu and Xu 2005). The pronunciation in (6b), without de-accenting of the repeated noun ‘car’, is likely to sound odd, or even unacceptable, to English listeners who are speakers of an ‘inner cir­ cle’ variety of English (Kachru 2006). Cruttenden (2006) suggests that de-accenting of given information is not universal, since some languages resist de-accenting in the same context. Ladd (2008) points out a typological divide between Germanic languages, which generally favour de-accenting of given material, and Romance languages, which generally resist de-accenting in the same context. De-accenting of given material is not the norm in all varieties of English, however: de-accenting of given noun phrases is resisted in Black South African English (Swerts and Zerbian 2010) and in other ‘outer circle’ varieties of English such as Indian English (Wiltshire and Harnsberger 2006), as illustrated in the ex­ ample in (7) below (Gumperz 1982, cited in Ladd 2008: 232): (7)

Finally, turning to accounts of Hallidayan ‘tone’, which treats the shape of pitch contours, there are some attempts at a ‘compositional semantics’ of English intonation (Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg 1990, Bartels 1999, Truckenbrodt 2012, cf. Steedman 1991). However, it is not the case that the nature and distribution of possible intonational contours is common to all languages; for example, despite claims to the contrary (Bolinger 1978a), questions do not ‘go up’ in all languages (Rialland 2007), nor do declar­ atives ‘fall’ in all varieties of English (e.g., Grabe et al. 2005, who demonstrate the near ubiquity of rising intonation on declaratives in Belfast English). Since there are combina­ tions of intonational tune (form) and meaning (function) which are unacceptable for some or all English speakers, it follows that there is a grammar of intonational tunes to be de­ scribed for English. (p. 511)

The ‘autonomy versus groundedness’ debate is an acute issue for intonational phonology, due to the interweaving of linguistic and extra-linguistic functions of intonation (Ladd 2008). As noted for postlexical rules above, in sentence phonology we also find cases of Page 8 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology ‘meaningful gradient variation’ (Ladd 2014), in which a phonetically gradient feature is nevertheless perceived as categorical; this is precisely what Ladd and Morton (1997) found in an experimental study on interpretation of variable pitch excursion (scaling) of sentence accents by English listeners as bearing focus (or not).

24.4 Case study: phonology and word classes In this section, we present a more detailed case study of a single phenomenon, namely the treatment of word classes, to consider the role that the segmental content of words plays in their definition and classification (see also Hollmann, this volume). Some of the intersections between word classes and phonology are well known, and in some cases, a word class may be quite regularly associated with a distinctive phonological pattern. For example, stress generalizations for polysyllabic noun-verb pairs (e.g., insight [ˈɪnsaɪt] ver­ sus to incite [ɪnˈsaɪt] show that nouns tend to have syllable-initial stress, whereas verbs tend to have syllable-final stress (see Kreidler 1987, for an extended discussion). Howev­ er, there are many other associations between grammatical classes and phonological structures, which we explore below. The purpose of this case study is to look at how formal-generative and functional-cogni­ tive grammars treat phonological detail, showing that in word class categorizations these theories of grammar have focused almost exclusively on syntax (formal-generative gram­ mars) and semantics (functional-cognitive grammars). These grammars are often taken to be somewhat opposed to each other, and so provide an interesting contrast in how they deal with phonology. Formalist grammars typically define word classes in terms of ab­ stract syntactic features (e.g. Chomsky 1957, Adger 2003) and distributional criteria (e.g., Aarts 2007b). Functional and cognitively-orientated grammars are typically based on semantic properties (e.g. Halliday 2014, Langacker 1987, 1991, 2008a). Before looking at the (p. 512) more theoretical issues concerning the extent to which phonology is part of these grammars, and how grammars handle phonology, we discuss a body of empirical work on phonology and word classes. In line with the focus of previous research, we consider the open/closed-class distinction, noun-verb distinction, and adjectives. We consider evidence for the role of phonology in word class categorization from psycholinguistics and speech production and the extent to which this information has been incorporated into different grammatical frameworks. Typically, theoretical grammars keep syntax and phonology separate, treating them as be­ ing of a ‘very different nature’ (Bromberger and Halle 1989: 52). The same is true for lan­ guage acquisition and how children attain implicit knowledge of grammatical categories, with research emphasizing semantic and syntactic information, at the expense of phonol­ ogy. However, word classes (in particular, noun and verb categories) prove to differ from each other in an unexpected number of phonological ways. In an effort to ‘bridge the gap’ between the formal/functional paradigms, Kelly’s (1992) work argues for lexical categorization in terms of distributional, semantic, and phonological properties. Distributional and syntactic cues play a role in lexical categoriza­ Page 9 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology tion, as shown in classic studies in which children demonstrate the ability to interpret morphophonologically relevant distributional cues in novel words (e.g., Brown 1957, Berko 1958). However, Kelly argues that theoretical linguists have failed to properly ac­ knowledge phonological evidence in theory-building, and, specifically, that they failed to incorporate phonological cues into considerations of word class categorization. There is now a substantial body of experimental evidence pointing to the role that phonological cues play (Kelly and Bock 1988, Sereno and Jongman 1990, Cassidy and Kelly 1991, Kelly 1992, 1996, Shi et al. 1998, Cassidy and Kelly 2001, Durieux and Gillis 2001, Monaghan et al. 2005, Farmer et al. 2006, Don and Erkelens 2008). Hollmann has also argued for the acknowledgement of phonology in this area of research (see Hollmann 2012, and this volume); he identifies three research questions posed by those seeking to explore the grammar-phonology interface in lexical categorization—all of which can be answered in the affirmative (Hollmann 2012: 281): (8)

Most findings in response to such questions are based on the distinction between open word classes (those that readily admit new members, such as nouns, verbs, and (p. 513) adjectives) and closed word classes (those that do not admit new members, such as deter­ miners and prepositions). For example, in English, one phonological feature of the open/ closed-class distinction is manifested in prosodic structure, as already noted. Most openclass words contain at least one strong syllable (containing a full vowel), whereas closedclass words tend to consist of a single, weak syllable (containing a reduced vowel, typical­ ly a schwa). In terms of question (8a) then, Monaghan et al. (2005: 144–5) reviewed the literature to generate the findings presented in Table 24.1, below (see these pages for the original (p. 514) studies which are cited). In these studies, findings are generated from a corpusbased approach, where items in a corpus are analysed in terms of their phonological properties to generate statistical generalizations. Given the wide variability in human speech production across individuals, large amounts of data are needed to form such gen­ eralizations. Corpus linguistic approaches offer a clear methodological affordance here, given the large amount of data they can handle. We provide the whole list here to show the scope of the work and the types of phonological cues that have been investigated. Such information, of course, must be approached critically: the information presents ten­ Page 10 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology dencies in language rather than absolutes, and further empirical work is required to vali­ date the findings both within English (on which the findings are based) and across differ­ ent languages. Nevertheless, the findings point to the fact that phonological information shows distinctive patterns at word class level. The list shows findings related to three dis­ tinctions at word class level: open-closed, lexical-grammatical, and specific word class (nouns, verbs, and adjectives). In the list above, (a) to (d) are word level generalizations and (e) to (o) are syllable level generalizations.

Page 11 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology Table 24.1 Word class-phonology generalizations (adapted from Mon­ aghan et al. 2005: 144–5) #

Generalization

a

Word length in phonemes: open-class words are generally longer than closed-class words. Nouns are generally longer than verbs.

b

Word length in syllables: closed-class words have a minimal number of syllables. Nouns have more syllables than verbs.

c

Presence of stress: words with zero-stress are more likely to be closed-class than open-class.

d

Position of stress: disyllabic words with iambic stress (where the stress falls on the second syllable) are more likely to be verbs, as in [ɪnˈsaɪt]. Words with trochaic stress (where stress falls on the first syllable) are more likely to be nouns, as in [ˈɪn­ saɪt].

e

Onset complexity: open-class words are more likely to have con­ sonant clusters in the onset than closed-class words.

f

Word complexity: open-class words are more likely to have con­ sonant clusters in the onset and codas of all syllables than closed-class words.

g

Proportion of vowel reduction: closed-class words are more like­ ly to feature vowel reduction than open-class words.

h

Reduced first syllable: closed-class words are more likely to fea­ ture vowel reduction on the first syllable.

i

-ed inflection: adjectives are more likely than other word class­ es to end with a syllabified -ed. For example, learned is pro­ nounced [lɛ:ˈnəd] as an adjective but [lɛ:nd] as a verb.

j

Coronals: closed-class words are more likely to contain coronal consonants than open-class words. Coronal consonants are sounds produced with the blade of the tongue raised, as in: /t, d, θ, ð, s, z, ʤ, ʧ, n, l, ɹ/.

Page 12 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology k

Word initial /ð/: closed-class words are more likely to begin with /ð/ than open-class words.

l

Final voicing: if a word finishes in a consonant sound, then this is more likely to be voiced (articulated with the presence of vo­ cal fold vibration) if the word is a noun rather than a verb.

m

Stressed vowel position: vowels occurring in stressed syllables tend to be back vowels in nouns and front vowels in verbs.

n

Vowel position: vowels in nouns tend to be back vowels, and vowels in verbs tend to be front vowels.

o

Vowel height: vowels in nouns tend to be low vowels, and vow­ els in verbs tend to be high vowels.

The generalizations in Table 24.1 suggest that there is a wide variety of evidence linking phonological cues to lexical categorization, certainly in English. Some generalizations are undoubtedly more reliable and stable than others—position of stress in nouns and verbs, for example, is a well-studied phenomenon (e.g., Liberman and Prince 1977, Sherman 1975). It must be noted that although the literature has generally used the term phono­ logical cues, this is taken to be closely aligned with acoustic phonetic cues. The next questions, (8b) and (8c) concern whether hearers can and do use these cues in speech production/perception and in language acquisition. Experimental evidence sug­ gests that the answer to both questions is indeed ‘yes’, which points to a correlation be­ tween lexical categorization, phonological properties, and acoustic phonetic realizations. However, caution must be exercised: most of the studies above use isolated, nonce words as experimental stimuli, which limits the ecological validity of the findings. Further re­ search is needed to establish the role of these cues, and whether acoustic information is exploited as a cue in naturally occurring discourse. In speech production, various studies have demonstrated that correspondences between phonological properties and lexical categorization are systematically observed. For exam­ ple, when given disyllabic nonce words such as ‘ponveen’ (in a slot filled by either a noun or a verb), English speakers tend to adhere to the stress pattern typical of each word class (Baker and Smith 1976, Kelly and Bock 1988). Hollmann (2012, 2013) reports on a series of experiments where participants produced nonce English nouns and verbs and used them in a sentence. Words were then analysed in terms of word length in syllables, mean syllable length in phonemes, final obstruent voicing, frequency of nasal consonants, frontness of the stressed vowel, height of the stressed vowel and presence versus ab­ sence of a final obstruent. Apart from mean syllable length and vowel height, results con­

Page 13 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology firmed that speakers assume different phonological patterns for words they have catego­ rized in different word classes. In speech perception, these correspondences are typically investigated by pre­ senting human participants with nouns and verbs and testing their comprehension. Vari­ ous studies reveal that hearers can classify tokens into their grammatical category quick­ er and more accurately when the words have the prototypical phonological properties of the particular word class (Sereno 1994, Davis and Kelly 1997). Evidence also suggests that children learn phonological cues to lexical categorization by around 4–5 years of age (MacWhinney 1978, Levy 1983, Cassidy and Kelly 1991). Furthermore, Shi et al. (1999) showed that new-born babies can discriminate function words from lexical words, using phonological and acoustic information. (p. 515)

Whilst we have focused on noun-verb and open-closed class distinctions here, research has also demonstrated phonological correlates of adjective categorization. For example, in a study of the position of adjectives on the noun-verb continuum, Berg (2000) reviewed the syntactic, pragmatic, and psycholinguistic evidence, pointing once again to the lack of phonological evidence in previous research. To challenge this, he compared six phonologi­ cal criteria of uninflected nouns, verbs, and (attributive) adjectives in the Centre for Lexi­ cal Information (CELEX) corpus, which comprises nearly eighteen million words. The fol­ lowing criteria were examined: word length in number of syllables; trochaic versus iambic stress pattern in disyllabic words; stressed-vowel fronting; final obstruent voicing and phonological realizations of -ate and -ed endings.3 Across all parameters, apart from cases of tri-syllabic words, adjectives are distributed ‘closer’ to nouns than verbs on a continuum. This, he argues, provides evidence against the ‘equidistance hypothesis’ (Berg 2000: 270) of lexical categorization, which claims that adjectives lie in the middle of the noun-verb continuum (as is typically assumed). Instead, Berg offers a theoretical ‘cross-level harmony constraint’ (2000: 289), where word class categorization cuts ‘across’, and includes information at phonological, morphological, syntactic, and se­ mantic levels. This constraint, Berg argues, is the ideal design of a multilevel system in language. Hollman (2014) develops Berg’s work by adding the following criteria for consideration: mean syllable length in phonemes; nasal consonants; height of the stressed vowel, and presence versus absence of a final obstruent, all of which have been identified as addi­ tional parameters (see Hollmann 2014: 750, and Table 24.1). Hollman uses the British Na­ tional Corpus (BNC), taking advantage of its larger sample size (one hundred million words) and its inclusion of spoken and written language. The results support Berg’s data and add further criticism of the equidistance hypothesis, in that five parameters (word length in number of syllables; number of syllables; front/height of stressed vowel; trocha­ ic versus iambic stress pattern in disyllabic words, and presence versus absence of a final obstruent) reveal that adjectives and nouns are not only phonologically closer (i.e. more similar) than adjectives and verbs, but are statistically indistinguishable. For the parame­ ters of final obstruent voicing and nasal (p. 516) consonants, adjectives were closer to verbs. Speech perception research is yet to investigate how listeners make use of these Page 14 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology patterns (as has been shown for the noun-verb distinction) and this would be a useful av­ enue of future research. The evidence from psycholinguistic, speech perception and production studies suggests that phonological cues are either potentially useful for, or shown to be used in, the task of lexical class categorization, and that phonological generalizations are consistently ob­ served. Taken together then, evidence from speech perception and psycholinguistic ex­ periments provides a strong case for the contribution of phonological factors to word class categorization, at least for open-closed, noun-verb, noun-adjective, and adjectiveverb distinctions. We now turn our attention to how theories of language incorporate phonology into the grammar.

24.5 Incorporating phonology into a grammar In section 24.1 we highlighted the distinction made in the literature between autonomous and grounded phonology, and we revisit this here in exploring to what extent phonology is or can be modelled as part of a grammar. This is a somewhat ambitious task for a short chapter, but we aim to at least sketch the most important ideas and issues, by examining two grammatical paradigms that are typically held in ‘opposition’ to each other: formalgenerative and functional-cognitive.

24.5.1 Formal-generative grammars The objective of phonology in the generative tradition is to describe and account for lan­ guage specific and language universal phenomena such as: phonological units (phonemes, features, segments, feet, syllables), the way that allophones of a given phoneme are deemed to be similar, and variation in realizations of morphemes in differ­ ent syntactic and phonemic contexts. Early work in generative grammar (e.g., Chomsky 1957, 1965) established the standard generative architecture, positing the autonomy of language as a distinct module in the mind, and language-internal modularity, with phonol­ ogy and semantics kept separate, including elements of word class categorization.4 As previously alluded to in section 24.1, Bermúdez-Otero and Honeybone (2006: 555–6) sug­ gest that the ‘autonomy of language’ argument is the chief factor which motivates lin­ guists to keep phonology and grammar/syntax as separate domains, and determines where the dividing line is drawn. The standard architecture of the grammar in generative phonology is the ‘invert­ ed T-model’, shown in Figure 24.1. (p. 517)

Page 15 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology

Figure 24.1 Inverted T-model

Chomsky and Halle’s account of generative phonology makes extensive use of a MACHINE metaphor, describing the modular architecture in terms of ‘computations’, ‘al­ gorithms’, ‘mechanics’, and ‘robotics’ (Chomsky and Halle 1968). The inverted T-model and the MACHINE metaphor present a grammar with morphosyntax as the central sys­ tem, which in language production first concatenates words and clauses before sending the output to two separate modules: phonology (which computes form) and semantics (which computes meaning). A morphosyntactic string undergoes a process of cyclic de­ rivation (or derivation by phase), with grammatical information processed by an invento­ ry of phonological rules. The reverse procedure happens for language perception. As Scheer (2011: 400) explains, the function of autonomous, generative phonology is the ‘translation back and forth between a physical signal and morphosyntactic structure’. Translation is key here, with different linguistic modules each operating as self-sealed systems which pass and translate information to each other. Modularity and derivation are typical hallmarks of strictly generative frameworks and come with various motivating factors. These include the idea that modules possess their own representational vocabulary, undergo linear computations which are input-output systems (i.e. A affects B, but B does not affect A) and, typically, do not permit interfaces between modules (see Scheer 2010: 535–67 for an extended discussion of the advantages of modularity, in terms of language-mind modularity and language-internal modularity). Though not without its detractors (McMahon 2000, Scheer 2010), the dominant paradigm in formal phonological theory since the 1990s has been Optimality Theory (OT, Prince and Smolensky 2004). OT is output-oriented rather than derivational: constraints on the out­ put of the grammar take the place of derivational rules, and the relative ranking of con­ straints replaces the ordering of rules. Nevertheless, phonological analysis in OT is typi­ cally still generative in its aims and scope. The key difference between OT and rule-based paradigms is the status of the input to the grammar. In classical generative phonology, the underlying form of a sound or word must be deduced; the analysis demonstrates the ordering of the rules involved in deriving the surface form from the underlying form (usu­ ally using a worked example, showing the application of each rule in turn to the underly­ ing form). In OT, the input is theoretically indeterminate, due to ‘Richness of the Base’ (discussed further in the examples that follow): an analysis consists of showing which ranking of relevant constraints (p. 518) successfully excludes potential surface forms which are not in fact observed; the analysis is presented in a table, showing on each row how a candidate surface form is evaluated by a set of relevant constraints. Page 16 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology An illustrative example for each approach is shown in (9–10) below. (9a) shows a simple derivational analysis of categorical ‘glottal replacement’ in UK English (Smith and Holmes-Elliott 2017), in which ‘butter’ /bʌtə/ is realized as [bʌʔə] when /t/ occurs foot-in­ ternally between two vowels (or sonorants); (9b) shows the distributionally analogous process of ‘t-flapping’ in US English, which is argued by Iverson and Ahn (2007) to result from the cumulative effects of a phonological rule of Coronal Lenition and a phonetic shortening effect (which they also call ‘flapping’). The simplified tableau in (10) illus­ trates the interaction of a putative markedness constraint (which mitigates against fortis realizations of coronal stops in foot-internal position) with faithfulness to the putative in­ put form (such as IDENT). The choice of input in (10) is used to demonstrate which con­ straint ranking is needed to correctly model the observed surface output, but if the rank­ ing is correct, positing a different input (such as surface-true [bʌʔə]) should still yield the correct result (vacuously). (9)

(10)

Page 17 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology

OT analysts typically model the relationship between only plausible inputs and relevant candidates (i.e. which would violate a constraint that the analyst wishes to deter­ mine the ranking of). The strength of an analysis is thus dependent on the choice of can­ didates, though this can be partially remedied by automated computation (Boersma and Weenink 1992–2018, Hayes et al. 2013). Classical generative phonology relied on Mor­ pheme Structure Conditions (MSC) to account for the ungrammaticality of ‘bnint’ in Eng­ lish (Halle 1959, Chomsky and Halle 1968), but the resulting analysis suffers from redun­ dancy, if word-initial [bn] might be ruled out by some more general phonological rule, and also duplication, if such a rule can be shown to be independently needed (Booij 2011). In (p. 519)

OT the principle of Richness of the Base excludes the existence of constraints on input forms: all surface patterns are claimed to result from the interaction of violable con­ straints, including English listeners’ knowledge that ‘bnint’ is not a possible word in Eng­ lish; differences between languages or dialects in what is a possible word are due to dif­ ferences in ranking of the same set of putatively universal constraints. OT is typically as­ sociated with the assumption that the constraint set is universal, and thus innate and part of Universal Grammar; this is not necessarily entailed by the underpinning logic of OT, however, and proposals exist for mechanisms by which at least some constraints may emerge from use (Bermúdez-Otero and Börjars 2006). This re-framing of the origin of constraints is possible because OT is primarily a theory of computation, not of representa­ tions (Moreton 2004). In OT, the details of representation reside in the precise definition of constraints, and its computational power is as readily weakened by poor practice as any other theory: imprecise definition of constraints and unregulated proposal of highly context-specific constraints have attracted criticism. Finally, because OT is a theory of computation, rather than strictly a theory of phonology, it is applicable to any module of the grammar, and is widely implemented also for syntax. As a result, OT is well-suited for modelling the interaction between different modules of the grammar, since constraints of different types can be treated within the same analysis. Approaches of this type attract fierce criticism from analysts committed to modularity; a specific example is rejection of interface constraints on the mapping between syntactic and prosodic structure (Selkirk 2000, 2011) which violate modularity (Scheer 2008). The computational architecture of OT has been amended by some analysts to allow variable ranking of constraints to model variation (Anttila and Cho 1998), or weighting of con­ straints to model probabilistic phonological generalizations (Hayes and Wilson 2008, Pa­ ter 2009). Page 18 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology

24.5.2 Cognitive-functional grammars Cognitive linguists do not categorize and separate language in terms of modular ‘layers’ of phonology, morphology, and syntax. Instead, a cognitive approach argues that aspects of language exist on a continuum. In cognitive linguistics, this is referred to as the gener­ alization commitment (Evans and Green 2006: 68), which posits that although it can be useful to treat different levels of language separately, it is equally if (p. 520) not more ben­ eficial to investigate how linguistic knowledge emerges from a common set of human cog­ nitive abilities, rather than assuming they exist in autonomous modules of the mind. An obvious practical implication of this is that different areas of linguistic study can be more easily integrated into the same theoretical description. For cognitive linguists working on phonology (e.g. Bybee 2001, Välimaa-Blum 2005, Pier­ rehumbert 2006, Nathan 2008, Mompean 2014), phonemes, syllables (and other higher order units) are abstract schemas, or generalizations, accrued over several instances of sounds which emerge through repeated production and perception. The accrual of schemas in this way reflects the usage-based view of language which cognitive linguists commit to, in which language is construed as a vast and complex network of phonologi­ cal, lexical, and semantic relations. Usage-based phonology, which shares some of the commitments of cognitive linguistics, has made advances in clarifying how phonology may emerge from use (Bybee 2001, Pierrehumbert 2003, Bermúdez-Otero and Börjars 2006). In cognitive phonology, an allophone is a sub-schema of the phonemic superschema, of which there will be prototypical and peripheral members. For example, in the case of the English phoneme /t/, the voiceless alveolar stop [t] is considered as the proto­ type, with other allophones such as taps, aspirated [tʰ], and the glottal stop [ʔ] all periph­ eral members (Mompean 2014: 255). In phonological instantiations of Exemplar Theory, a phonemic representation such as /t/ arises due to clustering of clouds of exemplars stored in episodic memory; these exemplars are phonetically-rich, encoding extra-linguistic in­ dexical or contextual information alongside linguistic or structural information (Pierre­ humbert 2006). These types of model are well-equipped (by design) to handle encoding of the type of ‘meaningful gradient variation’ which Ladd (2014) raises as an issue for phonological theory. The most comprehensive theory of grammar in the cognitive paradigm is Ronald Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar (CG) (Langacker 1987, 1991, 2008a, see also Taylor, this volume). In cognitive linguistics, it remains the grammar which has made the most (al­ though still rather limited) attempts to incorporate phonology into its architecture. CG claims that grammar is symbolic in nature, with a ‘symbol’ defined as the pairing between a semantic unit and a phonological unit (Langacker 2008a: 5). The phonological unit has been neglected in CG, especially by Langacker, and so Lakoff’s claim that ‘cognitive phonology is part of CG’ (1993: 117) is not yet reflected in existing CG research. In Lan­ gackerian CG, the phonological unit includes some schematic phonological information, which is defined and constrained by articulatory movements (e.g., voiced stop) or phono­ tactic patterns (e.g., CVC), which both emerge through usage. Taylor’s (2002) treatment of word-class phenomena within CG is a detailed attempt to incorporate phonology by Page 19 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology identifying four correlations between nouns/verbs and phonological features, all gleaned from the psycholinguistic literature as outlined in section 24.4: (9)

Taylor proposes that combining these four generalizations allows us to build a phonological prototype for NOUN and VERB, based on ‘tendencies not absolute proper­ ties’ (2002: 184), which can be incorporated into CG architecture as ‘sub-schemas’. Subschemas indicate preferred word length, stress patterns and final obstruent voicing, and slot in between the maximally schematic VERB and the fully specified phonology of indi­ vidual verbs. Figure 24.2 shows a VERB schema network, which includes the sub-schemas (p. 521)

gleaned from phonology (in the lower boxes), such as those shown in 9b–d above:

Figure 24.2 A partial schema network for a verb (adapted from Taylor 2002: 184)

24.6 Conclusion In this chapter, we have argued for the importance of phonology as a component of any grammar. We have provided a summary of the evidence which demonstrates the role of phonological constraints in word-formation and in the surface realization of morphosyn­ tactic structures, at the interfaces with morphology and syntax, respectively. We have gone further also in highlighting the claim that phonology has a role in lexical categoriza­ tion, and explored some of the ways in which this information has been modelled into grammatical frameworks. Some grammarians may feel this latter move is a step too far, since incorporating phonology fully into a grammar entails dealing with stochastic gener­ alizations and continuums, rather than tightly defined rules and categories.

Page 20 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology Many of the grammatical frameworks we have discussed in this chapter were developed for the most part through the analysis of English, and a useful avenue of future research will be the application of the different frameworks to a wider variety of languages. Never­ theless, the focus on English has also greatly benefitted the (p. 522) development of lin­ guistic theory (see Carr and Honeybone 2007, for an overview of the specific contribution of work on English to phonological theory). Advances in laboratory phonology, speech technology, and acoustic phonetics are having increasing influence on phonological theo­ ry and can be expected to further illuminate the issues at the grammar-phonology inter­ face we have highlighted here.

Reference Aarts, Bas (2007b). ‘In defence of distributional analysis, pace Croft.’ Studies in Language. 31: 431–43. Anderson, John. M. (2006). ‘Structural analogy and universal grammar.’ Lingua, 116: 601– 33. Anttila, Arto, and Young-mee Yu Cho (1998). ‘Variation and change in optimality theory.’ Lingua, 104, 31–56. Baker, Robert G., and Philip T. Smith (1976). ‘A psycholinguistic study of English stress as­ signment rules.’ Language and Speech, 19: 9–27. Bartels, Christine (1999). The Intonation of English Statements and Questions: A Compo­ sitional Interpretation. New York: Garland. Berg, Thomas (2000). ‘The position of adjectives on the noun–verb continuum.’ English Language and Linguistics, 4, 269–93. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2008). Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, and Kersti Borjars (2006). ‘Markedness in phonology and in syntax: The problem of grounding.’ Lingua, 116: 710–56. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, and Patrick Honeybone (2006). ‘Phonology and syntax: A shift­ ing relationship.’ Lingua, 116: 543–61. Boersma, Paul, and. D. Weenink (1992–2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Ver­ sion 6.0.40) [http://www.praat.org]. Bolinger, Dwight (1972). ‘Accent is predictable (if you’re a mind-reader).’ Language, 48: 633–44. Booij, Geert (2011). ‘Morpheme structure constraints’, in Marc Van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume and Keren Rice (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Ox­ ford: Blackwell. Page 21 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology Brentari, Diane (2011). ‘Sign language phonology’, in John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan C. L. Yu (eds), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 691–721. Bromberger, Sylvain, and Morris Halle (1989). ‘Why phonology is different.’ Linguistic In­ quiry, 20: 51–70. Burton-Roberts, Noel, and Geoffrey Poole (2006). ‘Syntax vs. phonology: A representa­ tional approach to stylistic fronting and verb-second in Icelandic.’ Lingua, 116: 562–600. Carr, Philip, and Patrick Honeybone (2007). ‘English phonology and linguistic theory: An introduction to issues, and to “Issues in English Phonology”.’ Language Sciences, 29: 117–53. Cassidy, Kimberley Wright, and Michael H. Kelly (1991). ‘Phonological information for grammatical category assignments.’ Journal of Memory and Language, 30: 348–69. Cassidy, Kimberley Wright, and Michael H. Kelly (2001). ‘Children’s use of phonology to infer grammatical class in vocabulary learning.’ Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 8: 519– 23. Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo (1993). ‘A null theory of phrase and compound stress.’ Linguistic In­ quiry, 24: 239–97. Cruttenden, Alan (2001). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruttenden, Alan (2006). ‘The de-accenting of given information: a cognitive universal?’, in Bernini, Giuliano and Schwartz, Marcia L. (eds), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 311–56. Cutler, Anne, and Dennis Norris (1988). ‘The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14: 113–21. Davis, S. M., and M. H. Kelly (1997). ‘Knowledge of the English noun–verb stress differ­ ence by native and nonnative speakers.’ Journal of Memory and Language, 36: 445–60. Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth, Brechtje Post, Mathieu Avanzi, Carolin Buthke, Albert Di Cristo, Ingo Feldhausen, Sun-Ah Jun, Philippe Martin, T. Meisenburg, Annie Rialland Raféu Sichel-Bazin and Hi-Yon Yoo (2015). ‘Intonational Phonology of French: Developing a ToBI system for French’, in Pilar Prieto and Sonia Frota (eds), Intonation in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Féry, Caroline, and Vieri Samek-Lodovici (2006). ‘Focus projection and prosodic promi­ nence in nested foci.’ Language, 82: 131–50.

Page 22 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology Gerken, L., P. W. Jusczyk, and D. R. Mandel (1994). ‘When prosody fails to cue syntactic structure: 9-month-olds’ sensitivity to phonological versus syntactic phrases.’ Cognition 51: 237–65. Grabe, Esther, Greg Kochanski, and John Coleman (2005). ‘The intonation of native ac­ cent varieties in the British Isles: Potential for miscommunication?’, in: Katarzyna Dzi­ ubalska-Kolaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka (eds), English Pronunciation Models: A Chang­ ing Scene. Oxford: Peter Lang. Guion, Susan G., J. J. Clark, Tetsuo Harada, and Ratree P. Wayland (2003). ‘Factors affect­ ing stress placement for English nonwords include syllabic structure, lexical class, and stress patterns of phonologically similar words.’ Language and Speech, 46: 403–26. Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gussenhoven, Carlos (1983). On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dor­ drecht: Foris Publications. Halle, Morris (1959). The Sound Pattern of Russian: A Linguistic and Acoustical Investiga­ tion. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud (1987). An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hayes, Bruce, and Colin Wilson (2008). ‘A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning.’ Linguistic Inquiry 39: 379–440. Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar, and Kie Zuraw (2013). OTSoft 2.5, software package, http:// www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/. Iverson, Gregory K., and Sang-Cheol Ahn (2007). ‘English voicing in dimensional theory.’ Language Sciences 29: 247–69. Jansen, Wouter (2007). ‘Phonological ‘voicing’, phonetic voicing, and assimilation in Eng­ lish.’ Language Sciences 29: 270–93. Jusczyk, Peter W., Anne Cutler, and Nancy J. Redanz (1993). ‘Infants’ preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words.’ Child Development 64: 675–87. Kachru, Braj B. (2006). ‘The English language in the outer circle’, in Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds), World Englishes, Volume 3. London: Routledge. Katz, Jonah, and Elizabeth Selkirk (2011). ‘Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English.’ Language 87: 771–816. Kaye, Jonathan (1989). Phonology: A Cognitive View. New Jersey, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Page 23 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology Kaye, Jonathan (1995). ‘Derivations and interfaces’, in Jacques Durand and Francis Katamba (eds), Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations. Harlow: Long­ man. Kenstowicz, Michael (1993). Phonology in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Kiparsky, Paul (1982b). ‘From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology’, in Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith (eds), The Structure of Phonological Representations. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Kratzer, Angelika, and Elizabeth Selkirk (2007). ‘Default phrase stress, prosodic phrasing and the spellout edge: The case of verbs.’ The Linguistic Review 24: 93–135. Kreidler, Charles W. (1987). ‘English word stress: A theory of word-stress patterns in Eng­ lish by Ivan Poldauf and W. R. Lee [Review].’ Language 63: 155–8. Ladd, D. Robert (2008). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ladd, D. Robert (2014). Simultaneous Structure in Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ladd, D. Robert, and Rachel Morton (1997). ‘The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical?’ Journal of Phonetics 25: 313–42. Lakoff, George (1993). ‘Cognitive phonology’, in John Goldsmith (ed), The Last Phonologi­ cal Rule: Reflections on Constraints and Derivations. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 117–45. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I. Theoretical Pre­ requisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II. Descriptive Ap­ plication. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Levy, Yonata (1983). ‘It’s frogs all the way down.’ Cognition 15: 75–93. Liberman, Mark, and Alan Prince (1977). ‘On stress and linguistic rhythm.’ Linguistic In­ quiry 8: 249–336. Liberman, Mark, and Janet Pierrehumbert (1984). ‘Intonational variance under changes in pitch range and length’, in Mark Aronoff and Richard T. Oehrle (eds), Language Sound Structure: Studies in Phonology Presented to Morris Halle by his teacher and students. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. MacWhinney, Brian (1978). ‘The acquisition of morphophonology.’ Monographs of the So­ ciety for Research in Child Development, 1–123.

Page 24 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology Mattys, Sven L., Laurence White, and James F. Melhorn (2005). ‘Integration of multiple segmentation cues: A hierarchical framework.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen­ eral 134: 477–500. McMahon, April (2000). Change, Chance, and Optimality, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mompean, Jose A. (2014). Cognitive Linguistics and Phonology, in Jeannette Littlemore and John Taylor (eds), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 253–276. Moreton, Elliott (2004). ‘Non‐computable functions in optimality theory’, in John J. Mc­ Carthy (ed), Optimality Theory in Phonology: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 141–63. Nathan, Geoffrey S. (2008). Phonology: A Cognitive Grammar Introduction. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publica­ tions. Pater, Joe (2009). ‘Weighted constraints in generative linguistics.’ Cognitive Science 33, 999–1035. Pierrehumbert, Janet (2003). ‘Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology.’ Language and Speech 46: 115–54. Pierrehumbert, Janet (2006). ‘The next toolkit.’ Journal of Phonetics 34: 516–30. Pierrehumbert, Janet, and Julia Hirschberg (1990). ‘The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse.’ Intentions in Communication 271–311. Pierrehumbert, Janet, Mary E. Beckman, and D. R. Ladd (2000). ‘Conceptual foundations of phonology as a laboratory science’, in Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr, and Gerard Docherty (eds), Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press, 273–304. Pinker, Steven (2009). Language Learnability and Language Development [with new com­ mentary by the author]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky (2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. [Revision of Prince and Smolensky (1993).] Oxford: Blackwell. Rialland, Annie (2007). ‘Question prosody: An African perspective’, in Tomas Riad and Carlos Gussenhoven (eds), Tones and Tunes: Typological Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 35–62. Scheer, Tobias (2008). ‘Why the prosodic hierarchy is a diacritic and why the interface must be direct’, in Jutta M. Hartmann, Veronika Hegedüs, and Henk Van Riemsdijk (eds), Page 25 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 145– 193. Scheer, Tobias (2010). ‘Issues in the development of generative phonology’, in Nancy C. Kula, Bert Botma, and Kuniya Nasuukawa (eds), The Bloomsbury Companion to Phonolo­ gy. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 397–446. Scheer, Tobias (2011). A Guide to Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface Theories: How Ex­ tra-phonological Information is Treated in Phonology since Trubetzkoy’s Grenzsignale. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Schwarzschild, Roger (1999). ‘Givenness, avoid F, and other constraints on the placement of accents.’ Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–77. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1986). ‘On derived domains in sentence phonology.’ Phonology Year­ book 3: 371–405. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1996). ‘The prosodic structure of function words’, in James L. Morgan and Katherine Demuth (eds), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 187–213. Selkirk, Elisabeth (2000). ‘The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing’, in Merle Horne (ed), Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 231–61. Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). ‘The syntax-phonology interface’, in John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle and Alan C. L. Yu (eds), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 435–84. Sereno, Joan A. (1994). ‘Phonosyntactics’, in Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols, and John J. Ohala (eds), Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 263–75. Sherman, Donald (1975). ‘Noun-verb stress alternation: an example of the lexical diffu­ sion of sound change in English.’ Linguistics 13: 43–72. Shi, Rushen, James L. Morgan, and Paul Allopenna (1998). ‘Phonological and acoustic bases for earliest grammatical category assignment: A cross-linguistic perspective.’ Jour­ nal of Child Language 25: 169–201. Smith, Jennifer, and Sophie Holmes-Elliott (2017). ‘The unstoppable glottal: Tracking rapid change in an iconic British variable.’ English Language and Linguistics 1–33. Sóskuthy, Márton, and Jennifer Hay (2017). ‘Changing word usage predicts changing word durations in New Zealand English.’ Cognition: International Journal of Cognitive Science 166: 298–313. Steedman, Mark (1991). ‘Structure and intonation.’ Language 67: 260–96.

Page 26 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology Swerts, Marc, and Sabine Zerbian (2010). ‘Prosodic transfer in Black South African Eng­ lish.’ Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010, 100198: 1–4. downloaded from http:// speechprosody2010.illinois.edu/papers/100198.pdf. Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2012). ‘Semantics of intonation.’, in Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger and Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Lan­ guage Meaning 3: 2039–969. Välimaa-Blum, Rütta (2005). Cognitive Phonology in Construction Grammar: Analytic Tools for Students of English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. van der Hulst, Harry (2006). ‘On the parallel organization of linguistic components.’ Lin­ gua 116: 657–88. Venditti, Jennifer J., Sun-Ah Jun, and Mary E. Beckman (1996). ‘Prosodic cues to syntactic and other linguistic structures in Japanese, Korean and English’, in James Morgan, and Katherine Demuth (eds), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Ear­ ly Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 287–311. Wagner, Michael (2010). ‘Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 183–237. Walker, Traci (2014). ‘Form (does not equal) function: The independence of prosody and action.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction 47: 1–16. Wells, J. C. (2006). English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wichmann, Anne (2000). Beginnings, Middles and Ends: Intonation in Text and Discourse. London: Routledge. Wiltshire, Caroline, and James Harnsberger (2006). ‘The influence of Gujarati and Tamil L1s on Indian English: A preliminary study.’ World Englishes 25: 91–1004. Xu, Yi, and Ching X. Xu (2005). ‘Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative into­ nation.’ Journal of Phonetics 33: 159–97. Zec, Draga, and Sharon Inkelas (1990). ‘Prosodically constrained syntax’, in Sharon Inke­ las and Draga Zec (eds), The Syntax-Phonology Connection. Chicago: University of Chica­ go Press, 365–78. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa (1998). Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Notes: (1) See also Kaltenböck, this volume. (2) See also Kaltenböck (this volume, section 22.4). Page 27 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Phonology (3) Hollmann (2014: 750–1) notes that the -ate ending and the -ed ending adjective-verb allomorphy is so rare that they may reveal nothing about word classes in general. He dis­ misses it as a parameter in his 2014 paper. (4) See also Lohndal and Haegeman, this volume.

Sam Hellmuth

Sam Hellmuth is Senior Lecturer in Linguistics in the Department of Language and Linguistic Science at the University of York. Sam earned her MA and PhD at SOAS University of London, and specializes in the study of prosody (stress, rhythm, and in­ tonation), and the modelling of variation in prosody within and between speakers, di­ alects, languages, and contexts, in a laboratory phonology approach (using quantita­ tive and qualitative methods, on both naturally occurring and experimental data). Ian Cushing

Ian Cushing is a lecturer in the Department of Education at Brunel University Lon­ don. He has a broad range of teaching and research interests, including applied cog­ nitive linguistics (especially in educational contexts), critical language policy, and pedagogical grammar. He is the author of Text Analysis and Representation (2018, CUP), Language Change (2019, CUP), and a co-author of How to Teach Grammar (2019, OUP, with B. Aarts and R. Hudson), as well as various journal articles and book chapters.

Page 28 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning

Grammar and Meaning   Ash Asudeh The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region, Semantics Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.1

Abstract and Keywords This paper discusses three aspects of the study of linguistic meaning—lexical semantics, compositional semantics, and pragmatics—and their relation to grammar. Lexical seman­ tics concerns the meanings of words and relations between these meanings, and how these meanings are realized morphosyntactically. Compositional semantics concerns how the meanings of larger grammatical units—phrases, sentences, discourses—are computed from the meanings of their parts, given their grammatical arrangement. Pragmatics con­ cerns the relation between context and meaning, given the knowledge of interlocutors. Each of these aspects of meaning is related to grammatical aspects of linguistic structure (morphology, syntax, prosody), although pragmatics displays weaker strictly grammatical effects than the other two aspects of meaning, for which the relationship with grammar is intrinsic. Keywords: grammar, meaning, lexical semantics, compositional semantics, pragmatics, syntax, morphology

25.1 Introduction THE study of linguistic meaning is normally divided into three fields: lexical semantics, compositional semantics,1 and pragmatics. Lexical semantics studies the meanings of words and relations between these meanings, as well as how these meanings are realized grammatically (i.e., morphosyntactically). Compositional semantics studies how the mean­ ings of larger grammatical units—phrases, sentences, discourses—are built out of the meanings of their parts. Pragmatics studies how speakers enrich meanings contextually and the relation between context and meaning. Each of these aspects of meaning is relat­ ed to grammatical aspects of linguistic structure (morphology, syntax, prosody), although pragmatics generally displays weaker strictly grammatical effects than the other two as­ pects of meaning, for which the relationship with grammar is intrinsic. In this paper, I un­ derstand grammar to be a productive system that characterizes the well-formed (poten­ tially) meaningful units of a language. I do not take a crucial stance on what the minimal meaningful units are or what the precise relationship is between morphology and syntax, Page 1 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning but I will tacitly assume a form of strong lexicalism (Lapointe 1980), such that the mini­ mal units of syntax are words. The terms ‘grammar’ and ‘meaning’ are themselves open to a variety of interpretations, but a thoroughgoing consideration is not possible in this paper. I assume here that ‘gram­ mar’ refers to syntax and that ‘meaning’ refers, on the one hand, to a truth-conditional conception of compositional and lexical semantics and, on the other hand, to how mean­ ings produced by the linguistic system (syntax and semantics) are enriched contextually with knowledge from outside the linguistic system by speakers and hearers (pragmatics). The distinction between these two different aspects of meaning should be obvious in what follows. These decisions reflect my own background and competence, but also the current­ ly predominant viewpoint in theoretical linguistics (see, e.g., Partee 1995 for a lucid intro­ ductory presentation of this view of grammar and meaning from first principles). As such, this seems like a natural starting point for students and researchers wishing to find an overview and an entry point into the literature. Nevertheless, this means that various oth­ er perspectives are not represented here. For example, I do not review morphological contributions to lexical and compositional semantics (see, e.g., Hewson 1972, Bolinger (p. 524)

1977, Leech 2004). Nor do I review theories of lexical semantics and its interaction with compositional semantics which emphasize the cognitive/conceptual underpinnings of meaning, most prominently Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987, 1991, 1999, 2008a, Taylor, this volume). I similarly focus on a particular view of the relationship between lexi­ con and grammar that has received wide currency in various linguistic theories, but set aside other views (see, e.g., Duffley 2014, Jaszczolt 2016).

25.2 Lexical semantics In his recent overview, Geeraerts (2010) lists quite a few kinds of theories of lexical se­ mantics, but I do not seek to endorse any particular one of them here.2 In section 25.2.1, I review two key truth-conditional relations between lexical items. In section 25.2.2, I briefly review some central aspects of the relationship between lexical meaning and grammar.3

25.2.1 Lexical relations In this section, I review two fundamental lexical relations: synonymy and antonymy.

25.2.1.1 Synonymy A standard definition of synonymy is that two lexical items are synonymous if and only if substitution of one for the other in any sentence necessarily preserves truth (p. 525) (Cruse 1986: 88). In other words, for any sentence in which the first lexical item occurs, substitution with the second lexical item necessarily results in a sentence with the same truth conditions. This is a truth-conditional definition of synonymy, which Cruse (1986) calls propositional synonymy, since it depends on truth-conditional equivalence between Page 2 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning propositions modulo substitution of corresponding lexical items. Propositional synonymy can also standardly be understood as mutual entailment: two lexical items α and β are synonymous if and only if every sentence φ which contains α entails and is mutually en­ tailed by the sentence φ′ with β substituted for α (where φ′ is identical to φ except for the substitution of β for α). For example, violin and fiddle are synonyms, according to Cruse (1986: 88), because ‘these are incapable of yielding sentences with different truth val­ ues’. Unfortunately, this is isn’t quite true, for a number of reasons. First, the substitution can­ not occur in any of the standard contexts where substitution breaks down (so-called inten­ sional or opaque contexts; Frege 1892, Carnap 1947, Quine 1956, 1960, Montague 1973), such as clauses embedded under propositional attitude verbs. For example, it is possible for the sentence Kim believes Sandy owns a violin to be true while the sentence Kim be­ lieves Sandy owns a fiddle is false, if Kim doesn’t realize that fiddles are violins. Second, substitution can fail in collocations. For example, Kim plays first fiddle in the orchestra sounds decidedly odd, because the position is called first violin. Third, otherwise synony­ mous words may have different connotations (Geeraerts 2010: 38) or may differ in senti­ ment or expressivity (Potts 2007b). For example, prostitute and whore (on one usage) are arguably synonyms, but the latter expresses more negativity than the former. It may therefore be preferable to adopt a slightly different definition of synonymy that builds on notions of model-theoretic interpretation (see section 25.3.1 below) but eschews substitu­ tion in sentences. For example, violin and fiddle are synonymous in our world because the set of violins is the same as the set of fiddles (nothing is in one set but not the other). This doesn’t capture the complexities of collocations and connotation, but it provides a mini­ mal notion of synonymy which can then be accommodated in theories of those phenome­ na.

25.2.1.2 Antonymy Speakers often have strong and consistent intuitions about oppositeness and even quite young children grasp lexical opposition. In ordinary language, the term antonym is often used very generally for all lexical opposition. But opposition in lexical semantics is nor­ mally considered a more general concept than antonymy; three entire chapters of Cruse (1986) are dedicated to ‘opposites’ but only a fraction of this is specifically about antonymy. One possible definition of antonymy could treat it as the opposite of synonymy (building on the ordinary intuition that antonym and synonym are antonyms) and we could similarly define the relation in terms of entailment, based on the notion of contradiction, where two propositions are contradictory if and only if whenever the first is true the second is false and vice versa. This very strict definition of antonymy could then be given as fol­ lows: Two lexical items α and β are antonymous if and only if every sentence φ which con­ tains α contradicts the sentence φ′ with β substituted for α, (p. 526) where φ′ is identical to φ except for the substitution of β for α. But this is far too strict. Only opposites like dead and alive or true and false would thereby count as antonyms, but surely we want many

Page 3 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning other contrary but not strictly contradictory words to count as antonyms, such as good/ bad, long/short, fast/slow and hot/cold. Cruse (1986: 198–204) therefore reserves the term complementaries for strictly contra­ dictory pairs and follows Lyons (1968: 463–4) in defining antonymy in terms of the follow­ ing properties (Cruse 1986: 204): 1. Antonyms are gradable. For example, something can be very long or not very long. 2. The members of an antonymic pair denote degrees of a scalar property, e.g., in the examples above: goodness,4 length, speed, temperature. 3. Intensification of the members of an antonymic pair moves them further apart on the scale. For example, very hot and very cold are further apart on the scale of tem­ perature than the unmodified adjectives. 4. The members of an antonymic pair do not bisect their domain. For example, it is not a contradiction to say Kim is neither tall nor short. Property 4 goes hand in glove with the following additional property (also see footnote 2 above): 5. There is no definite transition point on the scale such that the opposing member then strictly applies. In other words, antonyms are vague. For example, there is no specific point on the scale of human height that we would say separates tall people from short people (except by arbitrary decree). Thus, gradable, scalar, vague adjectives are paradigmatic antonyms. These semantic properties interact with other aspects of grammar, such as the structure of comparatives and superlatives and adverbial modification of adjectives. There has been considerable work on this since the pioneering modern work of Kennedy (1999, 2007), which itself builds on prior work by Klein (1980, 1982, 1991) and others. As an illustra­ tion of the interaction with adverbial modification, consider the following typology of scales and accompanying examples from Kennedy and McNally (2005: 354–5); the judge­ ments are theirs: (1)

(2)

Page 4 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning

(3)

(4)

(5)

(p. 527)

In all of these, the middle of the scale is indeterminate, though, and context is im­

portant in reducing or eliminating the indeterminacy. Thus, scalar adjectives also interact with pragmatics; for further discussion, see Barker (1992), Kennedy (1999, 2007), and Kennedy and McNally (2005).

25.2.2 Argument structure: the lexicon–grammar interface There are both intra-language and inter-language (typological) generalizations about how lexical meanings correspond to elements in the grammar. For example, if a predicate has two arguments, such that one of them is the entity that is the actor in the action that the verb denotes and the other is the entity acted upon (cf. the macroroles of actor and under­ goer in Role and Reference Grammar; Foley and Van Valin 1984, Van Valin 2005), then in an active sentence we see the following correspondence between these arguments of the predicate and syntactic arguments:5 (6)

A theory of argument structure thus minimally requires three parts: 1. Some representation of the semantic roles of the arguments of a predicate (actor and undergoer above); Page 5 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning 2. Some representation of syntactic grammatical functions (subject and object above); 3. Some representation of the mapping between elements of 1 and elements of 2 (the lines above). Different theories make different choices about these parts. For example, in many theories the elements of 1 are thematic roles (Gruber 1965, Fillmore 1968, Jackendoff 1972) like agent and patient. However, Dowty (1991) has argued that thematic roles are actually cluster concepts (proto-roles), not unitary elements. Turning to the elements of 2, theories make different choices here, too. For example, Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) directly represents grammatical functions like SUBJECT and OBJECT in the syntac­ tic level of functional structure (Bresnan et al. 2016), Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) represents grammatical functions positionally in one or more lists that represent syntactic subcategorization, and so-called Mainstream Generative Grammar (Culicover and Jackendoff 2005), i.e. Principles & Parameters Theory and its direct ances­ tors and descendants (e.g., Chomsky 1965, 1981, 1995), represents grammatical func­ tions positionally in a syntactic tree. Lastly, the mapping itself can be represented in dif­ (p. 528)

ferent ways. For example, in LFG the mapping is a correspondence between separate ele­ ments of a predicate–argument structure and a functional structure, whereas in HPSG the mapping is represented as structure-sharing of elements of an ARG(UMENT)-ST(RUCTURE) list and elements of SUBCAT(EGORIZATION) lists (where this was a single list in earlier versions of the theory and two separate lists in later ver­ sions). There are far too many interesting aspects of the lexicon–grammar interface to adequate­ ly consider here; see Schönefeld in this volume and Wechsler (2015) for recent authorita­ tive overviews. However, a central question about the relationship between grammar and meaning that arises in this context is the following: (7)

In other words, is it theoretically correct 1) to predict structure from lexically stored meanings or 2) to construct the meanings of potentially radically underspecified lexical elements (often called roots in recent versions of the relevant kind of theory) from the structure in which they are instantiated? On the former sort of view, the lexicon is a rich generative component in its own right (among many others, Bresnan 1978, Dowty 1979, Kaplan and Bresnan 1982, Pollard and Sag 1987, Jackendoff 1990, Pustejovsky 1995); these are often called lexicalist theories. On the latter sort of view, the lexicon, to the ex­ tent there is one, consists of syntactically and semantically underspecified elements, which are inserted into highly articulated syntactic structures (e.g., Hale and Keyser 1993, 2002, Borer 1994, 2005a,b, 2013, Ramchand 2008, Lohndal 2014) or constructions (syntactic templates; e.g., Fillmore et al. 1988, Kay and Fillmore 1999, Goldberg 1995, 2006a, Goldberg and Jackendoff 2004, Jackendoff 2002, 2007); these are often called Page 6 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning phrasal or constructional theories and are, to some extent, updates of certain key ideas of Generative Semantics (Lakoff 1965, McCawley 1968a,b). See Spencer (this volume) for an overview of morphological approaches. See Rauh (2010) for a recent discussion of, and further references to, the relationship between meaning and syntactic subcategorization and see Müller and Wechsler (2014, 2015) and Bruening (2018) (as well as the accompa­ nying replies and author’s replies) for further discussion of and further references to lexi­ calist versus constructional/phrasal theories; also see Hilpert (this volume) and Lohndal and Haegeman (this volume). A hybrid sort of theory is offered by Asudeh et al. (2013), using the formal notion of tem­ plates from recent work in Lexical-Functional Grammar (Dalrymple et al. 2004, Asudeh 2012).6 A template is just a named bundle of grammatical information and wherever the template is invoked, the grammatical information is substituted for the template. For ex­ ample, we could define an English agreement template 3sg which states that the subject’s person is 3rd and the subject’s number is singular. The lexical entries for, e.g., smiles and smile would both invoke this template, but respectively as @3sg and ¬ @3sg, which captures the fact that the former is a third-person singular form, whereas the lat­ ter is incompatible with precisely this cell of the relevant agreement paradigm. Templates thus do not increase the power of the grammar but allow cross-lexical general­ izations to be captured, somewhat similarly to types in HPSG (although see Asudeh et al. 2013 on important distinctions between templates and types). Crucially, as argued by Asudeh et al. (2013) and Asudeh and Toivonen (2014), the same templatic information could in principle be associated with a word or a phrase, thus allowing some of the in­ sights of constructional approaches to be captured, but without admitting constructions per se into the theory. For example, building on work by Dalrymple (2001), Asudeh and Toivonen (2014) show how a single template can be defined for English to capture the modificational semantics of relativization and that this template can be associated both with relative pronouns in non-reduced relative clauses (e.g., who in the person who she met) and with the reduced relative clause structure itself (e.g., the person she met), thus allowing the commonalities between the two realizations to be captured without positing either a null relative pronoun or a specific construction for reduced relatives. The tem­ platic approach has been explicitly incorporated into work on argument structure in Asudeh and Giorgolo (2012), Asudeh et al. (2014), and Findlay (2014, 2016).

25.3 Compositional semantics The semantic counterpart to syntactic productivity/creativity is compositionality,7 which is a general semantic procedure for assigning interpretations to novel linguistic (p. 530) ex­ pressions that have no upper bound on their length.8 That is, given a syntactic mecha­ nism for modelling the natural language property of productivity, there must be a seman­ tic correlate for assigning interpretations. This is typically enshrined in the principle of compositionality, often attributed to Frege (perhaps incorrectly; see Janssen 1997): (8) Page 7 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning

The principle, stated as such, does not place substantive constraints on exactly how it should be realized. In practice, there are two principal ways in which it is deployed. Ei­ ther syntax feeds semantics, i.e. semantics interprets the output of syntax in a systematic fashion, or syntax and semantics are built up together. The former kind of theory is often called ‘Logical Form Semantics’ and is typically the default kind of theory assumed by se­ manticists who are influenced by Chomsky’s theory of generative grammar, narrowly con­ strued (e.g., Government and Binding Theory, Principles and Parameters Theory, the Min­ imalist Program; Chomsky 1981, 1986b, 1995). I will call this kind of theory Interpretive Composition. The other kind of theory is more typically associated with semanticists who have sought to further develop the ideas in Montague’s seminal works on formal semantics (Montague 1974) and/or have been influenced by the logical work of Ajdukiewicz (1935), Bar-Hillel (1953), and Lambek (1958). There are various modern manifestations of this thread, but a particularly prominent one is typically referred to broadly as Categorial Grammar, of which there are two main varieties: Combinatory Categorial Grammar (e.g., Ades and Steedman 1982, Steedman 1996, 2000, 2012, Jacobson 1999) and Type-Logical Grammar (Morrill 1994, 2011, Carpenter 1997).9 However, we also see reflexes of the key idea that syntax and semantics are built in tandem in other (p. 531) approaches to the syntax–se­ mantics interface, such as that of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Pollard and Sag 1994, Copestake et al. 2005) and Glue Semantics (Dalrymple 1999). This kind of the­ ory is often referred to as ‘rule-to-rule composition’, in reference to the ‘rule-to-rule hypothesis’ (Bach 1976), because in Montague’s original treatment each syntactic rule of structure building was paired with a semantic rule of interpretation. However, this term is now inaccurate, due to generalizations in the field that removed these pairings of indi­ vidual rules, particularly the type-driven translation of Klein and Sag (1985). I will there­ fore call this kind of theory Parallel Composition. Jacobson (2014) is a (somewhat higher level) introduction to semantics that explicitly compares interpretive and parallel compo­ sition. Interpretive composition and parallel composition are introduced briefly in sections 25.3.3 and 25.3.4, but first I will introduce some very basic model theory (section 25.3.1) and type theory (section 25.3.2), which are the two principal formal foundations of com­ positional semantics. I will use some of the concepts introduced in sections 25.3.1 and 25.3.2 in what follows those sections.

25.3.1 Model theory Much of modern compositional semantics is model-theoretic. To say that a semantic theo­ ry is model-theoretic is to say that statements in the object language (the language being interpreted) are verified against mathematical models that are meant to be representa­ Page 8 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning tions of the entities and relations that expressions in the object language denote. In other words, if we are interested in truth or falsity of sentences of some natural language, we interpret these sentences, and the expressions which make them up, relative to a model. In his seminal work on model-theoretic semantics, Montague experimented with two kinds of model-theoretic interpretation: direct interpretation (Montague 1970) and indi­ rect interpretation (Montague 1973), which can be schematized as follows: (9)

(10)

There have occasionally been attempts in the literature to argue for one mode of interpre­ tation over the other, typically direct interpretation over indirect interpretation,10 essentially based on the observation that the translation mapping itself may be poorly (p. 532) understood. But the truth of the matter is that indirect interpretation is prevalent, because it is normally more expedient to reason about the intervening meaning represen­ tation, which is typically formalized in some appropriate logical language11 than it is to reason about a direct relation between language and a model. Also, for those semanticists who are primarily concerned with the foundational issue of compositionality, the interme­ diate formal meaning representation typically offers a better testing ground for theories. Partee et al. (1993: 200ff.) offer a detailed and formally precise overview of model theory for formal semantics, but here I will present only the very basics. Minimally, a model M for a language is an ordered pair of some domain, D, and a valuation function, V, that as­ signs semantic values to the basic expressions of the language:12 (11)

The fundamental domain D is the domain of individuals/entities. The values of complex ex­ pressions all boil down to functions from the domain of entities to the domain of truth val­ ues, {0, 1}—where 1 is True and 0 is False—and functions on such functions, as well as functions from entities to entities and truth values to truth values.13 Once we move into model-theoretic interpretation, the notion of truth of a sentence S, or more generally interpretation of an expression α, is always with respect to a model M. This can be represented in various ways. The standard notation from Montague Seman­ tics is: Page 9 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning (12)

The brackets, 〚〛, represent the interpretation function on expressions in the object lan­ guage (the language being interpreted). V is the valuation function for basic expressions from (11) above. So for basic expressions, the interpretation function simply returns whatever V does. The kind of model-theoretic interpretation discussed so far is very im­ poverished, because it has no way of interpreting variables. Therefore, it is typical to see interpretation relative to an assignment function: 〚

〛

is the denotation of an expres­

sion α relative to a model M and an assignment function g that assigns values to variables. The model’s valuation function, V, provides the (p. 533) interpretation of constants, where­ as the assignment function, g, provides the interpretation of variables.

25.3.2 Type theory Type theory essentially offers a way to capture semantic well-formedness according to some syntactic calculus over a vocabulary of types. In other words, types are semantic categories and the type system is meant to guarantee that well-defined combinations of types are always semantically well-defined. Since the foundational work of Montague (1973), type theory has often been adopted for natural language semantics due to the fact that it is more expressive than other natural options, such as first-order predicate logic. In standard (first-order) predicate logic, we can only talk about individuals (e.g., Robin), properties of individuals (e.g., sleeps), and relations between individuals (e.g., loves). But natural language abounds in expressions that are more complex than this. For example to say that Robin is similar to Sandy minimally requires that they have some property in common, but first-order predicate logic does not allow us to quantify over properties (‘some property’), only over individuals/entities (Gamut 1991a: 75–7). The minimal type theory that is typically favoured for simple extensional natural language semantics is as follows (Gamut 1991a: 79; Partee et al. 1993: 339–40):14,15 (13)

(14)

Page 10 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning

We thus see that the types and their interpretations are related to elements of the models introduced in section 25.3.1. In order to pump intuitions about what types are, it may be useful to think of complex types as ‘input–output devices’. A complex type 〈a, b〉 basically says, ‘If you give me a thing of type a, I’ll give you a thing of (p. 534) type b’.16 This intu­ ition forms the basis of thinking about types both as functions and as the basis for compu­ tation. (A computer is also an input–output device!).

25.3.3 Interpretive composition Interpretive composition theories assume that semantics interprets the output of syntax. A central exemplar of such a theory is the one developed by Heim and Kratzer (1998) in their influential textbook. In the remainder of this section, I present an example of inter­ pretive semantic composition, adapted from Heim and Kratzer (1998: 15–26). First we need an inventory of possible denotations. This will be as defined in sections 25.3.1 and 25.3.2: the domain of individuals/entities, the domain of truth values, and functions on these domains. We also need denotations for all our lexical items, the basic elements of composition:17 (15)

Lastly, we need rules for interpreting syntactic structures, which we assume are generat­ ed by an independent syntactic component: (16)

Page 11 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning

18

The compositional semantics works as follows for a simple example (based on Heim and Kratzer 1998: 16–20): (p. 535)

(17)

Page 12 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning

Functional application is the fundamental rule by which the function that is the denota­ tion of smokes is applied to (i.e., combines with) its argument, the individual that is the denotation of Kim, which gives the right truth conditions for the sentence Kim smokes.

Page 13 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning In order to know the actual truth value of Kim smokes, we have to know the deno­ tation of smokes in our model. This is a function that can be represented in any number of standard ways (Partee et al. 1993), such as: (p. 536)

(18)

In (18a), the function is represented as a set of pairs. In (18b), it is represented in a stan­ dard graphical format. In (18c), we have a tabular function, which is a good compromise between the set notation and the graphical notation.

25.3.4 Parallel composition Categorial Grammar and other parallel composition theories assume that 1) each lexical item pairs its syntactic category with a semantic interpretation and 2) each syntactic op­ eration is paired with a semantic operation. Therefore, once the syntax is built, the se­ mantics has also been determined, rather than semantics interpreting the output of syn­ tax. The presentation of Categorial Grammar is often quite different from the presenta­ tion of Logical Form Semantics in Heim and Kratzer (1998). However, I will try to main­ tain as much similarity as possible between the presentation in this section and the pre­ sentation in the previous section, in order to maximize comparability. We therefore con­ tinue to adopt the same notational choices as in (15) We also continue to assume the same denotations for Kim and smokes. The lexicon is presented slightly differently in Categorial Grammar, because the whole point of the parallel composition enterprise is to associate syntactic categories directly with their semantic types and interpretations. We follow the presentation of Steedman (1996), except for the notational choices mentioned above: (19)

Page 14 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning

The slash means that smokes is a complex category: the backward slash indicates that smokes takes an argument to its left, an NP, and the result is an S. On the semantic side, the function 〚smokes〛 applies to the argument 〚Kim〛. (p. 537)

This application is captured in the following combinatory rule:

(20)

The rules in (20) have two elements on the left-hand side of the arrow and one on the right-hand side. The forward slash rule in (20a) states that a complex category X/Y can be combined with a category Y to its right (hence forward slash) to yield the result X. Similar­ ly, the backward slash rule in (20b) states that a complex category X\Y can be combined with a category Y to its left (hence backward slash) to yield the result X. In each case, the complex category on the left-hand side of the rule is twinned with an interpretation f, a function, and the result of combining the complex category with the category Y is to apply this function to the interpretation of Y; i.e. f is applied to a, yielding f(a). For example, in English, the combination of a transitive verb with its object would involve the forward slash rule (20a) (because transitive verbs precede their objects), whereas the combina­ tion of a subject with its predicate would involve the backward slash rule (20b) (because predicates follow their subjects). We can then construct the following derivation: (21)

The result is interpreted as before: It is true if and only if the function that is the denota­ tion of smokes maps the individual that is the denotation of Kim to 1. In other words, if Kim indeed smokes, 〚smokes〛 (〚Kim〛) yields 1 (True); otherwise it yields 0 (False). As mentioned above, the key idea in parallel composition is that syntax and semantics are built up together, rather than semantics interpreting the output of syntax. This does not mean that different choices cannot be made about the syntax, though. We have seen a Page 15 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning simple example from Categorial Grammar in (21), but another kind of parallel composi­ tion theory—Glue Semantics (Dalrymple et al. 1993, Dalrymple 1999, 2001, Asudeh 2004, 2005a,b, 2006, 2012, Lev 2007, Kokkonidis 2008, Andrews 2010, Bary and Haug 2011, Lowe 2015a,b, Findlay 2016)—makes a different assumption about the connection be­ tween syntax and semantics.19 The crucial difference is that Categorial Grammar as­ sumes that syntax/grammar is directly responsible for semantic composition, which is a traditional strong assumption derived from Montague Grammar (Jacobson 1999, 2002, Barker and Jacobson 2007). In other words, Categorial Grammar assumes that the syntax of the compositional semantic derivation (proof) is (p. 538) isomorphic to the syntax that generates all and only the well-formed strings of the language (i.e., the syntax of the ob­ ject language, in the standard sense intended by circumlocutions like ‘the syntax of Eng­ lish’). In contrast, Glue Semantics assumes that terms in the compositional semantics are instantiated by the syntax, but that semantic composition is handled by a separate ‘glue logic’ (a fragment of linear logic; Girard 1987) which ‘sticks’ meanings together (i.e., com­ poses them). This allows semantic composition in Glue Semantics to be commutative (i.e, order-insensitive), whereas composition in Categorial Grammar is normally non-commuta­ tive (since syntax is by definition order-sensitive). Commutative composition arguably more accurately and purely captures the nature of functional application, the key opera­ tion of semantic composition (for further discussion, see Asudeh 2012: Chapter 5).

25.4 Pragmatics Pragmatics20 concerns the information conveyed by utterances—that is, particular tokens or uses of a given abstract sentence type (Korta and Perry 2015). For example, consider the following sentence: (22)

This sentence potentially conveys very different information before and after Kim has been served and partaken of pad thai (a dish that typically contains peanuts). If the sen­ tence is uttered beforehand, it may convey the information that Kim should be served something else, or function as a warning to the host, or constitute a conspiratorial sug­ gestion that this may be an effective way to dispatch Kim. If the sentence is uttered after­ wards, it may function as an admonishment to the host or convey the information that an ambulance should be called immediately. Yet, the compositional meaning of the sentence surely has not changed and remains constant whether the sentence is uttered before or after Kim eats the pad thai. This highlights another way of looking at pragmatics: It is the study of the effects of context on meaning. The twin pillars of ‘classical pragmatics’ (Chapman 2011, Korta and Perry 2015) in this sense are Austin’s theory of speech acts (Austin 1975) and Grice’s theory of implicature

Page 16 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning (Grice 1989).21 These will be discussed in the following two sections. Certain more recent developments in pragmatic theory will be discussed in section 25.5 below. (p. 539)

25.4.1 Speech acts

The title of Austin’s book, How to do things with words, gets across very well the central idea behind speech act theory. In communicating propositions, we also perform actions; what these actions are depends in part on lexical choices in the utterance, but also on the speaker’s intentions and on social and cultural factors. We have already seen some exam­ ples of speech acts in the introduction to section 25.4, when I wrote that (22) could func­ tion as a warning or admonishment, given contextual knowledge. Austin originally made a binary distinction between performatives and constatives. The latter convey propositions (i.e., a declarative statement that is capable of being true or false), whereas the former constitute actions, such as promising, warning, declaring, commanding, apologizing, baptising, sentencing, etc. The last two examples illustrate that certain performatives depend on cultural or legal authority under an institutional aegis. Only an ordained priest can perform a baptism, and even then only in certain cir­ cumstances. And only a judge may pass a sentence and only in a court of law. Thus, Aus­ tinian pragmatics places a special emphasis on language in its sociocultural setting. Whereas a constative can be false, Austin held that a failed performative was instead infe­ licitous and proposed felicity conditions for the successful execution of performatives. He divided infelicities into two major classes (Austin 1975: Lecture II): abuses (‘act professed but hollow’) and misfires (‘act purported but void’). For example, if a speaker utters I promise to come to the party without any intention of upholding their promise, then this would count as an abuse for Austin. An example of a misfire would be a wager made but not taken up: If I say I bet you £100 that the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union but you make no acknowledgement of accepting the wager, then a wager has not successfully been made. In the latter part of How to do things with words, Austin abandons the performative/con­ stative dichotomy and instead develops a more general theory of speech acts in terms of three kinds of communicative forces that all utterances have. This is essentially motivated by the fact that an apparently constative sentence can have a performative function, as we have already seen with example (22). On the revised view, an utterance consists of a locutionary act, an illocutionary act, and a perlocutionary act. The locutionary act is the act of uttering a sentence as a form–meaning mapping with some structure mediating the mapping; in other words, the locutionary act consists of a tripartite activity of uttering a sentence of some language, with its proper phonetics–phonology (the part of the locution­ ary act termed the phonetic act), syntax over some lexicon (the phatic act), and semantics (the rhetic act). The illocutionary act is the act of doing something through the utterance of the sentence with the force of a statement, warning, promise, etc; thus, the illocution­ ary act is the closest correspondent of the prior performative category and is at the heart of the part of speech act theory that concerns a speaker’s communicative intentions. This Page 17 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning act is complemented by the perlocutionary act, which is the uptake of the communicative intentions by the addressee(s). (p. 540)

For example, consider an utterance of the following example:

(23)

The locutionary act is the uttering of the sentence (23) The illocutionary force depends on the speaker’s intentions: is it a threat, a warning, or a mere statement of fact? Suppose, the speaker means the latter. Depending on the circumstances, the perlocutionary force may nevertheless be a threat, if the addressee feels threatened by the utterance. Speech act theory was subsequently further developed by Searle, who proposed a set of rules or schemas for capturing speech acts (Searle 1969) and a resulting putatively ex­ haustive taxonomy of speech acts (Searle 1975), which revised Austin’s own proposed taxonomy. Searle’s rules are however not predictive or generative, merely classificatory, and the taxonomy is based only on English and its attendant sociocultural norms, rather than a broader typological survey of languages. Both of these factors could be considered shortcomings from the perspective of linguistic theory. Nevertheless, Austin and Searle’s work on speech acts excited some interest among grammarians, particularly among the Generative Semanticists (Newmeyer 1980, Lakoff 1989, Harris 1993), who argued that speech acts were actually syntactically encoded (see, e.g., Lakoff 1970b, Ross 1970, Sadock 1974), in what Levinson (1983: 247–63) has called the performative hypothesis. At the heart of the performative hypothesis is the claim that every sentence has as part of its underlying structure a highest performative clause, yielding a frame like the following (Levinson 1983: 244): (24)

In an explicit performative the performative verb and possibly other aspects of the struc­ ture are overtly realized, but even an utterance of, e.g., (23) is an implicit performative, more or less equivalent to: (25)

Proponents of this syntactic account of performatives adduced evidence for their position from anaphora, adverbial modification, and other phenomena that, at least at the time, were seen to favour an underlying structure like (24). In sum, the performative hypothe­ sis suggests a very tight relationship between grammar and the aspect of broader, prag­ matic meaning captured by speech acts. Page 18 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning However, it was pointed out early on that this does not seem to give a particularly satisfy­ ing truth-conditional semantics for declarative sentences,22 since it would seem to predict that (26) and (27) are equivalent, contrary to fact (Lewis 1970): (p. 541)

(26)

(27)

My merely uttering (27) renders it true, but not so with (26). Lakoff (1975) responded to these criticisms, but Levinson (1983: 253–4) argues that the overall resulting conception of meaning remains unsatisfactory. The performative hypothesis has largely been aban­ doned as a claim about syntax. However, a related, subtler claim has been offered more recently, starting in work by Krifka (1999, 2001), that there are (typically non-explicit) speech act operators in the compositional semantics.

25.4.2 Implicature In the introduction to section 25.4, I suggested that an utterance of (22) (Kim is allergic to peanuts) could convey the information that Kim should be served something other than pad thai or could convey the information that an ambulance should be called. However, it is clear that (22) does not have as its semantic interpretation either of these propositions. Rather, these propositions are (potentially) implied by the speaker, under certain condi­ tions, and normally inferred by the hearer, given the same conditions. These extra propo­ sitions are what Grice (1975, 1989) called implicatures.23 Grice divided implicatures into two main classes: conventional implicature and conversa­ tional implicature. The latter was further subdivided into particularized and generalized conversational implicature. Given the focus in this section on the role of pragmatics in the relationship between grammar and meaning, it is the conventional implicatures and gen­ eralized conversational implicatures that are of key interest. But in order to see why, it is useful to first consider conversational implicatures more broadly, which also serves as a broad introduction to Grice’s theory. Grice was interested in rational action and construed conversation as a particular, linguis­ tic instance of such activity. He therefore proposed the following ‘rough general principle’ (Grice 1975: 26) that participants in conversation observe and expect each oth­ er to observe. (28)

Page 19 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning

It is important to realize that this is offered as a characterization of rational conversation, not as a prescription for rational conversation (Chapman 2011: 74). Grice proposed that there are four conversational maxims. These maxims, togeth­ er with the CP, yield implicatures. (p. 542)

1. Quality24 (a) Do not say what you believe to be false. (b) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. 2. Quantity (a) Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). (b) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. 3. Relation25 Be relevant. 4. Manner Be perspicuous. (a) Avoid obscurity of expression. (b) Avoid ambiguity. (c) Be brief. (d) Be orderly. Again, despite the imperative mood, these are offered as characteristics, not as prescrip­ tive instructions. Let us look at one of Grice’s examples: (29)

If B is following the CP and the maxims, then they must assume that their reply is rele­ vant. Their reply is only relevant if they believe the garage is possibly open and willing to sell A petrol. So, given the first submaxim of Quality, B’s utterance in (29) implicates or conveys the proposition φ that the garage round the corner is (possibly) open and (possi­ bly) sells petrol. However, this is not what B literally said and if φ turns out to be false, A could not accuse B of having lied (only if in fact there is no garage round the corner).

Page 20 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning This implicature is an example of a particularized conversational implicature (PCI), be­ cause φ arises only in the context of what A said. If A had said, for example, I have a punc­ ture, then B’s utterance would not implicate φ, but rather φ′: The garage round the corner is (possibly) open and (possibly) fixes punctures. This property of contextual (p. 543) vari­ ance means that particularized conversational implicatures cannot easily be claimed to be grammatically encoded. That would be tantamount to claiming that B’s utterance is gen­ erally ambiguous between having the implicatures φ and φ′, but it is clearly not: in one context it implicates φ and not φ′ and in another context it implicates φ′ and not φ. This is further underscored by the property of nondetachability of conversational implicatures: any other way of expressing the information expressed by B in (29) implicates the same proposition, given the same context (Grice 1975, Levinson 1983). For example, if B’s re­ ply to A’s utterance in (29) had been See that corner? If you turn there, you’ll find a garage, B would still implicate φ. But if this is so, particularized conversational implica­ ture cannot have much to do with grammatical encoding, as not even the most fanciful syntactician would attempt to derive See that corner? If you turn there, you’ll find a garage from There is a garage round the corner, or vice versa. In contrast to PCIs, generalized conversational implicatures (GCIs) arise unless there is specific contextual knowledge to the contrary (Levinson 2000: 16) and can thus be thought of as default, defeasible propositions (Levinson 2000: 42ff.). Moreover, GCIs are often associated with specific lexical items and specific logical meanings. For example, the following example leads naturally to a reading of temporal order between the con­ juncts, such that the event described by the first preceded that described by the second: (30)

This seems to follow by the fourth Manner submaxim (‘Be orderly’) (see Grice 1989: Chapter 4 and Levinson 2000: Chapter 1). The GCI is so strong that if we reverse the conjuncts, we nevertheless infer that the cow­ boy rode off into the sunset (on something other than his horse) and then leapt onto his horse: (31)

But the GCI is also partly predictable from grammatically encoded aspects of the seman­ tics, in particular that we have a conjunction of two phrases headed by non-stative verbs. If we conjoin two stative phrases, the two orderings are not distinct—there is no GCI of temporal order: (32)

Page 21 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning (33)

Thus GCIs seem to be at least in part grammatically encoded; e.g., they are predictable from the lexical meaning of the conjunction and and the grammatical features of the con­ juncts. It is conventional implicature (CI) that most strongly demonstrates a connection between grammar and implicature, because grammatical encoding is a definitional (p. 544) aspect of CIs.26 Let us first consider two of Grice’s examples (without endorsing their implica­ tures): (34)

(35)

An utterance of (34) conveys the information φ that the speaker believes there to be a contrast between poverty and honesty (or, that the latter is unexpected given the former). An utterance of (35) conveys the information ψ that the speaker believes that bravery is a consequence of Englishness. Grice (1975, 1989) contended that these are implicatures that arise from the conventional meanings of but and therefore—i.e., what in modern terms we might call some aspect of their lexical meaning. However, he contended that these aspects of the meaning of these words, although always associated with the words, are not part of what is said, i.e. part of their semantics. Rather they are implicatures, but conventional ones that are always asso­ ciated with these words rather than conversational ones subject to contextual variation. That this distinction is at least broadly correct can be demonstrated by considering the interaction of (34) with negation: (36)

A speaker cannot utter (36) to deny that there is a contrast between poverty and honesty, but rather only to deny the truth of one or both conjuncts. Thus, the contribution to com­ positional semantics of but seems to be just that of and. However, it also conventionally implicates contrast. Conventional implicature and generalized conversational implicature can thus be seen as part of Grice’s larger programme of preserving the underlying logicality of the natural language correlates of the logical connectives. The GCI account of temporal or causal readings of and sentences mitigates the need, at least from these sorts of examples, for Page 22 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning positing an ambiguity in the meaning of and such that there is a non-truth-functional lexi­ cal meaning of and in addition to the logical, truth-functional meaning (Carston 2002). Similarly, the conventional implicature treatment of but apparently accounts for its lack of interaction with the logical operation of negation. This feature of conventional implicature would also be explained if CIs were presupposi­ tions (see section 25.5.1) and there have been prominent attempts to unify the two phe­ nomena (e.g., Karttunen and Peters 1979). However, Potts (2005, 2007a,b) has argued persuasively, in a pioneering formalization of CIs, that presupposition and conventional implicature are distinct. The essential reasoning is not hard to grasp: while presupposi­ tions are taken for granted by the speaker—i.e., are a kind of (p. 545) backgrounded infor­ mation—conventional implicatures are not taken for granted but are rather some kind of assertion, albeit a side assertion—i.e., CIs are not a kind of backgrounded information (Potts 2015). I return to presupposition in section 25.5.1. Potts himself avoids some of the controversy surrounding Grice’s own examples of CIs by focusing instead on cases like appositives (37) and expressive adjectives (38) (37)

(38)

In uttering either of (37) the speaker makes the side comment that Trump is a narcissist. In uttering (38) the speaker expresses an attitude about the knife or its sharpness. For Potts, (37) and (38) are thus paradigmatic examples of CIs. Crucially, once again we see that conventional implicatures are at least partially gram­ matically encoded. Appositives require a specific kind of intonational off-setting (repre­ sented orthographically with a comma, hence Potts’s term ‘comma intonation’). And ex­ pressive adjectives are positionally restricted to attributive, nominal-internal position and cannot function predicatively: (39)

This contrast is demonstrated nicely in French, which normally has postnominal attribu­ tive adjectives (40a), but requires expressive adjectives to be prenominal (40b): (40)

Page 23 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning

The adjective maudite when used postnominally only has its literal meaning of ‘cursed’, but when used prenominally has an expressive meaning similar to English expressive damn. In sum, conventional implicature is another example of pragmatic meaning that is grammatically encoded.

25.5 Boundary issues The relationship between grammar and meaning is essential and undeniable, but this does not mean that the boundary between grammatically encoded/conventionalized meaning and non-encoded/unconventionalized meaning is sharp (Szabó 2005). In this section, I review three phenomena whose boundaries have been contested. In doing (p. 546)

so, I hope to illustrate the sorts of issues that render the relationship between grammar and meaning a rich and fruitful topic of continuing investigation. The section concludes with a brief consideration of dynamic semantics, which yields a somewhat different per­ spective on some of these issues.

25.5.1 Presupposition In making an utterance, a speaker invariably takes some information for granted, either because the information has already been established between the speaker and their addressee(s) (it is part of the common ground) or the speaker believes that it can be ac­ commodated by their addressee(s) (added to the common ground). This assumed informa­ tion can be characterized as a set of propositions which are the presuppositions of the speaker’s utterance. Presupposition is intimately tied to the context of the speaker’s ut­ terance, but it is also conventionalized in that there are a large number of presupposition triggers that invariably give rise to predictable presuppositions as part of their conven­ tional meaning. Presupposition thus seems to straddle the boundary between pragmatics (pragmatic presuppositions) and semantics (semantic presuppositions).27 Consider an utterance of the following example without any prior relevant context: (41)

Page 24 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Among the presuppositions of this utterance are: 1. The addressee understands English. 2. The addressee knows who the relevant Kim and Saint are. 3. Kim used to breastfeed Saint. Presuppositions 1 and 2 are pragmatic presuppositions:28 they are general assumptions the speaker is making about the conversation.29 In contrast, presupposition 3 is a seman­ tic presupposition specifically triggered by the aspectual verb stop. It is part of (p. 547) the conventional meaning of stop. If we change the example by replacing stopped with started, presupposition 3 goes away (and is replaced by a presupposition that Kim did not use to breastfeed Saint, since start is also an aspectual verb and presupposition trigger). However, the pragmatic presuppositions 1 and 2 persist. How do we know that presupposition 3 is indeed a presupposition and not just a logical entailment of (41)? First, if the presupposition is false—i.e., it is known that Kim did not use to breastfeed Saint—example (41) is not true, but nor does it seem to be strictly speaking false (Strawson 1950, Heim and Kratzer 1998: Chapter 4). Rather, it seems meaningless. In contrast, if an entailment of (41) is false, (41) itself is necessarily false. For example, if it’s the case that Kim still breastfeeds Saint, then (41) is not true, because (41) entails that Kim does not breastfeed Saint. Second, the presupposition survives cer­ tain embeddings that logical entailments do not, e.g., negation: (42)

The entailment that Kim does not breastfeed Saint no longer holds, but the presupposi­ tion that Kim used to breastfeed Saint still does. This is called presupposition projection or inheritance and raises the following issue in the study of the interaction of presupposi­ tion with grammar: Is it possible to fully characterize and explain the environments from which presuppositions do and do not project? The so-called projection problem was recog­ nized early in the history of generative grammar (Morgan 1969, Langendoen and Savin 1971, Karttunen 1973), but has continued to be of central interest (for an influential re­ cent investigation and further references, see Tonhauser et al. 2013, 2018).

25.5.2 Free enrichment and implicit variables Another debate on whether aspects of meaning are grammatically encoded has centered around examples like the following (see, e.g., Stanley and Szabó 2000, Carston 2004): (43)

(44)

Page 25 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning

If a speaker utters (43) it is probable that they wish to communicate, and succeed in com­ municating, that every bottle from some contextually restricted class of bottles is empty, not that every bottle in the universe is empty. In other words, in order to know whether (43) is true in the intended sense, the hearer needs to know which bottles are contextual­ ly relevant. Stanley and Szabó (2000) call this the problem of quantifier domain restric­ tion (von Fintel 1994), and point out that it is an instance of the broader problem of con­ text dependence, which is how context together with grammar determines the proposi­ tion conveyed by an utterance. (p. 548)

Example (44) demonstrates another instance of the problem. In order to know

whether (44) is true (in the relevant sense), the hearer seems to minimally need to know when and where it was uttered. But things are not quite this straightforward (Carston 2004: 817–18). Suppose Matt and Elinor live within an hour’s drive of each other and have decided to play tennis near Elinor’s in the afternoon, but only if it hasn’t rained re­ cently. Right before Matt is to leave, they skype30 to make final arrangements. Elinor is facing away from the window behind her and has not yet realized that it’s started to pour, but this is visible to Matt in the video. It’s not raining where Matt is. Elinor asks, ‘Are we set to play?’ and Matt replies, ‘It’s raining.’ Clearly, Matt, the speaker, does not mean that it’s raining where he is, the location of the utterance—this is neither true nor relevant— but rather that it’s raining where Elinor is. The question, then, is how context and grammar together determine what proposition has been communicated. This problem was already evident in the semantics of indexicals (like I, you, here, now) and deictics (like this and that), as in influential work by Kaplan (1989) and Stalnaker (1970).31 However, Stanley (2000: 411ff.) has argued that the relevant reading of, e.g., (44) cannot simply be due to a hidden indexical, because the implicit lo­ cation in examples like the following seems to be bound by the quantificational operator, which Stanley (2000) claims indexicals resist (Stanley 2000: 415): (45)

The relevant reading that Stanley (2000) argues cannot arise from an indexical is one in which the ‘the location of the rain co-varies with the location of the cigarettelighting’ (Hall 2008: 429), i.e. Every time John lights a cigarette, it rains at the location and time where he lights the cigarette.32 Stanley and Szabó (2000) and Stanley (2000) argue that resolving the problem of context requires a semantic solution such that there are implicit variables (and binders) in the se­ mantic representation33 rather than eschewing grammatical encoding in favour of a pure­ ly pragmatic resolution. A purely pragmatic account proposes that, for example, the propositional interpretation of (43) requires what are sometimes called (p. 549) unarticu­ lated constituents34 (Perry 1986), meaning material that is not present in the grammatical Page 26 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning encoding of the sentence (its syntax or semantics) but is rather supplied purely pragmati­ cally. It would be as if every bottle in sentences like (43) is always understood as every relevant bottle (but without the word relevant being present in the structure). It is unsurprising, then, that early focus on the pragmatic solution to the problem came from Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986) and its notion of the propositional form of the utterance, which is now more commonly discussed under the rubrics of free enrichment and explicature (Carston 1988, 2002, 2004), although the term free enrich­ ment is sometimes confusingly also used as a general descriptive term for solutions to the problem of context dependence, whether semantic or pragmatic (e.g., Stanley 2002: 163, fn.16). Free enrichment/explicature is quite similar to the notion of impliciture (Bach 1994), but see Bach (2010) on distinctions between the two. The basic idea of free enrich­ ment/explicature is that sentences need to be fleshed out pragmatically (with contextually provided unarticulated constituents) before they can have propositional force. It thus con­ stitutes one sort of pragmatic solution to the problem of context dependence. Stanley (2000) develops the binding argument discussed with respect to (45) above in his argument against pragmatic free enrichment. The basic idea is that if a variable can be operator-bound it is necessarily present in the semantics, i.e. grammatically encoded. This conclusion has been denied by proponents of free enrichment—see, e.g., Bach (2000), Carston (2002, 2004), Recanati (2002),35 and Hall (2008), among others. Hall (2008: 430) even contends that, ‘A serious weakness in the binding argument, though, is that it relies on the stipulation that bound variables cannot be supplied pragmatically, but must be present in logical form.’ However, it must be said that from the perspective of formal semantics it is not clear what it would mean for a bound variable to ‘be supplied pragmatically’, since operator-binding is fundamentally considered a part of composition­ al semantics (Lewis 1970, Montague 1974), indeed as Stanley contends. That is, if we grant Hall her premise, we are fundamentally obliterating the semantics–pragmatics boundary, so nobody interested in maintaining this traditional boundary, as Grice (1989) did, would grant this. Hall’s remark highlights how this entire debate has been undermined by a lack of inde­ pendent linguistic evidence and formal rigour. The proponents of free enrichment (p. 550) have little to gain from proposing an adequate formalization, since they are after all argu­ ing that compositional semantics is not responsible for the phenomenon. But the propo­ nents of the semantic account do owe a full formalization, but offer only a sketch (Stanley 2000, Stanley and Szabó 2000), which undermines the proposal and leaves room for for­ mal doubts (Neale 2000). This is allayed by Elbourne (2016), who is concerned with in­ complete definite descriptions, like the table (Strawson 1950), which raise the same is­ sues as quantifier domain restriction (Neale 1990), since the uniqueness of the incom­ plete definite description is satisfied contextually (i.e., it need not be the case that there is a unique table in the universe for the incomplete description to be used successfully). Elbourne (2016) provides an explicit formal syntax and semantics and an analysis of a fragment of English. Moreover, he provides independent linguistic evidence from ellipsis

Page 27 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning that he argues shows that the implicit variable is a variable over situations, rather than the kind of variable proposed by Stanley and Szabó (2000).

25.5.3 Scalar implicature Another recent boundary conflict has arisen around the phenomenon of scalar implicature, with some claiming that it is grammatically encoded rather than a result of purely pragmatic reasoning. A scalar implicature results when a speaker fails to make an alternative, intuitively stronger assertion, and thereby implicates that the stronger alter­ native is false. For example, an utterance of (46) results in the scalar implicature in (47): (46)

(47)

The speaker could have uttered (46) with all substituted for some, but chose not to. They thereby implicate (47) Scalar implicatures are so-called because they seem to crucially in­ volve a scale, ordered by informativeness/entailment; e.g., 〈all, most, some〉 (Horn 1972, Levinson 1983, Hirschberg 1985). On Gricean reasoning, this is a kind of Quantity impli­ cature (see Potts 2015 for a carefully worked-through example) and some see scalar im­ plicatures as paradigmatic cases of generalized conversational implicatures (Levinson 2000). The alternative, grammatical view of scalar implicature holds that they are in fact part of the semantic meaning of relevant lexical items and are compositionally derived, typically through interaction with a covert exhaustification operator (essentially a covert correlate of only). Consider the following example from Chierchia (2013: 97):36 (p. 551)

(48)

If the or in the first sentence is interpreted inclusively (i.e., such that ϕ or ψ is true if both ϕ and ψ are true), then the second sentence would result in a contradiction. The fact that it doesn’t is taken by proponents of the grammatical view of scalar implicature to show that there is an embedded, or local, scalar implicature in the first sentence, arising from a covert exhaustification operator, which we mark as O following Chierchia (2013); this ren­ ders the disjunction exclusive: (49) Page 28 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning

The meaning of (48) given the exhaustivity operator, is thus equivalent to that of (50) which is not contradictory. (50)

Proponents of the grammatical view have argued that these effects are, in essence, too systematic and predictable, given other features of the grammar, to be the result of stan­ dard Gricean reasoning (see, e.g., Chierchia 2004, 2013, Chierchia et al. 2012). But the theory remains controversial and others have argued that the effects can be explained through more standard pragmatic reasoning (see, e.g., Russell 2006, Geurts 2009, Geurts and van Tiel 2013, Franke 2011). The debate has also resulted in an interesting series of psycholinguistic studies, and commentary on these studies, that seek to empirically bol­ ster either the grammatical explanation (among others, Chemla 2009, Chemla and Spec­ tor 2011, Crnič et al. 2015, Singh et al. 2016) or the standard pragmatic explanation (among others, Geurts and Pouscoulous 2009, Sauerland 2010, van Tiel et al. 2016).

25.5.4 Dynamic semantics Another perspective on these boundary issues comes from dynamic semantics (Kamp 1981, Heim 1983, Groenendijk and Stokhof 1991, Kamp and Reyle 1993), an umbrella term for semantic theories that take the fundamental role of meaning to be information growth (Nouwen et al. 2016). In the dynamic approach, the meaning of a proposition is its capacity to update a context, which is in turn a representation of the entities under dis­ cussion and the information that has thus far been accumulated about them. This con­ trasts with the kinds of theories sketched above, which are static: they concern truth rela­ tive to some given situation and do not model information growth. However, truth-condi­ tional semantics can be recovered from dynamic semantics, so the two approaches are not fundamentally oppositional, although their understanding of (p. 552) compositionality is distinct (Nouwen et al. 2016). Dynamic semantics grew out of the recognition that there are linguistic conditions on the introduction of and subsequent reference to entities in a discourse (Karttunen 1973, 1974). In particular, indefinite and definite noun phrases behave broadly differently: a key role of indefinites is to introduce entities to the dis­ course (discourse referents), whereas a key role of definites is to refer to already estab­ lished discourse referents (Kamp 1981, Heim 1982). In this respect, definites behave simi­ larly to pronouns.37 This also suggests a new way to think about presuppositions associat­ ed with definite descriptions as conditions on the discourse referents that the definites bind to. This in turn suggests that presuppositions may also somehow have to bind to dis­ course referents and are at least partly anaphoric in nature (van der Sandt 1992).

Page 29 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning This means that, from the dynamic perspective, there may be distinct connections be­ tween the three aspects of meaning that we have focused on (lexical, compositional, prag­ matic) and therefore distinct boundaries and boundary issues. In particular, 1) the bound­ ary issues of presupposition and free enrichment discussed above are potentially closely connected in dynamic semantics and 2) the implicit variable-binding on one view of the free enrichment issue may in fact be most profitably understood as a kind of dynamic variable binding (Heim 1990, Groenendijk and Stokhof 1991).38 However, notice that adopting the dynamic perspective does not dispel the issue: if there is some discourse variable that permits dynamic binding, then there is some structural element (implicitly) present, which is still a version of the implicit variable approach and still goes against the free enrichment view. More generally, it is fruitful to think of dynamic semantics as a kind of augmentation of static semantics rather than as a radical alternative (Nouwen et al. 2016). But this cuts both ways: it is unlikely that dynamic semantics could give solutions that are fundamentally distinct from static semantics if the issue is at heart one of al­ legedly otiose representations. Nevertheless, if seen (p. 553) through the distinct lens of dynamic semantics, there is no doubt that the phenomena and problems discussed above would look different and suggest substantively different analyses and solutions.

25.6 Conclusion This paper has surveyed the three key areas of the linguistic study of meaning: lexical se­ mantics, compositional semantics, and pragmatics. All three of these aspects of meaning interact with grammar, the first two uncontroversially so. The third, pragmatics, was clas­ sically viewed as primarily post-grammatical, operating on the output of semantics. How­ ever, this view has been facing challenges for quite some time and continues to do so. The challenges have been mounted both by those who view pragmatics as a crucial part of identifying the proposition expressed, i.e. those who advocate a greater role for pragmat­ ics as inferential reasoning from world knowledge and context, and by those who would not necessarily accept this notion but view certain problems that have historically re­ ceived pragmatic solutions as instead requiring grammatical solutions, i.e. those who ad­ vocate a lesser role for pragmatics.

Reference Ades, Anthony E., and Mark Steedman (1982). ‘On the order of words.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 4(4): 517–58. Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz (1935). ‘Die syntaktische Konnexität.’ Studia Philosophica 1: 1–27. Translated as Ajdukiewicz (1967). Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz (1967). ‘Syntactic connexion’, in McCall Storrs (ed), Polish Logic, 1920–1939. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 207–231. Translation of Ajdukiewicz (1935). Allan, Keith, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds) (2015). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 30 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Allwood, Jens, Lars-Gunnar Andersson, and Östen Dahl (1977). Logic in Linguistics. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Aloni, Maria, and Paul Dekker (eds) (2016). The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Seman­ tics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andrews, Avery D. (2010). ‘Propositional glue and the architecture of LFG.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 33(3): 141–70. Asudeh, Ash (2004). Resumption as Resource Management. Ph.D. thesis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Asudeh, Ash (2005a). ‘Control and semantic resource sensitivity.’ Journal of Linguistics 41: 465–511. Asudeh, Ash (2005b). ‘Relational nouns, pronouns, and resumption.’ Linguistics and Phi­ losophy 28(4): 375–446. Asudeh, Ash (2006). ‘Direct compositionality and the architecture of LFG’, in Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple, and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on Themes by Ronald M. Kaplan. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 363–87. Asudeh, Ash (2012). The Logic of Pronominal Resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Asudeh, Ash, and Gianluca Giorgolo (2012). ‘Flexible composition for optional and de­ rived arguments’, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 64–84. Asudeh, Ash, and Ida Toivonen (2014). ‘With lexical integrity.’ Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 175–86. Asudeh, Ash, Gianluca Giorgolo, and Ida Toivonen (2014). ‘Meaning and valency’, in Miri­ am Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Asudeh, Ash, Mary Dalrymple, and Ida Toivonen (2013). ‘Constructions with lexical in­ tegrity.’ Journal of Language Modelling 1(1): 1–54. Atlas, Jay David (2004). ‘Presupposition’, in Horn and Ward (2004), 29–52. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bach, Emmon (1976). ‘An extension of classical transformational grammar’, in Problems of Linguistic Metatheory, 183–224. Michigan State University. Proceedings of the 1976 Conference. Bach, Kent (1994). ‘Conversational impliciture.’ Mind and Language 9(2): 124–62. Page 31 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Bach, Kent (2000). ‘Quantification, qualification and context: A reply to Stanley and Sz­ abó.’ Mind and Language 15(2–3): 262–83. Bach, Kent (2010). ‘Impliciture vs. explicature: What’s the difference?’, in Belén Soria and Esther Romero (eds), Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 126–37. Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (1953). ‘A quasi-arithmetical notation for syntactic description.’ Lan­ guage 29(1): 47–58. Barker, Chris (1992). ‘The dynamics of vagueness.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 25(1): 1– 36. Barker, Chris, and Pauline Jacobson (eds) (2007). Direct Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bary, Corien, and Dag Haug (2011). ‘Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 4(8): 1–56. Beaver, David I. (1997). ‘Presupposition’, in van Benthem and ter Meulen (1997), 939– 1008. Beaver, David I., and Bart Geurts (2014). ‘Presupposition’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford Univer­ sity, Winter 2014 edn. Borer, Hagit (1994). ‘The projection of arguments’, in Elena Benedicto and Jeffrey Runner (eds), Functional Projections, vol. 17 of University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, 19–47. Borer, Hagit (2013). Taking Form, vol. 3 of Structuring Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bresnan, Joan (1978). ‘A realistic transformational grammar’, in Morris Halle, Joan Bres­ nan, and George A. Miller (eds), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–59. Bruening, Benjamin (2018). ‘The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous.’ Lan­ guage 94(1): 1–42. Carnap, Rudolf (1947). Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Carpenter, Bob (1997). Type-Logical Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carston, Robyn (1988). ‘Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics’, in Ruth M. Kempson (ed), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–81. Page 32 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Carston, Robyn (2000). ‘Explicature and Semantics’, in UCL Working Papers in Linguis­ tics. London: University College London, 1–44. Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communica­ tion. Oxford: Blackwell. Carston, Robyn (2004). ‘Explicature and Semantics’, in Davis and Gillon (2004), 817–45. Revision of Carston (2000). Chapman, Siobhan (2011). Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chemla, Emmanuel (2009). ‘Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 2(2): 1–33. Chemla, Emmanuel, and Benjamin Spector (2011). ‘Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures.’ Journal of Semantics 28(3): 359–400. Chierchia, Gennaro (2004). ‘Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/ pragmatics interface’, in Adriana Belletti (ed), Structures and Beyond, vol. 3 of The Car­ tography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–103. Chierchia, Gennaro (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chierchia, Gennaro, and Sally McConnell-Ginet (2000). Meaning and Grammar: An Intro­ duction to Semantics, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector (2012). ‘The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics’, in Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds) (2012), 2297–332. Copestake, Ann, Dan Flickinger, Carl Pollard, and Ivan A. Sag (2005). ‘Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction.’ Research on Language and Computation 3(4): 281–332. Crnič, Luka, Emmanuel Chemla, and Danny Fox (2015). ‘Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunction.’ Natural Language Semantics 23(4): 271–305. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dalrymple, Mary (ed) (1999). Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dalrymple, Mary (2001). Lexical Functional Grammar. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Dalrymple, Mary, John Lamping, and Vijay Saraswat (1993). ‘LFG Semantics via Con­ straints’, in Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the European ACL, 97–105. European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, University of Utrecht.

Page 33 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, and Tracy Holloway King (2004). ‘Linguistic general­ izations over descriptions’, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 199–208. Davis, Steven (ed) (1991). Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, Steven, and Brendan S. Gillon (eds) (2004). Semantics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dowty, David R. (1991). ‘Thematic proto-roles and argument structure.’ Language 67(3): 547–619. Dowty, David R., Robert E. Wall, and Stanley Peters (1981). Introduction to Montague Se­ mantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Elbourne, Paul D. (2005). Situations and Individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Elbourne, Paul D. (2011). Meaning: A Slim Guide to Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elbourne, Paul D. (2016). ‘Incomplete descriptions and indistinguishable participants.’ Natural Language Semantics 24(1): 1–43. Fellbaum, Christiane (ed) (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fillmore, Charles J. (1976). ‘Frame semantics and the nature of language.’ Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280(1): 20–32. Findlay, Jamie Yates (2014). The Prepositional Passive: A Lexical Functional Account. MA thesis. Oxford: University of Oxford. Findlay, Jamie Yates (2016). ‘Mapping Theory Without Argument Structure.’ Journal of Language Modelling 4(2): 293–338. Fitting, Melvin (2015). ‘Intensional logic’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclo­ pedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford: CSLI, Summer 2015 edn. Franke, Michael (2011). ‘Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 4(1): 1–82. Frege, Gottlob (1892). ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung.’ Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50. Translated as Frege (1952). Gamut, L. T. F. (1991a). Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar, vol. 2 of Logic, Lan­ guage, and Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gamut, L. T. F. (1991b). Introduction to Logic, vol. 1 of Logic, Language, and Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Page 34 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Geach, Peter T. (1962). Reference and Generality: An Examination of Some Medieval and Modern Theories. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 3rd revised edn, 1980. Geurts, Bart (2009). ‘Scalar implicatures and local pragmatics.’ Mind and Language 24(1): 51–79. Geurts, Bart, and Bob van Tiel (2013). ‘Embedded scalars.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 6(9): 1–37. Geurts, Bart, and Nausicaa Pouscoulous (2009). ‘Embedded implicatures?!?’ Semantics and Pragmatics 2(4): 1–34. Girard, Jean-Yves (1987). ‘Linear logic.’ Theoretical Computer Science 50(1): 1–102. Goldberg, Adele E., and Ray Jackendoff (2004). ‘The English resultative as a family of constructions.’ Language 80(3): 532–68. Grice, H. Paul (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof (1991). ‘Dynamic predicate logic.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100. Gruber, Jeffrey S. (1965). Studies in Lexical Relations. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser (1993). ‘On argument structure and the lexical ex­ pression of syntactic relations’, in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53–109. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hall, Alison (2008). ‘Free enrichment or hidden indexicals?’ Mind and Language 23(4): 426–56. Harris, Randy Allen (1993). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heim, Irene (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Heim, Irene (1983). ‘File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness’, in Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use and In­ terpretation of Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 164–90. Reprinted in Portner and Partee (2002: 223–48). Heim, Irene (1990). ‘E-Type pronouns and donkey anaphora.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2): 137–77. Page 35 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Heine, Bernd, and Heiko Narrog (eds) (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analy­ sis, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hewson, John (1972). Article and Noun in English. The Hague: Mouton. Hinzen, Wolfram, Edouard Machery, and Markus Werning (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hirschberg, Julia (1985). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. Ph.D. thesis. Pennsylvania, PA: University of Pennsylvania. Horn, Laurence R. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Ph.D. thesis. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles. Horn, Laurence R., and Gregory Ward (eds) (2004). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. Huang, Yan (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackendoff, Ray S. (2007). Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jacobson, Pauline (1999). ‘Towards a variable-free semantics.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 22(2): 117–84. Jacobson, Pauline (2002). ‘The (Dis)organization of the Grammar: 25 Years.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5–6): 601–26. Jacobson, Pauline (2014). Compositional Semantics: An Introduction to the Syntax/Seman­ tics Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Janssen, Theo M. V. (1997). ‘Compositionality’, in van Benthem and ter Meulen (1997), 417–73. Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (2016). Meaning in Linguistic Interaction: Semantics, Metasemantics, Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kamp, Hans (1981). ‘A theory of truth and semantic representation’, in Jeroen Groe­ nendijk, Theo M. B. Janssen, and Martin Stokhof (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts, 277–322. Kamp, Hans, and Uwe Reyle (1993). From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheo­ retic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Page 36 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Kaplan, David (1989). ‘Demonstratives’, in Joseph Almog, John Perry, and Harvey Wettstein (eds), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 481–563. Karttunen, Lauri (1973). ‘Presuppositions of compound sentences.’ Linguistic Inquiry 4(2): 169–93. Karttunen, Lauri (1974). ‘Presupposition and linguistic context.’ Theoretical Linguistics 1(1): 181–94. Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters (1979). ‘Conventional implicature’, in Choon-Kyu Oh and David A. Dineen (eds), Presupposition, vol. 11 of Syntax and Semantics, 1–56. New York: Academic Press. Kasher, Asa (ed) (1998). Pragmatics, vol. I–VI. New York: Routledge. Kearns, Kate (2011). Semantics, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kennedy, Christopher (1999). Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York: Garland. Kennedy, Christopher (2007). ‘Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and ab­ solute gradable adjectives.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1): 1–45. Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally (2005). ‘Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates.’ Language 81(2): 345–81. Klein, Ewan (1980). ‘A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 4(1): 1–45. Klein, Ewan (1982). ‘The interpretation of adjectival comparatives.’ Journal of Linguistics 18(1): 113–36. Klein, Ewan (1991). ‘Comparatives’, in Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 673–91. Klein, Ewan, and Ivan A. Sag (1985). ‘Type-driven translation.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 8(2): 163–201. Kokkonidis, Miltiadis (2008). ‘First-order glue.’ Journal of Logic, Language and Informa­ tion 17(1): 43–68. Korta, Kepa, and John Perry (2015). ‘Pragmatics’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, Winter 2015 edn. Krifka, Manfred (1999). ‘Quantifying into question acts’, in Tanya Matthews and Devon Strolovitch (eds), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9. Ithaca, NY: CLC Pub­ lications. Page 37 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Krifka, Manfred (2001). ‘Quantifying into question acts.’ Natural Language Semantics 9(1): 1–40. Lakoff, George (1965). On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity. Ph.D. thesis. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Published as Lakoff (1970a). Lakoff, George (1970a). Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lakoff, George (1970b). ‘Linguistics and natural logic.’ Synthese 22(1–2): 151–271. Lakoff, George (1975). ‘Pragmatics in natural logic’, in Edward L. Keenan (ed), Formal Se­ mantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 253–86. Lakoff, Robin (1989). ‘The way we were; Or; the real actual truth about generative se­ mantics: A memoir.’ Journal of Pragmatics 13(6): 939–88. Lambek, Joachim (1958). ‘The mathematics of sentence structure.’ American Mathemati­ cal Monthly 65(3): 154–70. Langendoen, D. Terence, and Harris Savin (1971). ‘The projection problem for presuppo­ sitions’, in Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen (eds), Studies in Linguistic Se­ mantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 373–88. Lapointe, Steven (1980). A Theory of Grammatical Agreement. Ph.D. thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Lappin, Shalom, and Chris Fox (eds) (2015). The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Leech, Geoffrey N. (2004). Meaning and the English Verb, 3rd edn. London: Longman. Lev, Iddo (2007). Packed Computation of Exact Meaning Representations. Ph.D. thesis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, David (1970). ‘General semantics.’ Synthese 22(1–2): 18–67. Lowe, John J. (2015a). ‘Complex predicates: An LFG+Glue analysis.’ Journal of Language Modelling 3(2): 413–62. Lowe, John J. (2015b). Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit: The Syntax and Semantics of Ad­ jectival Verb Forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lyons, John (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Maienborn, Claudia, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds) (2011a). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 1. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Page 38 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Maienborn, Claudia, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds) (2011b). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Maienborn, Claudia, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds) (2012). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. McCawley, James D. (1968a). ‘Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure’, in Bill J. Darden, Charles J. N. Bailey, and Alice Davison (eds), Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 71–80. McCawley, James D. (1968b). ‘The role of semantics in a grammar’, in Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Win­ ston, 124–69. Miller, George A. (1995). ‘WordNet: A lexical database for English.’ Communications of the ACM 38(11): 39–41. Montague, Richard (1970). ‘English as a formal language’, in Bruno Visentini et al. (eds), Linguaggi nella Società e nella Tecnica. Milan: Edizioni di Communità, 189–224. Reprint­ ed in Montague (1974: 188–221). Montague, Richard (1973). ‘The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English’, in Jaakko Hintikka, Julian Moravcsik, and Patrick Suppes (eds), Approaches to Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 221–42. Reprinted in Montague (1974: 247–70). Montague, Richard (1974). Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Edited and with an introduction by Richmond H. Thomason. Morgan, Jerry L. (1969). ‘On the treatment of presupposition in transformational gram­ mar’, in Robert I. Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia M. Green, and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 167–77. Morrill, Glyn V. (1994). Type Logical Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Morrill, Glyn V. (2011). Categorial Grammar: Logical Syntax, Semantics, and Processing. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Müller, Stefan (2018). A Lexicalist Account of Argument Structure: Template-Based Phrasal LFG Approaches and a Lexical HPSG Alternative. Berlin: Language Science Press. Müller, Stefan, and Stephen Wechsler (2014). ‘Lexical approaches to argument structure.’ Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 1–76. Page 39 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Müller, Stefan, and Stephen Wechsler (2015). ‘The lexical-constructional debate’, in Wechsler. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 228–79. Neale, Stephen (1990). Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Neale, Stephen (2000). ‘On being explicit: Comments on Stanley and Szabó, and on Bach.’ Mind and Language 15(2–3): 284–94. Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1980). Linguistic Theory in America. New York: Academic Press. Nouwen, Rick (forthcoming). ‘E-type pronouns: Congressmen, sheep and paychecks’, in Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann, and Thomas Ede Zim­ merman (eds), The Companion to Semantics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Nouwen, Rick, Adrian Brasoveanu, Jan van Eijck, and Albert Visser (2016). ‘Dynamic se­ mantics’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, Winter 2016 edn. Östman, Jan-Ola, and Jef Verschueren (eds) (2016). Handbook of Pragmatics Online. Ams­ terdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/online/hop/. Partee, Barbara H. (1995). ‘Lexical semantics and compositionality’, in Lila R. Gleitman and Mark Liberman (eds), An Invitation to Cognitive Science: Language, vol. 1, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 311–60. Partee, Barbara H., Alice ter Meulen, and Robert E. Wall (1993). Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Perry, John (1986). ‘Thought without representation.’ Supplementary Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 60: 137–51. Portner, Paul, and Barbara H. Partee (eds) (2002). Formal Semantics: The Essential Read­ ings. Oxford: Blackwell. Potts, Christopher (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford Univer­ sity Press. Potts, Christopher (2007a). ‘The centrality of expressive indices.’ Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 255–68. Potts, Christopher (2007b). ‘The Expressive Dimension.’ Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–97. Potts, Christopher (2015). ‘Presupposition and implicature’, in Lappin and Fox (eds), 168– 202. Quine, Willard van Orman (1956). ‘Quantifiers and propositional attitudes.’ Journal of Phi­ losophy 53(5): 177–87.

Page 40 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Quine, Willard van Orman (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ramchand, Gillian, and Charles Reiss (eds) (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic In­ terfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rauh, Gisa (2010). Syntactic Categories: Their Identification and Description in Linguistic Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Recanati, François (2002). ‘Unarticulated constituents.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 25(3): 299–345. Rosch, Eleanor (1975). ‘Cognitive representations of semantic categories.’ Journal of Ex­ perimental Psychology: General 104(3): 192–233. Rosch, Eleanor, and Carolyn B. Mervis (1975). ‘Family resemblances: Studies in the inter­ nal structure of categories.’ Cognitive Psychology 7(4): 573–605. Ross, John R. (1970). ‘On declarative sentences’, in Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company, 222–72. Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam R. L. Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson, and Jan Scheffczyk (2010). FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley, CA: Interna­ tional Computer Science Institute. Distributed with the FrameNet data. Russell, Benjamin (2006). ‘Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures.’ Jour­ nal of Semantics 23(4): 361–82. Sadock, Jerrold M. (1974). Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Acade­ mic Press. Sauerland, Uli (2010). ‘Embedded implicatures and experimental constraints: A reply to Geurts & Pouscoulous and Chemla.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 3(2): 1–13. Searle, John R. (1975). ‘A taxonomy of illocutionary acts’, in Keith Gunderson (ed), Lan­ guage, Mind, and Knowledge, vol. VII of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 344–69. Reprinted in Searle (1979: 1– 29). Simons, Mandy (2006). ‘Foundational issues in presupposition.’ Philosophy Compass 1(4): 357–72. Singh, Raj, Ken Wexler, Andrea Astle-Rahim, Deepthi Kamawar, and Danny Fox (2016). ‘Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: consequences for theories of implicature and child development.’ Natural Language Semantics 24(4): 305–52. Stalnaker, Robert C. (1970). ‘Pragmatics.’ Synthese 22: 272–89.

Page 41 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Stanley, Jason (2000). ‘Context and logical form.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 23(4): 391– 434. Stanley, Jason (2002). ‘Making it articulated.’ Mind and Language 17(1–2): 149–68. Stanley, Jason, and Zoltán Gendler Szabó (2000). ‘On quantifier domain restriction.’ Mind and Language 15(2–3): 219–61. Steedman, Mark (1996). Surface Structure and Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Steedman, Mark (2000). The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Steedman, Mark (2012). Taking Scope: The Natural Semantics of Quantifiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Strawson, Peter F. (1950). ‘On Referring.’ Mind 59(235): 320–44. Szabó, Zoltán Gendler (ed) (2005). Semantics vs. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tonhauser, Judith, David I. Beaver, and Judith Degen (2018). ‘How projective is projective content? Gradience in projectivity and at-issueness.’ Journal of Semantics 35(3): 495–542. Tonhauser, Judith, David I. Beaver, Craige Roberts, and Mandy Simons (2013). ‘Towards a taxonomy of projective content.’ Language 89(1): 66–109. van Benthem, Johan, and Alice ter Meulen (eds) (1997). Handbook of Logic and Language, 1st edn. Amsterdam: North-Holland. van Benthem, Johan, and Alice ter Meulen (eds) (2011). Handbook of Logic and Language, 2nd edn. London: Elsevier. van der Sandt, Rob (1992). ‘Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution.’ Journal of Semantics 9(4): 333–77. van Tiel, Bob, Emiel Van Miltenburg, Natalia Zevakhina, and Bart Geurts (2016). ‘Scalar diversity.’ Journal of Semantics 33(1): 137–75. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (2005). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. von Fintel, Kai (1994). Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Ph.D. thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Wechsler, Stephen (2015). Word Meaning and Syntax: Approaches to the Interface. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press. Williamson, Timothy (1994). Vagueness. New York: Routledge. Page 42 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Wood, Mary McGee (1993). Categorial Grammars. London: Routledge.

Notes: (1) Compositional semantics is often merely called ‘semantics’, but I use the term ‘compo­ sitional’ to contrast this aspect of semantics with lexical semantics. (2) Cruse (1986) is a classic general overview of lexical semantics. Geeraerts (2010) is an ecumenical review of major theories and methodologies in lexical semantics. Wechsler (2015) is an authoritative recent overview of the relationship between lexical semantics and syntax. There are chapters on lexical semantics and argument structure in various handbooks; see footnote 7 below for some suggestions for handbooks on semantics. Two key computational resources for lexical semantics are WordNet (http:// wordnet.princeton.edu; Miller 1995, Fellbaum 1998) and FrameNet (http:// framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu; Fillmore 1976, Ruppenhofer et al. 2010). WordNet is a lexical database, for English, that organizes lexical items into synsets (sets of synonyms) and rep­ resents lexical relations between synsets. FrameNet is a lexical database, for English, of argument structure frames. Versions of both WordNet and FrameNet have also been de­ veloped for various other languages. (3) Another rich and interesting aspect of lexical semantics concerns the challenge of in­ determinacy in lexical meanings, such as problems of ambiguity and polysemy (Cruse 1986, Pustejovsky 1995), vagueness (Williamson 1994, Kennedy 1999, 2007), and whether lexical meanings should be represented as prototypes (Rosch 1975, Rosch and Mervis 1975). These aspects of lexical meanings do have grammatical effects, but they are often subtle and therefore difficult to address within the space constraints of this paper. For a recent overview and further discussion, as well as key references, see Wechsler (2015: Chapter 2). (4) This illustrates that the property in question does not have to be easily definable inde­ pendently or even be strictly measurable. (5) This representation bears a passing resemblance to representations in the Mapping Theory of Lexical-Functional Grammar (for discussion and further references, see Bres­ nan et al. 2016: Chapter 14), but it is intended entirely pre-theoretically. (6) Müller and Wechsler (2014) lump the Asudeh et al. (2013) approach with phrasal/con­ structional approaches, but this is a mistake (Asudeh and Toivonen 2014). Unfortunately, we have perhaps not been clear enough in explaining our hybrid theory, because some misunderstandings persist in Müller (2016b) and Müller (2018), although the latter pro­ vides an expanded and improved discussion of our work and provides much food for thought.

Page 43 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning (7) There are many textbooks and overviews of compositional semantics. For excellent in­ troductory overviews, see Kearns (2011) and Elbourne (2011). Heim and Kratzer (1998) is very influential, but more advanced. Dowty et al. (1981) is the classic advanced introduc­ tion to Montague Semantics. Gamut (1991a) is also an influential advanced introduction to Montague Semantics and its formal prerequisites, as well as to subsequent dynamic se­ mantic approaches, which are discussed briefly in section 25.5.4. For readers particularly interested in dynamic semantics, Kamp and Reyle (1993) remains a key text. Partee et al. (1993) is a comprehensive introduction to the formal tools of compositional semantics. Gamut (1991b) is also an excellent introduction that focuses especially on the logical tools used in formal semantics. Allwood et al. (1977) is a considerably gentler but less comprehensive introduction to logic. Other more advanced introductions to formal se­ mantics include Carpenter (1997), Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet (2000), and Jacobson (2014). Handbooks on semantics include Maienborn et al. (2011a,b, 2012), Hinzen et al. (2012), Lappin and Fox (2015), and Aloni and Dekker (2016). Other handbooks contain considerable relevant material, including van Benthem and ter Meulen (1997, 2011), Ramchand and Reiss (2007), and Heine and Narrog (2015). Portner and Partee (2002) and Davis and Gillon (2004) collect many classic papers in formal semantics and philoso­ phy of language. (8) A common theoretical approach to capturing productivity is recursion, but really it is the empirical phenomenon of grammatical productivity that is strictly relevant here, not how it is formally captured. See Thomas (this volume) and Taylor (this volume) for some further discussion of recursion. (9) Wood (1993) is a good introductory overview of Categorial Grammar. (10) For example, this seems to be part of the argument in Jacobson (2002). (11) Montague himself used intensional logic (Fitting 2015). (12) Different presentations might name the parts of the model differently, but the basic idea is the same. For example, Dowty et al. (1981: 46) use A for what I have called D and F for what I have called V. (13) Note that this is a minimal, extensional model theory. In order to capture intensional phenomena, such as modality and propositional attitudes, a common move is to add a set of possible worlds, W, to the model. (14) The type e is the type for entities and the type t is the type for truth values. (15) In order to handle intensions, it is common to include a type w for possible worlds (see footnote 13). In Montague’s foundational treatment, the type s is used to create in­ tensional types; e.g., 〈s, 〈e, t〉〉 is the intensional type for properties. However, the type s is only introduced by Montague in a complex type definition similar to clause (13c); s is not a base type in the system of Montague (1973).

Page 44 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning (16) Consequently, complex types are often alternatively represented as (a → b), with outer parentheses typically left out. This makes the computational (input/output) nature of types more evident, but is somewhat more cumbersome for larger types. (17) Heim and Kratzer (1998) adopt the convention that expressions of the object lan­ guage are written in bold. (18) In other words, as determined by the semantic types of β and γ; this is the notion of type-driven translation referred to above (Klein and Sag 1985). (19) See Asudeh (2006) for a discussion of Glue Semantics versus Logical Form Semantics and Categorial Semantics in light of questions of compositionality. (20) The classic overview is Levinson (1983). A somewhat gentler but correspondingly less comprehensive introduction is Chapman (2011). Handbooks on pragmatics include Horn and Ward (2004), Huang (2017), Allan and Jaszczolt (2015), and Östman and Verschueren (2016). Davis (1991) is an excellent collection of original papers in pragmatics. Kasher (1998) is a mammoth multi-volume collection of papers and offers a very catholic selec­ tion. The classical works of Austin (1975) and Grice (1989) are deep, but not inaccessible. (21) The dates on these publications belie the much earlier genesis (in the 1940s and 1950s) and circulation (most notably in prominent lectures in the 1950s and 1960s) of these ideas. (22) In fact, Austin (1975: Lecture V) himself seemed to express wariness about any at­ tempt to codify performatives in a grammatical form and consequently does not formulate anything like the performative hypothesis explicitly. (23) Implicatures are distinct from entailments, because the latter necessarily follow from the truth of a proposition, whereas implicatures are merely implied through the use of a proposition by a speaker. For example, implicatures can be cancelled felicitously, but can­ celling an entailment leads to contradiction. (24) Grice (1975: 27) also proposes a Quality ‘supermaxim’: ‘Try to make your contribu­ tion one that is true’. (25) This maxim is also often called Relevance. Although it is the inspiration for Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986, Wilson and Sperber 2012), the notion of relevance in the two theories should not be conflated. (26) I follow Potts (2005) and much subsequent literature in using ‘CI(s)’ as the abbrevia­ tion for ‘conventional implicature(s)’, despite the unfortunate fact that it would equally well abbreviate ‘conversational implicature(s)’. (27) Presupposition is a huge topic in its own right. Overview articles on the topic include Beaver (1997), and Beaver and Geurts (2014), Atlas (2004), Simons (2006), and Potts (2015). Page 45 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning (28) A reviewer points out that presupposition 2 could equally be considered a semantic presupposition triggered by the proper names, but knowing which Kim and Saint are rele­ vant strikes me as more than is strictly warranted by the normal existential presupposi­ tion triggered by proper names, which in this case would merely be that Kim and Saint exist. Therefore, as presented, it seems fair to characterize 2 as a pragmatic presupposi­ tion. But this discussion, if nothing else, is further evidence that presupposition is a chal­ lenging boundary phenomenon between semantics and pragmatics! (29) Indeed, it could be argued that Grice’s Cooperative Principle is itself a pragmatic pre­ supposition, to the extent that a speaker assumes that the addressee would normally as­ sume that the speaker is following the CP. (30) Other video chat tools are available. (31) The publication dates are misleading: Kaplan’s work was more or less contemporane­ ous with Stalnaker’s. (32) It could be pointed out that the following sentence with an overt location indexical seems to allow a reading either identical to or very similar to the bound reading: (i) Every time John lights a cigarette, it rains there. This seems to cast some doubt on Stanley’s argument, but mainly highlights the need for independent linguistic evidence/motivation for the presence of a phonologically null oper­ ator that binds a location variable. (33) Stanley and Szabó (200: 231ff.) also consider, but reject, syntactic solutions, in which there is more than just a variable in the linguistic structure, but rather elided lexical ma­ terial, as in e.g. Every bottle [that I just bought] is empty. (34) This is a truly unfortunate choice of terminology, since it could easily be mistaken for a constituent that is present in the syntax but unpronounced (i.e. what is often called syn­ tactic ellipsis, routinely posited in certain theories), which is the very thing that the term seeks to avoid; see footnote 33. (35) Martí (2006) offers a counter-argument to Recanati (2002), claiming that a different formal treatment of variables renders free enrichment unnecessary. However, this argu­ ment seems to be a kind of parsimony argument that rests on understanding free enrich­ ment as an additional process. It is unlikely that proponents of free enrichment would grant that premise, since they would contend that their overall approach is more parsimo­ nious in positing less syntactic and semantic machinery. Even Stanley and Szabó, who seek to reject the pragmatic solution to the problem of quantifier domain restriction, i.e. free enrichment, grant that ‘The obvious advantage [of the pragmatic approach] is that one can propose a syntax and semantics for sentences containing quantifiers that is ex­ tremely simple and does not involve covert expressions or covert semantic values’ (Stanley and Szabó 2000).

Page 46 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Meaning (36) It is useful for what follows to bear in mind the distinction between inclusive and ex­ clusive or. ϕ or ψ, where or is interpreted inclusively, is true if and only if ϕ is true or ψ is true, including the case where they are both true. ϕ or ψ, where or is interpreted exclu­ sively, is true if and only if ϕ is true and ψ is false or else ϕ is false and ψ is true, thus ex­ cluding the case where they are both true. (37) Caution should be taken here. Similarity of behaviour does not necessarily entail that pronouns in fact are (hidden) definite descriptions. The latter view, though still controver­ sial and far from universal, is indeed a long-standing and well-defended view in the phi­ losophy of language and linguistics, but is a stronger claim than the mere observation of similarities of behaviour. See Elbourne (2005) for a thorough defence of the stronger claim and further references. See Nouwen (forthcoming) for further discussion and a dy­ namic semantics defence of the weaker, non-conflationory claim that pronouns can be­ have like definite description without literally being disguised descriptions. (38) A reviewer suggests that the implicit variable in (45) above (Every time John lights a cigarette, it rains) is a kind of donkey pronoun, which have received a lot of attention in both dynamic and non-dynamic semantics (Geach 1962, Groenendijk and Stokhof 1991, Heim 1990, Elbourne 2005): (i) Every farmer who owns a donkey feeds it. Here the interaction between the indefinite (a donkey) and the pronoun (it) is such that it has universal force, despite appearances (i.e., the sentence is true if and only if the rele­ vant farmers all feed all their donkeys). It may well be that the mechanism involved on the implicit variable-binding view is whatever mechanism is involved in interpreting donkey pronouns (see Elbourne 2005 for a thorough overview and references and Nouwen, forth­ coming, for a recent reappraisal). But notice that the essential problem remains how a cigarette binds a locational variable, which it could not otherwise do. This is quite distinct from what is happening in (i), where we have exceptional binding of a pronoun it which could otherwise corefer to or be bound by a donkey.

Ash Asudeh

Ash Asudeh is a Professor in the Department of Linguistics and the Director of the Center for Language Sciences at the University of Rochester. He has held positions at Carleton University, in the Institute of Cognitive Science, and at Oxford University, where he was Professor of Semantics in the Faculty of Linguistics, Philology, and Phonetics and a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College. His research interests in­ clude syntax, semantics, pragmatics, language and logic, and cognitive science. He has published extensively on the syntax–semantics interface, particularly in the frameworks of Lexical Functional Grammar and Glue Semantics.

Page 47 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse

Grammar and Discourse   Jill Bowie and Gergana Popova The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.8

Abstract and Keywords This chapter reviews the relationship between grammar and discourse in English from three different perspectives. First, it focuses on the challenges for grammatical analysis of looking beyond the sentence to the level of discourse. These include difficulties in de­ limiting grammatical units, in analysing ellipsis, and in accounting for the clause frag­ ments found frequently in spoken interaction. The second perspective, that of the dis­ course analysis tradition, concerns how particular grammatical choices help to shape dis­ course so that different ideologies are suggested or different attitudes expressed. The dis­ cussion here focuses on choices in the areas of transitivity, nominalization, modality, and stance. From the third perspective, language use in discourse can be seen as shaping grammar: frequent patterns of use can result in grammatical changes and in the develop­ ment of new functional resources through grammaticalization processes. This is illustrat­ ed with examples from both spoken and written discourse. Keywords: discourse, grammar, ellipsis, clause fragments, spoken interaction, transitivity, nominalization, modali­ ty, stance, grammaticalization

26.1 Introduction IN this chapter we review the relationship between grammar and discourse. A discussion of this kind needs to elaborate both the notion of ‘grammar’ and the notion of ‘discourse’ itself. We will assume simply that grammar refers to regularities of linguistic structure (typically morphological and syntactic). Discourse has a range of definitions. Here we will present those that seem most relevant for our discussion. The term ‘discourse’ can be used to refer to regularities of language above the level of the sentence, i.e. regularities and patterns in the construction of spoken or written texts. It can also refer to the gener­ al domain of language use and interaction in various contexts and modalities. ‘Discourse’ can also be used to refer to ‘representations’, i.e. how entities and events are represented in language in some particular situation of use, what perspectives, viewpoints, and ideolo­

Page 1 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse gies are expressed in particular texts in particular situations of use (for more detailed dis­ cussion see, for example, Gee (2018: 20–1)). Just as there are a number of ways of viewing discourse, there are a number of ways of exploring the relationship between discourse and grammar. We can test our grammatical models against actual language used in actual communicative situations, interrogating discourse to see how it exhibits speakers’ knowledge of grammar. We can ask whether our grammatical models should or can include the level beyond the sentence. We explore this in section 26.2. Another way of approaching the relationship is to enquire what role different grammatical choices play in specific situations of language use, i.e. how gram­ matical choices align with communicative aims and intentions. One aspect of this ques­ tion relates to how grammatical choices can support a particular representation of reality, or help build a particular perspective, viewpoint, or ideology. We discuss this in section 26.3. Yet another perspective is to explore how language use, that is, the production of texts in a range of situations, can drive changes (p. 555) in the grammatical system, i.e. we can approach the relationship from the point of view of language change or grammati­ calization. We take this perspective in section 26.4. It is important to point out that discussions of grammar and discourse are often linked to particular theoretical conceptualizations of language structure. Cumming et al. (2006), for example, focus their discussion of grammar and discourse on the so-called discoursefunctional approaches to grammar, which view grammar as fluid, constantly changing in response to the communicative needs of the language user, and ultimately emerging from discourse. In a similar vein, Hopper (2012) outlines the basic properties of his emergent grammar approach in contradistinction to what he calls ‘fixed-code’, or formal grammar. Whereas the former traces language design ultimately to its functions, the latter sees it as autonomous of use. Functional approaches give priority to usage data, where fixedcode grammars mostly rely on introspection. Functional approaches take into account and consider important the larger context of use; formal (generative) approaches focus on the sentential level and consider sentence structure an independent domain. Whereas for the formal approaches grammar exists a priori and is deployed in discourse, for emer­ gent or usage-based approaches grammar comes into being in discourse, in interaction. Most of the approaches that concern themselves with discourse are therefore functional­ ist and usage-based in orientation.1 We refer to a number of them in the following sec­ tions.

26.2 Grammar beyond the sentence Standard grammatical analyses tend to focus on the written ideal of a sentence, taken as comprising a complete main clause or a coordination of main clauses (where a main clause may or may not contain an embedded subordinate clause as a component). The do­ main of grammar is usually held not to apply beyond the sentence. For instance, Huddle­ ston and Pullum (2002: 44) write: ‘The sentence is the largest unit of syntax … the study of the relations between sentences within a larger text or discourse falls outside the do­ Page 2 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse main of grammar. Such relations are different in kind from those that obtain within a sen­ tence’. However, while there are good grounds for distinguishing the domains of grammar and discourse, the boundary between them is not always clear-cut. In this section, we will look at some of the problems encountered in drawing the boundary, and consider what grammarians can learn from looking at the way grammar is deployed in building dis­ course. First, in section 26.2.1, we will look at how grammatical resources contribute to making a text ‘coherent’, a central topic in text linguistics, which has focused mainly on written texts. Then, in the remainder of section 26.2, we will turn to interactive spoken discourse, as this poses the greatest challenges for grammatical analysis. (p. 556)

26.2.1 Grammar and text coherence

While syntactic principles determine what is a structurally well-formed sentence, it is generally agreed that the ‘well-formedness’ of a discourse or text is mainly to do with its ‘coherence’ (e.g., Sanders and Sanders 2006): the connectedness between parts of text which makes for a unified whole. This involves global constraints such as relevance, in contrast to the local constraints imposed by syntax (Ariel 2009). The connectedness of text has been an important topic in the field of text linguistics (e.g., de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981, Sanders and Pander Maat 2006) and within functional approaches which concern themselves with text analysis, notably Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar (e.g., Halliday 1985, 2014; see Mackenzie, this volume). Connec­ tions between textual elements may be explicitly marked by linguistic forms, but can also be left implicit, requiring inference to make the connection. Consider (1): (1)

We are likely to infer from this sequence of sentences that it was the accident described in the first sentence that caused Sam’s collarbone to break, even though the causal rela­ tionship is not explicitly expressed (it could have been expressed, for instance, by adding as a result to the second sentence). Because connections between textual elements are often implicit rather than explicitly ex­ pressed, it has become widely accepted that coherence is more appropriately viewed as a cognitive phenomenon than as an inherent property of a text: ‘Language users establish coherence by relating the different information units in the text’ (Sanders and Sanders 2006: 599). The use of explicit linguistic devices to indicate connectedness is often la­ belled ‘cohesion’ in distinction from coherence as a cognitive phenomenon. An early, sem­ inal work on this topic is Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesion in English (1976), which consid­ ers how grammatical (as well as lexical) resources are used to contribute to cohesion. The grammatical resources surveyed include anaphora, conjunction, ellipsis, and substitution. Quirk et al. (1985) include in their English grammar a chapter ‘From sentence to text’, Page 3 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse which focuses on the contribution to textual cohesion made by a broad range of grammat­ ical devices (also including, for instance, adverbials, tense, and aspect). As an example of the cohesive role played by grammatical resources, consider the use of anaphora in (2), a paragraph from a personal letter. The source of the example is ICE-GB, the British component of the International Corpus of English (Nelson et al. 2002), which comprises one million words of British English from the early 1990s. (2)

Referential continuity contributes to the cohesion of this passage. For example, his in the second (orthographic) sentence and he in the third are anaphors which relate back to the antecedent Paul in the first sentence. That in the second sentence is also inter­ (p. 557)

preted anaphorically as referring to Paul’s decision, described in the first sentence. As noted by Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1454, 1456), many kinds of anaphoric relation can hold both within and across sentences—including various kinds of ellipsis which can also be treated as anaphoric relations. For instance, there is an anaphoric gap in the first sentence of (2) following not to which relates back to the antecedent come out this week­ end (we understand ‘Paul has decided not to come out this weekend now’). This can be compared with a parallel example where the same kind of relationship holds across a sen­ tence boundary, as in (3)—or indeed, if we extend our discussion to dialogue, across dif­ ferent speakers, as in (4): (3)

(4)

The fact that such relations hold both within and across sentences creates some difficul­ ties in drawing the boundary between grammar and discourse, as pointed out by Ariel (2009). A further issue is that delimiting the sentence as a syntactic unit is in fact ‘quite problematic’, as noted by Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1728) in their chapter on punc­ tuation. For instance, clausal coordination need not be marked by any formal device. Con­ sider their example, reproduced in (5): (5) Page 4 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse

The chosen punctuation makes this a sentence in orthographic terms, but the syntax here does not distinguish between a coordination of clauses and a sequence of separate main clauses. Grammatical descriptions have tended to show a bias towards written language (see Linell 1998, 2005 for discussion), and work in text linguistics has tended to focus mainly on written monological texts (Sanders and Sanders 2006). However, it becomes even more difficult to draw the boundary between grammar and discourse when we consider interactive spoken discourse. This area of study is especially valuable and challenging for grammarians. It is valuable in providing a source of evidence about speakers’ knowledge of grammatical structures, as we can observe how they build these structures in real time and respond to the structures being built by others. It is challenging as a testing ground for our grammatical models. For instance, such data are notoriously difficult to divide in­ to grammatical units such as ‘sentence’ and contain frequent instances of ‘fragmentary’ structures which, although not integrated into sentential units, make complete and coher­ ent contributions to the discourse. The remainder of section 26.2 will focus on the value and challenges to the grammarian of looking beyond the sentence in studying interactive spoken discourse. (p. 558) In sec­ tion 26.2.2 we will briefly discuss several different lines of relevant research on spoken discourse. We will then look at initial problems in the delimitation of grammatical units such as ‘sentence’ in spoken data (26.2.3) before focusing in more detail on the chal­ lenges posed by ‘clause fragments’ (26.2.4).

26.2.2 Strands of research on grammar and spoken discourse Various lines of research have investigated the grammar of spoken English. Some of this research has been stimulated by the increasing availability over recent decades of com­ puterized English corpora which include spoken data. Such research has often included some comparison of written and spoken genres in terms of the frequency of particular grammatical features (see Dorgeloh and Wanner, this volume, for more on this line of work). For example, the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English by Biber et al. (1999) draws on corpus data to compare the four genres of fiction writing, news writing, academic writing, and conversation. Leech (2000a), one of the authors of that grammar, notes that ‘conversation…stands out clearly as being frequently very different, in terms of grammatical probabilities, from the written varieties. Some grammatical features (such as dysfluency phenomena, in so far as they are grammatical) are almost entirely restrict­ ed to the spoken variety, but in general the same descriptive framework applies to all four registers’ (p. 690). Nonetheless the differences are not restricted to those of frequency of particular grammatical features; there are also differences in the way grammar is de­ ployed in spoken interaction, more relevant to the topic of this chapter. Some of these are

Page 5 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse described in the chapter on ‘the grammar of conversation’ in the Longman Grammar; see also Miller and Weinert (1998), Miller (2006), and Quaglio and Biber (2006). A growing field of research is that of interactional linguistics (IL), surveyed in a recent textbook by Couper-Kuhlen and Selting (2018). IL gives serious consideration to spoken interaction as the natural ‘home environment’ in which knowledge of grammar is de­ ployed. IL has developed from earlier functional approaches to linguistics, especially ‘West Coast functionalism’ (e.g., Givón 1979b, Du Bois 1987, Chafe 1994), and has also drawn heavily on conversation analysis (CA), a strand of sociological research that focus­ es on conversation as a form of social action (see, e.g., Sidnell and Stivers 2013). CA has made important contributions to the understanding of various aspects of conversational organization, including turn-taking (see Sacks et al. (1974) for a seminal early discussion) and the advancement of social action through sequencing patterns (including ‘adjacency pairs’ such as request–acquiescence but also more complex multi-turn sequences). Whereas speech act theory (see König, this volume) has tended to focus on particular types of social action carried out by single utterances, CA examines how actions unfold in conversational sequences and covers responsive as well as initiating actions (see Levin­ son 1983, 2017 for discussion). While IL focuses more on linguistic form than CA, it has continued CA’s strongly empiri­ cal methodology: attending carefully to audio or video recordings, making (p. 559) tran­ scriptions which include considerable prosodic detail, and often engaging in quite de­ tailed analysis of unfolding interactions. This kind of methodology tends to be extremely ‘bottom-up’: generalizations emerge slowly, as researchers gradually build up collections of instances of similar phenomena encountered in the data. This contrasts with much cor­ pus linguistic research, where recurrent formal patterns are often readily identified by computerized searches across a large database of spoken extracts, but where less atten­ tion is often paid to the extended contexts within which these patterns occur. Also unlike much corpus linguistic work, IL and CA work has tended not to be quantita­ tive. However, some quantitative work in this line has started to be carried out. An exam­ ple is the large cross-linguistic study of question–response sequences in conversation re­ ported in Stivers et al. (2010), which includes a study of American English by Stivers (2010). A coding system was systematically applied to the data to allow quantitative analysis of the formal and pragmatic properties of questions and responses. Another, very different line of work that also stresses the real-time unfolding of dialogue is that oriented towards language processing. Research in this field often involves the computational modelling of dialogue for the practical purpose of developing dialogue sys­ tems (see, e.g., Ginzburg and Fernández 2010). This has presented huge challenges in dealing, for instance, with ellipsis and the incorporation of contextual information. Re­ searchers in this field have also contributed theories of human language processing (e.g., Ginzburg 2012). A notable theory is dynamic syntax (e.g., Kempson et al. 2001, Cann et al. 2005, Kempson 2016). This is a formal model which aims to capture the real-time pro­ gression of language processing, with hearers incrementally building a semantic repre­ Page 6 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse sentation from the linguistic input and contextual information. In this model, knowledge of language amounts to knowing how to parse spoken language in context—a radical de­ parture from most formal models since Chomsky where such ‘knowing how’ would be re­ garded as ‘performance’ and separate from the language system (‘competence’).

26.2.3 Delimiting grammatical units in dialogue In this section and the next we use examples from English dialogue to illustrate some of the challenges it presents for grammatical analysis. The source, except where otherwise identified, is ICE-GB. As noted earlier, ICE-GB comprises one million words of British English from the early 1990s. It includes written material and spoken monologues, as well as spoken dialogues. The spoken dialogues comprise around 376,000 words drawn from a range of text categories, with private face-to-face conversation being the largest. All texts in the corpus are fully parsed; they are divided into ‘parsing units’: sentences of written text or their rough equivalents in spoken texts. In the cited examples, a short pause (of a syllable’s beat) is marked by the symbol and a longer pause by , while self-corrections are indicated by a strikeout on text considered not to form part of the ‘finally achieved’ grammatical unit. Occasionally a slight amendment has been (p. 560) made to a transcription after listening to the audio recording. We give identifying codes for the source text and specific units cited, but in multi-unit examples we have added simple sequential numbering of speaker units for reference purposes (retaining the letters used in the corpus to identify speakers, e.g. A, B, C). As examples in the literature often use different conventions, citations of these have been adapted, with some of the details of pronunciation and delivery omitted for simplicity. This section discusses some initial problems concerning the delimitation of grammatical units in spoken dialogue. The division of such data into sentences is notoriously difficult. Consider (6), uttered by a single speaker, C, who is discussing (with two others) her in­ volvement in a dance group for both able-bodied and disabled dancers. (6)

The three units shown follow the division into parsing units (the rough spoken equivalent of ‘sentences’) in the corpus, where so and and (the initial words of C2 and C3) are treat­ ed as markers of discoursal links that introduce new grammatical units. However, they might alternatively be analysed as coordinators that link the clauses they introduce to preceding material to form a larger grammatical construction, a clausal coordination. Page 7 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse While prosodic factors such as pauses and intonation can be taken as a guide, they often do not provide clear-cut criteria. It can also be hard to distinguish subordination and dis­ coursal linkage in some instances: for example, the relations marked by because (or its shortened form cos) seem to range from tighter subordinative relationships (as in the two instances in C1 above) to much looser discoursal links to preceding stretches of conversa­ tion (e.g., Burridge 2014). Such difficulties have led some analysts to abandon the sentence as a unit for the analysis of spoken language (e.g., Miller and Weinert 1998, Biber et al. 1999: Chapter 14). Clausal structures often seem easier to identify. Consider (7), which follows the line divisions used in the source; the full stops indicate a falling, or final, intonation contour. (7)

(p. 561)

Here speaker A utters a syntactically complete clause with final intonation in A1,

only to expand this initial structure several times on receiving no response from B, who fi­ nally responds in overlap with rudely in A4. Despite the prosodic breaks, the clear gram­ matical dependencies here support a (retrospective) analysis of A1–A4 as a unitary clausal structure (I shall leave you to get on with your hard studying that I know I inter­ rupted rather rudely)—albeit one whose production was incremental and responsive to in­ teractional contingencies.2 However, there are also difficulties in delimiting the clause. One reason is that various el­ ements are often loosely attached at the start or end (discussed by Leech 2000a as ‘preclause and post-clause satellites’), or interpolated within it. Examples (8) and (9) below show loosely attached nominals in final and interpolated positions respectively, each serv­ ing to clarify the reference of a preceding nominal (they in (8), this girl in (9)), while (10) shows an interpolated interrogative tag. (8)

(9)

Page 8 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse

(10)

Some loose attachments involve recurrent structures which are recognized as construc­ tions in standard grammars, for instance ‘left dislocation’ and ‘right dislocation’ (see Kaltenböck, this volume), the latter of which is arguably exemplified in (8) and (9). Dislo­ cations are often treated as involving extended clausal structures, though Leech (2000a), for example, prefers to see them as involving discoursal rather than grammatical links. It is probably best to acknowledge a fuzzy boundary between these two types of links. Note that in (8) there is a clear intonational break, as well as a pause, before the addition of the final nominal as a kind of ‘afterthought’; however, we have already seen in (7) that ‘standard’ elements of clausal structure can also be added as ‘afterthoughts’ following prosodic breaks. Example (9) shows that a dislocated NP need not occur at the right pe­ riphery of the clause but can be interpolated. Various kinds of loose attachments such as parentheticals, afterthoughts, and dislocations have been discussed in the literature, and are grouped together by Kaltenböck et al. (2011) (p. 562) as ‘theticals’ which show special properties not adequately captured in standard grammatical accounts (see also e.g., Dehé and Kavalova 2007 and Dehé 2014 on parentheticals). Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1350–62) call such loose attachments ‘supplements’: ‘elements which occupy a position in linear sequence without being inte­ grated into the syntactic structure of the sentence’ (p. 1350) in that they do not function as dependent to any head. For them ‘supplementation’ is a type of construction contrast­ ing with both coordination and dependency constructions, and they take supplements to include a very broad range of formal types. It should be noted that loose attachments are by no means restricted to spoken discourse—some types (such as appositives and uninte­ grated relative clauses) are frequent in written texts. Thus, we have seen some initial difficulties in delimiting ‘sentence’ and ‘clause’ in spoken interaction. Nonetheless, the clause has generally been considered a useful unit in the analysis of spoken discourse. Of the 43,818 parsing units in the ICE-GB spoken dialogues (each of which is spoken by a single speaker), 58 per cent take the form of a main clause while 35 per cent are ‘non-clauses’ (with most of the remaining units being coordinations of clauses, or subordinate clauses parsed as independent units). Biber et al. (1999: 1069– 72) found similar proportions in a much smaller sample of conversational data from British and American English that they divided exhaustively into ‘syntactically indepen­ dent’ clausal and non-clausal units (treating coordinated main clauses as separate clausal units because of the practical difficulties we discussed earlier concerning the identifica­ Page 9 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse tion of clausal coordinations as units); of the 1,000 units they identified, 61 per cent were clausal and 39 per cent non-clausal. The data from these studies underline the importance of non-clausal or non-sentential units (NSUs) in dialogue. There are different kinds of NSU. Frequently found are ‘freestanding’ single-word constructions (e.g., Hi, Oh, Okay, Uh-huh, Wow). Many of the words involved can either stand alone, or be prosodically attached to other structures without being syntactically integrated into them (as in Oh that’s wonderful). They have a range of pragmatic functions. The boundaries of this group of words are hard to draw and various terms are used in the literature. For instance, such words are discussed by Biber et al. (1999: 1082–99) as ‘inserts’ and by Couper-Kuhlen and Selting (2018: Chapter 8) as ‘par­ ticles’. They are sometimes subsumed under the heading of ‘discourse markers’, a catego­ ry whose ascribed membership varies widely in the literature, often including also formu­ laic multi-word expressions such as in fact or you see (see, e.g., Heine 2013). NSUs also include free-standing multi-word utterances such as How about Friday after­ noon after the meeting?; The more questions, the better; What a disappointing set of re­ sults! This type involves a range of conventionalized structures that do not conform to canonical sentence form (see, e.g., Culicover and Jackendoff 2005: 236–7). They are sometimes labelled as ‘minor sentences’ or ‘irregular sentences’. Of more interest here, however, is another type of NSU that we label ‘clause fragments’, to be discussed in the next section. We will see that these pose even more severe prob­ lems in the delimitation of grammatical structures, as well as difficulties in distinguishing between grammatical and discoursal links. (p. 563)

26.2.4 Clause fragments in dialogue

Clause fragments are of particular interest here because they involve elements which have the grammatical potential to be clausal constituents (e.g., noun phrases, preposi­ tional phrases) but which are not integrated into any clause. Again, terminology varies; for example, Biber et al. (1999: 1099–1104) refer to this type as ‘syntactic non-clausal units’. They can involve single words, phrases, non-embedded subordinate clauses, or combinations of those. Like clausal structures, they can include more peripheral ele­ ments, such as the ‘inserts’ mentioned above or vocatives. The discussion in this section draws on examples from a study of clause fragments in ICEGB by Bowie and Aarts (2016). Consider first B4 in the following sequence uttered by a single speaker: (11)

Page 10 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse

Following B4, which takes the form of a prepositional phrase, we understand the speaker to have conveyed something like ‘My sister and I were going to get a picture of she and I done for my mum and dad’, with the PP functioning like an adjunct which extends the clause uttered in B1. There is considerable intervening material, so speaker and hearer are probably unlikely to have retained the exact form of B1 in their memories by the time B4 is uttered, but nonetheless a similar meaning is conveyed. We also find examples where a speaker adds to an initial structure after intervening material from another speaker, which may be a short response (e.g., Oh; Yeah) or a longer contribution. The amount of intervening material varies, so where do we draw the line between grammati­ cal and discoursal links? The PP in B4 is certainly not presented as integrated into the clause in B1, but our ability to interpret it in context seems to draw on our knowledge of how such PPs function within larger structures. An even greater challenge to standard analyses is posed by the phenomenon of co-con­ struction by speakers (see, e.g., Szczepek 2000a, 2000b, Sidnell 2012). Examples from the literature often involve ‘co-telling’ by two speakers who share knowledge of some­ thing to another who lacks that knowledge, as in (12): (12)

Here Cindy’s contribution is a PP which extends Cathy’s initial clause so that we understand ‘She had this big hairy mole on her neck’. Even core elements of a clausal structure can be supplied by another speaker, as in extract (13) (where two speakers, A and C, each utter two numbered units): (p. 564)

(13)

Page 11 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse Here, A pauses after the utterance of starts, without supplying the complement that one would expect. C then supplies a complement (swearing and cursing), using present-par­ ticipial verb forms to fit this grammatical context. Speaker A appears in A1 to be express­ ing concern about the recording equipment being on (a concern further pursued in A2), and C evidently offers her completion as a guess about the nature of his concerns or to ridicule his concerns (her tone is dismissive). The units on her neck in (12) and swearing and cursing in (13) would in many analyses (including that of ICE-GB) be considered as non-clausal units uttered by their respective speakers, since each speaker’s contributions are treated separately; but a possible alternative analysis would see them as parts within a larger jointly built grammatical structure. The clause fragments described above link to other units in the sequence of turns, and it is these sequential links that enable them to be interpreted as making complete contribu­ tions to the discourse. Analysis of data from the ICE-GB dialogues suggests that frag­ ments recurrently exploit just a few broad kinds of grammatical link to serve a wide range of discourse purposes (Bowie and Aarts 2016). The examples in (11) to (13) above involve linkage on the syntagmatic dimension, with fragments that extend or complete preceding structures. We also find fragments which link on the paradigmatic dimension, as ‘matches’, whereby the fragment is interpretable as an alternative constituent of an antecedent structure in context (to which it ‘matches’). (The distinction between ‘match­ es’ and ‘extensions’ draws on partially similar distinctions made by Culicover and Jack­ endoff (2005: 257) and Couper-Kuhlen and Ono (2007), but generalized to cover links across both same-speaker and other-speaker utterances.) A common use of matches is to answer open (or wh-) questions, which involves a seman­ tic relationship of ‘filling in’ the value of a variable. Example (14) provides a straightfor­ ward illustration; the underlining indicates the constituent to which the fragment match­ es, and we understand ‘It is twenty past eight’. (14)

However, matches can fill many other discourse functions. Some examples are seen in (15): (p. 565)

(15)

Page 12 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse

Here, following B’s statement with clausal form, C and A respond by uttering non-clausal units. C expresses agreement with B’s evaluation of the photographs of relatives, but indi­ cates that she finds it especially applicable to a particular side of the family. C’s contribu­ tion combines matching with extending: her NP that side of the family matches back to B’s relatives, her not matches B’s negation, and especially acts as an extension. Speaker A then gives the contrasting assessment that B’s point is applicable to any side of the family from that era: his NP any side of the family from that era (produced with an intervening discourse marker, thank you) can be seen as part of a chain of matching links, matching in the first instance to C’s that side of the family which links back to B’s relatives. The occurrence of numerous units with non-clausal form is problematic for theories which adopt a ‘strict ellipsis’ account of clause fragments, which hold that there is a ‘sen­ tence’ or tensed clause underlying all such fragments and that the ‘missing’ material can be recovered directly from the preceding context. The correct analysis has been debated within the generative literature.3 For instance, Culicover and Jackendoff (2005) argue against the strict ellipsis account and propose an alternative whereby ‘the unexpressed parts of the fragment’s interpretation are supplied not through underlying syntactic structure but via direct correspondence with the meaning of the antecedent sentence’ (pp. 234–5). They use a mechanism of ‘indirect licensing’ to account for the se­ mantic and syntactic relationship of the fragment to its antecedent. They point out that a strict ellipsis account runs into problems when the interpretation of the fragment re­ quires ‘adjustment’ of aspects of the antecedent (e.g., illocutionary force, the use of you versus I/me, the embedding of clauses). These ellipsis debates rarely consider authentic examples, but an examination of spoken data readily provides examples requiring such ‘adjustment’, such as (16) and (17). (16)

(p. 566)

(17)

Page 13 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse

In (16) B indirectly expresses a question in a subordinate interrogative if-clause which functions as the complement of know. To arrive at the correct interpretation of the frag­ ment, a strict ellipsis account would require considerable ‘adjustment’: ‘extracting’ this subordinate interrogative clause to make it a declarative main clause, and changing its polarity from positive to negative: ‘It would not be cheaper to do it in her name if we’re using your no claims bonus’ (with the fragment, a conditional if-clause, functioning as an added adjunct within the main clause). Example (17) requires even greater adjustment, pragmatic as well as syntactic. Here B seems to be supporting A’s objection to Xepe’s idea: the intended meaning is not ‘You’re not too sure about this if you’ve had lunch’, but rather something like ‘Having a picnic is not a good idea if you’ve had lunch’. When con­ sidering examples of fragments in spoken data, the sheer number of instances and the va­ riety of ways in which they relate to their ‘antecedents’ make a ‘strict ellipsis’ account seem very hard to sustain. This section has explored the challenges of looking at grammar beyond the sentence, sug­ gesting that we have much to learn from how grammar is deployed in building discourse, especially interactive spoken discourse. In the next section we point to some quite differ­ ent research, which looks at discourse not with the aim of refining our understanding of grammar, but rather with a view to discovering how speakers and writers exploit gram­ matical resources when using language in order to construct a particular view of reality.

26.3 Grammar shaping discourse Grammar is relevant to any use of language, but researchers’ foci can be different: when dealing with spoken data the focus is often on grammatical choices made by speakers in relation to the development of the interaction and the communicative aims of the partici­ pants. We saw some of this above and we return to some aspects of grammar in spoken interaction in section 26.4 below. In contrast, other discussions of discourse (very often written, but what is said below applies equally to spoken discourse) often take as a start­ ing point the central observation that language supplies alternative ways of describing the same situation. Choosing amongst these different ways could be related to different representations of social reality and therefore to different systems of thinking and beliefs, or ideologies. This link between discourse and the representation of reality has been a central preoccupation for those working in the tradition of Critical Linguistics (Fowler et al. 1979, Kress and Hodge 1979) and later, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA; work by Fairclough, Van Dijk, Wodak, and others).

Page 14 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse Since making choices about how to present situations also relates to how informa­ tion is packaged, and often correlates with the genre or style of a given text, we should point out that what we discuss here has many overlaps with the discussion in the chap­ ters in this volume on information structure, the relationship between grammar and genre, and grammatical variation in literary texts (Kaltenböck, Dorgeloh and Wanner, and Jeffries respectively). This section should be read as complementary to those three chap­ ters. Any aspect of language can potentially be seen to have some ideological effects, but in practice major areas of enquiry in Critical Linguistics and CDA have been transitivity, modality, and nominalizations. A wider area of study related to modality—stance—has emerged more recently. We will provide some brief illustrations of how these aspects of grammar have been brought to bear on critical analyses of discourse. (p. 567)

When constructing a text, speakers/writers choose linguistic structures that allow them to control how events are construed, e.g., what verbs (typically) are used to encode them, and which participants are included/excluded or foregrounded/backgrounded as a result. Verb valency4 and how the arguments of verbs are linked in particular sentences are some of the aspects of grammar that are frequently invoked in discourse analyses that fo­ cus on how texts present the social world. This can be illustrated briefly with a few exam­ ples taken from different news items published recently in a range of newspapers, paying specific attention to the verb separate and its nominalization separation (emphasis ours): (18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22) Page 15 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse

Separate in this kind of use is a transitive verb which creates an expectation that there will be three participants: one participant who does the separating, and two (or more) participants who are being separated from each other. This is exactly what the bolded clause in (18) delivers, placing the NP US immigration agents in subject/agent po­ sition and placing the two entities being separated from each other, a Mexican mother and her ten-year-old daughter, in a coordinated object NP, thus giving them equal promi­ nence. This clause makes clear who, according to the foreign minister’s claim, has under­ taken (and potentially should be held responsible for) the action of separating, and who has been affected by it. We see a similar structure in the bolded clause in (19): the agent (other governments) is explicitly expressed as subject and so made more prominent, and the affected entities are expressed in a coordinated object NP: mothers and children. By (p. 568)

contrast, in (20) the verb separate is used in a passive relative clause. The clause modifies a noun which represents one of the participants subjected to separation (the toddler), while the other participant (the toddler’s family) appears in a prepositional phrase which is a constituent of the relative clause. Crucially, the participant who is the agent of the separation remains unexpressed. Similar points can be made about (21): the focus is on the participants subjected to separation, but the agents of the separation act remain backgrounded. Different verbs are associated with different types of situations. Some place specific re­ quirements on their subjects or objects (e.g., they may admit only animate or sentient subjects or objects). Discourse analysts consider such properties important in terms of how the world is construed by language speakers, especially since language allows alter­ natives. The verb separate allows for an inanimate abstract subject. For example, in (22) above we see the NP a widely condemned policy as the understood subject of separate. Whereas (18) and (19) placed the agency of the separation with sentient agents, in (22) the agency is placed with an abstract entity, a policy, which allows the author not to name those responsible for the policy. A similar effect of deleting or backgrounding agency can be achieved via nominalization (Fowler et al. 1979, Fowler 1991, Fairclough 1992; see also Billig 2008 and van Dijk 2008 for some recent debates and further references). The events mentioned in the news re­ ports above can also be referred to as follows: (23)

Page 16 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse

(24)

In (23) and (24) the events previously named with the verb separate are now referred to with the nominalization separation. Again, this allows the writer(s) more choice of (p. 569) which participants to name and which to background or leave out. In (25) similar flexibili­ ty is afforded by using modification with a participial adjective. (25)

Of course, such choices become significant only if they are a part of a consistent pattern in a particular text or collection of texts. Where such consistent patterns are spotted, they are seen as patterns of representations of social actors and practices that can be thought to reflect and construct coherent systems of values and ways of thinking. One further area of grammar that merits mention in the context of discourse analysis of this kind is modality. Modality, discussed in this volume by Ziegeler, is a resource which allows the expression of speakers’ attitudes, states of knowledge, or relationships of obligation or permission between participants in the discourse. Modality can be linked to power and authority. For example, powerful and authoritative speakers can use some modal forms (e.g., conferring obligations upon others, expressing high degrees of certain­ ty) to a greater extent than others. Modality is important for the construal of events, their participants, and the relationships between participants in discourse. For example, the use of the modal must in (26–29) below in statements that come from two sides of a cur­ rent debate shows that on both sides there are strong perceptions of what the morally and ethically valid positions to take are. (26)

(27)

Page 17 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse

(28)

(29)

Here we have illustrated just some of the grammatical features of sentences in a text that might be highlighted as significant by researchers whose interest is in the link between discourse and ideology. (We gave examples from written discourse, but similar points can be made about speech.) This isn’t to say that all instances of such grammatical features have ideological effects, and of course an analysis will explore not (p. 570) just these prop­ erties of the data, but many other aspects, such as vocabulary choices and genre charac­ teristics, and will look for patterns rather than single instances. Another research strand related to subjectivity more generally is the study of how gram­ matical (as well as lexical and paralinguistic) devices can be used to express attitudes, emotions, as well as judgements and assessments of the validity of propositions, and so on. We will use the cover term ‘stance’ for these (for references to relevant scholarship, including that using different terminology, see Biber (2006a) and Gray and Biber (2015), for instance). A range of grammatical constructions used to express stance are laid out in the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al. 1999: Chapter 12). Biber (2006a) illustrates some common grammatical devices used in spoken and written academic discourse. Stance can be expressed with the help of adverbials (30a and 30b) which convey some attitude or assessment towards the proposition expressed in the main clause.5 Another relevant grammatical structure is the so-called stance complement clause, a construction comprising a complement clause controlled by a stance verb or ad­ jective, for instance, which indicates what stance is being expressed with respect to the proposition contained within the clause (see (30c–g)). (30)

Page 18 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse

As (30c) and (30d) show, sometimes stance is explicitly ascribed to the speaker; it could also be explicitly ascribed to the addressee (30e), or possibly a third person (30f), or it can be left implicit (30a, b).6 Modality, which we touched on already, is of course another grammatical manifestation of stance. A number of studies have shown not only the variety of grammatical and lexical resources for the expression of stance, but also how the expression of stance can respond to the physical mode (i.e. whether a text is spoken or written) and to the different communica­ tive purposes of different registers. For example, in his study of university registers with­ in both speech and writing Biber (2006a) finds that stance is expressed more frequently in speech, but also more frequently in what he calls the (p. 571) ‘management’ registers (i.e. interactions and texts relating to classroom management and course management), whether written or spoken; see Biber (2004, 2006b), as well as Gray and Biber (2015) for further examples and references. Stance and modality, like other areas of language, can of course be studied in their own right, or in relation to aspects of social structure. Scholars whose aim is to uncover rela­ tionships between language use and power or ideology frequently deploy the conceptual tools of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), associated with M. A. K. Halliday (see for example Halliday 2014). SFL is a functional approach to the study of language, which pri­ oritizes attested data and the study of texts. An important aim of any investigation in SFL is to show how linguistic structure (conceived as one module, i.e. without a strict separa­ tion between the lexicon and grammar) contributes to the meaning of a text. Linguistic structure is conceptualized as a network of choices, and is linked to linguistic functions of reference (the ideational function), of relationship management (the interpersonal func­ tion), and of managing the information flow (the textual function). A detailed introduction to this framework is outside the scope of this work, so the reader is directed to Halliday (2014), or for shorter presentations see, amongst many others, Coffin et al. (2010), Mar­ tin (2011), Schleppegrell (2014), Martin (2016); see also the chapters by Mackenzie and Schönefeld, this volume. Recently, some researchers have extended CDA to link it to cognitive processes implicat­ ed in the interpretation of texts. To achieve this aim, they have adopted a Cognitive Lin­ guistic approach (e.g. Langacker 1991) to the grammatical features of a text. Language is Page 19 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse seen as a process of construal of events, experiences, etc. that can have an ideological ba­ sis or effect. This construal, as evidenced in the language forms used, is linked to cogni­ tive processes of interpretation. Some extensions seek to demonstrate this link experi­ mentally (for points along these lines and implementations of such approaches see Chilton 2004, 2005, Li 2011, Hart 2014, 2016 and references therein; see also Harrison et al. 2014). Other extensions have sought to provide CDA with sounder empirical coverage by looking for significant patterns in extended collections of discourse with the methods of corpus linguistics (e.g., Gabrielatos and Baker 2008, Baker and Levon 2015). The focus on the process of subjective construal is not confined to studies of language and ideology or studies of written discourse. Subjectivity in language can be seen as a foundational property that affects language structure and function, as well as language change (see, for example, volumes like Athanasiadou et al. (2006) or Davidse et al. (2010); see also some of the remarks in section 26.4 below).

26.4 Discourse shaping grammar In the previous section our main aim was to show that grammatical resources are exploit­ ed in discourse by giving speakers choices that allow them to present reality in (p. 572) different ways and express their subjective attitudes and beliefs about reality. Here we will refocus the discussion to highlight research which suggests that language use shapes and enriches grammatical resources, or influences how they can be used. For example, some research has shown interactions between discourse and clausal grammatical struc­ ture. Du Bois (2003, see also references therein) demonstrates that across speakers and in a number of languages in spontaneous face-to-face interaction there is a tendency to find no more than one full lexical NP per clause. What is more, such full lexical NPs, which tend to express new information, i.e. referents not previously introduced in the dis­ course, are much more likely to be found in the position of either the subject of an intran­ sitive verb, or the direct object of a transitive or ditransitive verb. Conversely, the subject in a clause with a transitive/ditransitive verb and the indirect object in a clause with a di­ transitive verb tend to be realized as reduced NPs, e.g., pronouns. This generalization, which Du Bois links to the relative cognitive costs of processing new versus old referents, he takes to show that information management in discourse, i.e. discourse pragmatics, ul­ timately shapes grammar: this discoursal pattern could be seen as the basis of an argu­ ment structure patterning like ergativity (see Du Bois 1987).7 In a somewhat similar vein, Englebretson (1997) links the distribution of attributive versus predicative adjectives to their discourse function: attributive adjectives tend to help introduce new referents, whereas predicative adjectives tend to add information about already established refer­ ents (he follows observations by Thompson 1988 and Ferris 1993). Hopper and Thompson (1984) argue for a more general link between lexical categories like nouns and verbs and their discourse functions, e.g., introducing discourse participants or events, respectively; see also Hollmann’s chapter on lexical categories in this volume.

Page 20 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse The role that discourse (i.e. the interactive use of language) plays in enriching the func­ tional potential of language is also often discussed in the field of grammaticalization (Heine et al. 1991, Traugott and Heine 1991, Heine and Kuteva 2002, Traugott and Dash­ er 2002, Hopper and Traugott 2003, Kuteva 2004, Narrog and Heine 2011, Smith et al. (2015) and references therein). Grammaticalization relates to a set of language changes that create grammatical/functional elements out of lexical ones. It is often associated with a development presented on a cline like the one in (31) below (from Hopper and Traugott 2003: 7): (31)

This shows that the emphasis in studying grammaticalization is often on the structural transformation from an independent lexical item to a syntactically more dependent or tightly fused function word, clitic, or morpheme, and the concomitant change from lexical meaning to (grammatical) function. Various semantic, pragmatic, and structural changes have been observed along the way. This can be exemplified with the (p. 573) English a bit of, given as a case study in Traugott (2010). The source of a bit of is a nominalized expres­ sion meaning ‘biting’. This was reinterpreted to mean not the act of biting, but the amount being bitten off, as in a bite of bread, i.e. it became a partitive. The partitive was extended further so that it could be used in expressions like a bit of a fool. Traugott (2010) notes that this stage involved a pragmatic expansion, or enrichment of the mean­ ing of the expression during its use, since the partitive was associated with negative speaker evaluations, that is at this stage we can see subjectification in the development of a bit of. A semantic/pragmatic expansion accompanied by a reduction can also be seen in the next move to a quantifier, as in a bit wiser, a bit richer. Further development allows a bit to be used as an adjunct (as in I don’t like it a bit) (for further details and examples see Traugott 2010: 46–9). As we can see, grammaticalization is driven by a number of semantic processes of rein­ terpretation, which happen in language use. Traugott (2010) uses the pragmatic subjecti­ fication in the history of the development of a bit of and other examples to argue that the­ ories of language change cannot ignore the role of the speaker and, more generally, the role of speaker–hearer interactions. The speaker innovates in the flow of speech, in the course of an inherently subjective speech event. In other words, if language change is seen to happen incrementally in language use, then it becomes intrinsically linked to dis­ course. This view of language change is contrasted with theories that attribute change to child language acquisition (Lightfoot 1999, see also Waltereit 2011 and references there­ in; for a comparison and an attempt to reconcile the two views see also Öhl 2014). Some processes of grammaticalization, and language change more generally, have also been linked to frequency, both type and token (e.g. Bybee 2003, 2007). Frequency effects, which can be taken to be responsible for phonological reduction, for example, or the en­ trenchment of some patterns, can only be understood when language in use, i.e. dis­

Page 21 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse course, is taken into account. Thus grammaticalization research aligns more generally with functionalist and usage-based approaches to language (see Mackenzie, this volume). Not only can language change be seen to happen within language use, i.e. discourse, but languages also develop resources expressly for the purpose of discourse management: discourse particles or markers, i.e. elements like well, but, however, though. These mark­ ers are discussed in the literature as functional elements that help speakers and hearers manage interaction (e.g., express the relationships between different chunks of dis­ course, or express their attitudes to propositions expressed in discourse). As functional elements, they are considered by many researchers in the field to be part of the grammat­ ical resources of the language—this is, however, a debated issue as such scholars are adopting an ‘extended’ view of grammar relative to more traditional approaches (see, e.g., Degand and Evers-Vermeul 2015 for discussion). There is also a considerable literature concerning how these functional elements arise in discourse. Barth-Weingarten and Couper-Kuhlen (2002), for example, discuss the develop­ ment of though from a conjunct of concession to a discourse marker with concessive and (increasingly) textual uses (e.g., as a topic shifter, i.e. as a marker which contrasts two chunks of discourse in terms of topic). Example (32) can be used as an (p. 574) illustration (their example 3 on p. 350, with some adaptations, emphasis ours). It comes from an American English radio phone-in. The caller, Jim, praises his lesbian neighbours for help­ ing with childcare whilst he was a single parent. Freddy Merts, the moderator, asks him whether he felt sexually attracted to them. (32)

Page 22 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse

In line seven FM concedes the points Jim has made so far, and in line eight he puts for­ ward a counterclaim. The though at the end of this turn both marks the concession and signals the move to a new topic (from the difficulties of being a single father to dating strategies for single fathers). The development of though with the function illustrated above does not match the understanding of grammaticalization in all respects—for in­ stance, it does not meet some of the criteria laid down by scholars like Lehmann (1985), e.g., there is no reduction of scope, phonological reduction, or move to an obligatory marker. The authors argue, however, that if grammaticalization is conceptualized as a phenomenon exhibiting prototypicality, then the development of though as a discourse marker can be treated as non-prototypical grammaticalization. In the case of though, what we see is a bleaching of the concessive semantics (what is contrasted are not (p. 575) propositions, but shifts of topic) and a concomitant increase of abstractness.8 There is also an increase in textual meaning, i.e. conveying the relationship between two chunks of text, which the authors designate as pragmatic strengthening. On the syntactic Page 23 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse level there is an increase in scope (textual though connects larger chunks of text). Couper-Kuhlen (2011) discusses though, as well as other phenomena like left dislocation and extraposition, as arising from conversational routines collapsed into single conversa­ tional turns. For debates in the literature over whether the development of discourse markers should be considered as grammaticalization, see for instance Degand and SimonVandenbergen (2011), Heine (2013), and Degand and Evers-Vermeul (2015). Mulder and Thompson (2008) argue that grammaticalization processes similar to those described above can be seen in the development of but from a conjunction to a discourse particle in American and Australian English. Mulder et al. (2009) argue that this process is fully completed in Australian English only. We illustrate the use of final particle but in Australian English with their example (12) (p. 351) which we reproduce in (33) below. The example shows a football coach ending a practice session. (33)

Used in this way, but is uttered with a final prosody, completes a turn, and marks con­ trastive content. In the example above the coach signals that the session is over but that he is satisfied with progress made. Some of the processes visible in the development of though have also been traced in the development of negative mental verb constructions like I don’t know, for instance, dis­ cussed in Lindstrom et al. (2016) amongst others. In a paper with a cross-linguistic per­ spective the authors point out that know and similar verbs in similar 1SG constructions have moved away from their traditional transitive use with epistemic meaning to become discourse markers, which have interactional meaning (e.g., heading off sensitive topics) or indicate speakers’ stance (e.g., casting a contribution as a guess, or hunch). In the case of I don’t know in English, when used as an intransitive verb in a discourse markerlike construction there is often also morphophonological reduction: dunno. Studies of grammatical change like the ones we summarize above often focus on lan­ guage used interactionally in speech. Recently some scholars have argued, however, that change can also originate in writing (see introductory chapters in Biber and Gray 2016, as well as the concluding remarks in Fox (2007)). In a study of the historical develop­ ments in academic writing, Biber and Gray (2016) find that specialist science writing has moved away from a style characterized by its reliance on verbs and dependent clauses, typical of the eighteenth century, and has evolved a new discourse style with innovative use of grammatical features. This discourse style is characterized (p. 576) by complex phrasal syntax, namely by the increased use of nominalizations (consumption, comparison, sustenance), attributive adjectives (gradually expanding cumulative effect), nouns as nom­ inal pre-modifiers (baggage inspection procedures), prepositional phrases as nominal Page 24 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse post-modifiers (a high incidence of heavy alcohol consumption amongst patients), and ap­ positive noun phrases (Dallas Salisbury, CEO of the Employee Benefit Research Institute) (examples from Biber and Gray 2016: 132). Such structures lead to greater compression of information. The possible degrees of compression are illustrated with the following ex­ amples (Biber and Gray 2016: 208, underlining in the original): (34)

In (a) above the first underlined NP is modified using a finite relative clause; in (b) the same information is expressed with a non-finite relative; in (c) it is compressed further in­ to a post-modifying for-PP; and in (d) the compression is maximal: the information is now expressed via the noun pre-modifying another noun. The move away from clausal embed­ ding resulting in this compression enables writers to give as much information as possi­ ble in as few words as possible; however, it also comes with a cost: loss of explicitness. In (a) we are told what the semantic relationship is between his Computation and Greenwich (the computation was made for Greenwich), whereas in (d) we can recover this semantic link only if we have the necessary background knowledge. The development of such a phrasal discourse style, especially in specialist science writing characterized by the increased use of complex phrasal structures, can be explained by adopting a functional linguistic perspective and relating it to the changing requirements of the respective linguistic community. The developments in science in the last centuries have led to increased communication within a greatly increased number of sub-disci­ plines and increasingly specialized fields. Compression responds to the need for economy of communication prompted by the sheer information explosion since the eighteenth cen­ tury and especially in the course of the twentieth century. The lack of explicitness can be tolerated because specialist science writing is done by and for experts in narrow domains (see Biber and Gray 2016 and references therein). Biber and Gray (2016) argue, however, that the developments they trace via quantitative corpus-based studies are not simply a matter of variation in the rate with which available grammatical resources are used. Rather, the increased use of some resources, e.g., nouns modifying other nouns (or NN structures), is accompanied by shifts in the grammatical characteristics of these structures, the range of elements that can enter (p. 577) into them, and the semantic relations that are possible between them. Thus NN structures which in the sixteenth century are attested with only very restricted semantic relations Page 25 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse between the two nouns (mostly titles in expressions like King David or Master George) gradually expand and in the course of the twentieth century come to be used very widely with almost any noun being able to modify any other noun (see Chapter 5 of Biber and Gray 2016 for detailed descriptions of the functional extension of a range of structures). The examples discussed in this section illustrate a view of grammar and discourse that sees the relationship between them as mutual and dynamic. Speakers and writers avail themselves of linguistic resources in order to show their understanding of the social ac­ tion being undertaken in a particular interaction and to achieve their interactional goals. In doing so, however, speakers (re)shape the grammatical tools at their disposal and cre­ ate new ones. Where such uses are repeated by a number of speakers on a number of oc­ casions, the new use may become part of the linguistic code. The studies we have noted try to capture the creation and remodelling of grammatical resources, and thus strive for a usage-based perspective on grammar.

26.5 Conclusion In this chapter we have reviewed the relationship between grammar and discourse from three different perspectives. First, we focused on the value of looking beyond the sen­ tence to investigate how grammatical structures are used in building discourse. We noted problems in drawing a strict grammar–discourse boundary: in delimiting the sentence as a grammatical unit, and in analysing cohesive relationships of ellipsis and anaphora that can hold both within and across sentences. We illustrated particular challenges posed by spoken interaction, including the co-construction of grammatical units by different speak­ ers, and the frequent use of clause fragments that are not syntactically integrated into sentential units. Our second perspective concerned the effect grammatical choices have on discourse. Here we highlighted some research in the tradition of discourse analysis that sees gram­ matical (as well as an array of other) choices as instrumental in presenting situations and events in different ways, including to suggest different ideologies and value systems, or to express different appraisals of and attitudes towards what is being talked about. Our dis­ cussion focused on choices that allow the foregrounding or backgrounding of partici­ pants, as well as on modality and the wider area of stance. Finally, our third perspective considered how discourse can shape grammar. Scholars adopting this perspective see grammar as malleable and responsive to the contexts in which language is used. In this approach, grammar is not something that speakers simply deploy—on the contrary, it can change in response to (frequent) patterns of use. Given that generative grammatical theories have drawn a sharp distinction be­ tween competence and performance, and have prioritized introspection over usage data (see Sprouse and Schütze, this volume, for discussion and developments), our brief re­ view here has focused on those theories and approaches that see structure as bound up with function and use. By considering a range of frameworks and perspectives, we have (p. 578)

Page 26 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse tried to show some of the richness of recent work at the interface of grammar and dis­ course.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Bas Aarts, Heidrun Dorgeloh, and two external reviewers for their valuable comments on drafts of this chapter.

Reference Ariel, Mira (2009). ‘Discourse, grammar, discourse.’ Discourse Studies 11(1): 5–36. Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Costas Canakis, and Bert Cornillie (eds) (2006). Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Baker, Paul, and Erez Levon (2015). ‘Picking the right cherries? A comparison of corpusbased and qualitative analyses of news articles about masculinity.’ Discourse and Commu­ nication 9(2): 221–36. Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (2002). ‘On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization?’, in Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 345– 61. Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de, and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. Biber, Douglas (2004). ‘Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5(1): 107–36. Biber, Douglas (2006a). ‘Stance in spoken and written university registers.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2): 97–116. Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray (2016). Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman. Billig, Michael (2008). ‘The language of critical discourse analysis: the case of nominaliza­ tion.’ Discourse and Society, 19(6): 783–800. Bowie, Jill, and Bas Aarts (2016). ‘Clause fragments in English dialogue’, in María José López-Couso, Belén Méndez-Naya, Paloma Núñez-Pertejo, and Ignacio M. PalaciosMartínez (eds), Corpus Linguistics on the Move: Exploring and Understanding English Through Corpora (Language and Computers: Studies in Digital Linguistics, 79). Leiden/ Boston: Brill Rodopi, 259–88. Page 27 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse Brinton, Laurel J. (1996). Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Burridge, Kate (2014). ‘Cos – a new discourse marker for Australian English?’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(4): 524–48. Bybee, Joan L. (2003). ‘Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequen­ cy’, in Brian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguis­ tics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bybee, Joan L. (2007). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press. Cann, Ronnie, Ruth Kempson, and Lutz Marten (2005). The Dynamics of Language: An In­ troduction (Syntax and Semantics, 35). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Chafe, Wallace L. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displace­ ment of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chilton, Paul (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Rout­ ledge. Chilton, Paul (2005). ‘Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct’, in Ruth Wodak and Paul Chilton (eds), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins, 19–52. Coffin, Caroline, Theresa Lillis and Kieran O’Halloran (2010). Applied Linguistics Meth­ ods: A Reader: Systemic Functional Linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis and Ethnogra­ phy. London/Milton Keynes: Routledge and The Open University. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2011). ‘Grammaticalization and conversation’, in Narrog and Heine (2011), 424–37. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono (2007). ‘Incrementing in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese.’ Pragmatics 17(4): 513–52. Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van, and Jason Merchant (2013). ‘Ellipsis phenomena’, in Marcel den Dikken (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1427–520. Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van, and Tanja Temmerman (eds) (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Page 28 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse Cumming, Susanna, Tsuyoshi Ono, and Ritva Lauri (2006). ‘Discourse, grammar and in­ teraction’, in Van Dijk, Teun A. (ed), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, vol. 1, 2nd edn. London: SAGE, 8–36. Davidse, Kristin, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds) (2010). Subjectifica­ tion, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Degand, Liesbeth, and Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul (2015). ‘Grammaticalization or pragmat­ icalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1): 59–85. Degand, Liesbeth, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds) (2011). ‘Grammaticaliza­ tion, pragmaticalization, and (inter)subjectification: Methodological issues in the study of discourse markers.’ Special issue of Linguistics, 49: 2. Dehé, Nicole (2014). Parentheticals in Spoken English: The Syntax–Prosody Relation (Studies in English Language.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dehé, Nicole, and Yordanka Kavalova (eds) (2007). Parentheticals. Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins, 25–52. Du Bois, John W. (1987). ‘The discourse basis of ergativity.’ Language 63(4): 805–55. Du Bois, John W. (2003). ‘Discourse and grammar’, in Michael Tomasello (ed), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 47–87. Englebretson, Robert (1997). ‘Genre and grammar: Predicative and attributive adjectives in spoken English’, in Matthew L. Juge and Jeri L. Moxley (eds), Proceedings of the Twen­ ty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguis­ tics Society. Fairclough, Norman (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ferris, D. Connor (1993). The Meaning of Syntax: A Study in the Adjectives of English. London: Longman. Fowler, Roger (1991). Language in the News. London: Routledge. Fowler, Roger, Bob Hodge, Gunther Kress, and Tony Trew (1979). Language and Control. London: Routledge. Fox, Barbara A. (2007). ‘Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration.’ Dis­ course Studies 9(3): 299–318. Gabrielatos, Costas and Paul Baker (2008). ‘Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press 1996-2005.’ Journal of English Linguistics 36: 5–38. Page 29 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse Ginzburg, Jonathan (2012). The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Raquel Fernández (2010). ‘Computational models of dialogue’, in Alexander Clark, Chris Fox, and Shalom Lappin (eds), The Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing. Oxford: Blackwell, 429–81. Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber (2015). ‘Stance markers’, in Karin Aijmer and Christoph Rühlemann (eds), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 219–48. Guéron, Jacqueline (ed) (2015). Sentence and Discourse (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Haig, Geoffrey, and Stefan Schnell (2016). ‘The discourse basis of ergativity revisited.’ Language 93(3): 591–618. Harrison, Chloe, Louise Nuttall, Peter Stockwell, and Wenjuan Yuan (eds) (2014). Cogni­ tive Grammar in Literature. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hart, Christopher (2014). Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Hart, Christopher (2016). ‘Event-frames affect blame assignment and perception of ag­ gression in discourse on political protests: An experimental case study in critical dis­ course analysis.’ Applied Linguistics 39: 400–21. Heine, Bernd (2013). ‘On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else?’ Linguistics 51(6): 1205–47. Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hopper, Paul J., and Elisabeth C. Traugott (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra Thompson (1984). ‘The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar.’ Language 60: 703–52. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the Eng­ lish Language. In collaboration with Laurie Bauer, Betty Birner, Ted Briscoe, Peter Collins, David Denison, David Lee, Anita Mittwoch, Geoffrey Nunberg, Frank Palmer, John Payne, Peter Peterson, Lesley Stirling, Gregory Ward. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 30 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine, and Tania Kuteva (2011). ‘On thetical grammar.’ Stud­ ies in Language 35(4): 852–97. Kempson, Ruth M. (2016). ‘Syntax as the dynamics of language understanding’, in Keith Allan (ed), The Routledge Handbook of Linguistics. London: Routledge, 135–52. Kempson, Ruth M., Wilfried Meyer-Viol, and Dov Gabbay (2001). Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. Oxford: Blackwell. Kress, Gunther, and Robert Hodge (1979). Language as Ideology. London: Routledge. Kuteva, Tania (2004). Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lehmann, Christian (1985). ‘Synchronic variation and diachronic change.’ Lingua e Stile 20(3): 303–318. Lerner, Gene H. (1992). ‘Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter.’ Qualitative Sociology 15(3): 247–71. Levinson, Stephen C. (2017). ‘Speech acts’, in Yan Huang (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 199–216. Li, Juan (2011). ‘Collision of language in news discourse: A functional–cognitive perspec­ tive on transitivity.’ Critical Discourse Studies 8(3): 203–19. Lightfoot, David (1999). The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolu­ tion. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lindström, Jan, Yael Maschler, and Simona Pekarek Doehler (2016). ‘A cross-linguistic perspective on grammar and negative epistemics in talk-in-interaction.’ Journal of Prag­ matics 106: 72–9. Linell, Per (1998). Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Per­ spectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Linell, Per (2005). The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. London: Routledge. Martin, J. R. (2011). ‘Systemic functional linguistics’, in Ken Hyland and Brian Paltridge (eds). Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum, 101–119. Martin, J. R. (2016). ‘Meaning matters: A short history of systemic functional linguistics.’ WORD 62(1): 35–58. Miller, Jim (2006). ‘Spoken and written English’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 670–91.

Page 31 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse Miller, Jim, and Regina Weinert (1998). Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Dis­ course. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mulder, Jean, and Sandra A. Thompson (2008). ‘The grammaticalization of but as final particle in English conversation’, in Laury, Ritva (ed), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mulder, Jean, Sandra A. Thompson, and Cara Perry Williams (2009). ‘Final but in Aus­ tralian English conversation’, in Pam Peters, Peter Collins, and Adam Smith (eds), Com­ parative Studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and Beyond. Amster­ dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 339–59. Narrog, Heiko, and Bernd Heine (eds) (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticaliza­ tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Öhl, Peter (2014). ‘Acquisition based and usage based explanations of grammaticalisaton. An integrative approach’, in Sylvie Hancil and Ekkehard König (eds), Grammaticalization: Theory and Data. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vol. 162 of Studies in Lan­ guage Companion Series. Quaglio, Paulo, and Douglas Biber (2006). ‘The grammar of conversation’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 692– 723. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985). A Compre­ hensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Sanders, T., and H. Pander Maat (2006). ‘Cohesion and coherence: Linguistic approach­ es’, in Keith Brown (ed), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier (supplied as online service by ScienceDirect), 591–595. Sanders, T., and J. Sanders (2006). ‘Text and text analysis’, in Keith Brown (ed), Encyclo­ pedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier (supplied as online ser­ vice by ScienceDirect), 597–607. Schleppegrell, Mary J. (2014). ‘Systemic functional linguistics’, in James Paul Gee and Michael Handford (eds) (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London/ New York: Routledge, 21–34. Sidnell, Jack (2012). ‘Turn-continuation by self and by other.’ Discourse Processes 49: 314–37. Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds) (2013). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Ox­ ford: Wiley-Blackwell. Smith, Andrew D. M., Graeme Trousdale, and Richard Waltereit (eds) (2015). New Direc­ tions in Grammaticalisation Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vol. 166 in Studies in Language Companion Series. Page 32 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson (eds) (2010). Question–Response Sequences in Conversation Across Ten Languages. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10). Szczepek, Beatrice (2000a). ‘Formal aspects of collaborative productions in English con­ versation.’ InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 17. http://www.inlist.unibayreuth.de/issues/17/index.htm. Szczepek, Beatrice (2000b). ‘Functional aspects of collaborative productions in English conversation.’ InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 21. http://www.inlist.unibayreuth.de/issues/21/index.htm. Thompson, Sandra A. (1988). ‘A discourse approach to the category “adjective”’, in John A. Hawkins (ed), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 167–210. van Dijk, Teun A. (2008). ‘Critical discourse analysis and nominalization: Problem or pseu­ do-problem?’ Discourse and Society 19(6): 821–8. Waltereit, Richard (2011). ‘Grammaticalization and discourse’, in Narrog and Heine (eds) (2011), 413–23.

Notes: (1) See, however, Guéron (2015) for recent work on the interaction between grammar and discourse within a generative grammar framework. (2) This unitary clausal structure is a main clause which incorporates subordinate clauses at several levels of structure. The infinitival clause added in A2 is arguably a second com­ plement of leave, so we might see this addition as not simply extending the structure in A1, but changing it from a monotransitive to a complex catenative construction (to use Huddleston and Pullum’s (2002: Chapter 14) term). (3) We cannot offer detailed discussion of the ellipsis debates here. See for example van Craenenbroeck and Merchant (2013) and chapters in van Craenenbroeck and Temmer­ man (2018). (4) For a discussion of verb valency see Herbst, this volume. (5) The examples and analysis in (30) are from Biber (2006a: 99–100), underlining in the original. (6) The attribution of stance is a complex matter, which unfortunately, we can’t give the attention it deserves. See remarks in Ziegeler (this volume) as well as discussions of stance in the literature for some of the issues. (7) See Haig and Schnell (2016) on some of the debates around ergativity and information management.

Page 33 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Grammar and Discourse (8) For an earlier seminal discussion of semantic and pragmatic changes accompanying grammaticalization see Brinton 1996, for example.

Jill Bowie

Jill Bowie is a research fellow at the Survey of English Usage, University College Lon­ don. Her research interests include English syntax and morphology, language evolu­ tion and change, and the grammatical analysis of spoken discourse. She recently worked on the AHRC-funded project “The Changing Verb Phrase in Present-Day British English” led by Bas Aarts. Forthcoming publications (with B. Aarts and S. Wal­ lis) include papers in The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Language Change with Corpora (B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech, and S. Wallis, eds.) and Corpus Linguistics and the Development of English (M. Kytö, I. Taavitsainen, C. Claridge, and J. Smith, eds.). [email protected] Gergana Popova

Gergana Popova is a Lecturer in Linguistics at Goldsmiths, University of London. Her research interests are in theoretical linguistics, especially morphology and its inter­ faces with syntax and lexical semantics, as well as the analysis of text and discourse.

Page 34 of 34

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar

Change in Grammar   Marianne Hundt The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region, Morphology and Syntax Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.16

Abstract and Keywords The chapter discusses morphological and syntactic change against the backdrop of differ­ ent theoretical (formal versus functional/usage-based) and methodological approaches (introspection versus corpus data). Specifically, it addresses the question whether gram­ matical change happens suddenly in a catastrophic resetting of parameters or whether change happens in a more piecemeal, incremental fashion. The case studies that are used to illustrate syntactic demise, innovation, and grammatical revival come from the area of mood (an inflectional category) and modality, notably the grammaticalization of modal verbs. Semi-modals such as (had) better are discussed as examples of constructionaliza­ tion. Taken together, grammatical changes in mood and modality are ideally suited to ex­ emplify more long-term typological developments in English from a synthetic to a largely analytic language. Keywords: catastrophic versus incremental change, grammaticalization, constructionalization, syntactic demise, grammatical revival, mood, modal verbs, synthetic versus analytic

27.1 Introduction IN the course of its history, English has undergone a series of—sometimes related—mor­ phological and syntactic changes that have essentially resulted in a fundamental typologi­ cal change, from a largely synthetic to a much more analytic language. It has (almost completely) lost certain inflectional properties commonly found in related Indo-European languages (such as case, voice, mood, most tense and person contrasts) while at the same time developing new means of marking grammatical categories or functions (such as word order, periphrastic verbal constructions or complex prepositions). An example of how some of these changes are related would be the loss of case, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, development towards a (fairly) rigid SVO word order and the subse­ quent emergence of new passive constructions as well as a remarkable flexibility with re­ spect to the semantic roles that can fill the subject slot in active declaratives in English (see e.g., Hawkins 1986, Hundt 2007, or Dreschler 2015). A look at Old English verb par­ Page 1 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar adigms will show that, by comparison with its Indo-European ancestors, English had al­ ready lost most of the inflectional marking for voice, tense, and aspect on the verb; in the course of its history, new, periphrastic means have evolved that nowadays allow speakers to combine a modal verb with a perfect, a progressive, and a passive in complex verb phrases such as the one illustrated in example (1): (1)

1

In other words, the history of English grammar is one of both loss and (quite sub­ stantial) gain, where relatively small changes in one area of the language (such as a change in the basic stress pattern of words) have had repercussions in other areas (as for instance loss of inflectional case marking). Similar changes of loss and gain in the area of mood and modality will be discussed in more detail in section 27.3. (p. 582)

Different theoretical approaches to grammar have provided their own accounts of gram­ matical change in English, e.g., in terms of ‘catastrophic’ change between one generation and the next (the traditional generative account) or in terms of a series of incremental changes and new patterns seen as emerging, for instance, out of shifts in frequencies (us­ age-based and functional models). This chapter provides an overview of different types of change (morphological and syntac­ tic) against the background of different models of grammar and the methodologies on which they rely (see section 27.2). It looks at both grammatical loss (surprisingly still a fairly under-researched topic) and gain (fairly well studied within grammaticalization and —more recently—constructionalization). The case studies used to illustrate grammatical change focus on mood and modality.2 This area of English grammar is ideally suited to il­ lustrate the general typological change (from inflectional to a largely analytic marking of grammatical categories) that characterizes long-term developments in English. Moreover, mood and modality is a field that allows us to look at both loss and rise of morphological and syntactic categories. Evidence comes from previous stages in the history of the lan­ guage as well as more recent developments, and is often drawn from corpus data. The lat­ ter allow us to map both the (near) demise of categories as well as revival of a pattern that had almost faced extinction. The focus in this chapter is on language-internal processes, but underlying mechanisms such as analogy, reanalysis or ambiguity and their psycholinguistic underpinnings are not discussed in detail.3 External reasons for change will be touched on occasionally (see sec­ tion 27.3.5 on the revival of the mandative subjunctive in American English), but for an indepth discussion of the role that language contact may have played in grammatical change, see the relevant chapters in Nevalainen and Traugott (2012) or contributions in Schreier and Hundt (2013). Page 2 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar (p. 583)

27.2 Approaches to change in grammar

With respect to theoretical modelling of grammatical change, we can distinguish two main approaches: a formal (or generative) approach, on the one hand, and a functional one, on the other hand; the latter I understand to subsume cognitive, usage-based, and descriptive approaches (see the relevant chapters in Part II of this volume for back­ ground). As data, linguists have relied on manuscripts (and editions thereof) for earlier periods of the language; these have become efficiently searchable in the form of electron­ ic corpora and text databases.4 For more recent and ongoing change in English, linguists can also rely on their intuition as native speakers or use experimentation (e.g., eliciting speaker judgements of acceptability/grammaticality, investigating priming effects, etc.). Since the advent of recording devices, it has been possible to include the spoken medium in corpora and investigate variation between speech and writing (e.g., by comparing evi­ dence from the Brown family corpora with data from the Diachronic Corpus of PresentDay Spoken English, DCPSE). For periods where we lack recordings of actual speech da­ ta, spoken language has been studied by proxy, i.e. on the basis of speech-like, speechbased or speech-purposed writing (see Culpeper and Kytö (2010) for the distinction and a detailed description of linguistic characteristics of these approximations). A fundamental tenet of generative theories is that language is modular, in other words, the grammar and the lexicon are considered to be separate, autonomous components or domains (see also Los 2012), while most functional and usage-based approaches conceive of grammatical function and lexical meaning as closely related, if not inherently linked, aspects of language. Within the generative approach, grammars change from one genera­ tion of speakers to the next, and thus relatively abruptly, as Lightfoot (1979: 24) points out: ‘… while the grammar of a single adult could change only in minor ways in the course of a life-time, there could be greater differences between the grammar of a child and his parents or models’. Within usage-based approaches, on the other hand, change typically proceeds gradually (slowly at first, then picking up ‘speed’ before slowing down again—in the typical ‘slow-quick, quick-slow’ pattern of the S-curve).5 The following sec­ tions look in more detail at how these fundamentally different notions of language and lin­ guistic knowledge affect models of grammatical change. These will then be taken up in the case study on changes in the English mood and modality system in section 27.3. (p. 584)

27.2.1 Abrupt or ‘catastrophic’ change

As pointed out above, generative models of language and grammatical change build on the assumption that change takes place from one generation to the next, and that—due to changes in the input—one generation of learners may end up with different parameter settings from the ones of the preceding generation. These settings concern, for instance, whether the grammar allows the dropping of pronouns (as in Italian Vedi questo libro? ‘Do you see this book?’) or not (as in English, where the pronoun subject is taken to be obligatory). According to the seminal work on generative diachronic syntax by Lightfoot

Page 3 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar (1979: 78), ‘piecemeal changes’ successively make the grammar more complicated and marked: … these piecemeal changes are followed by a catastrophe…, a major re-analysis of the grammar eliminating the markedness and complexity which had been gradual­ ly accumulating. The symptoms of such a cataclysmic re-structuring will be a set of simultaneous but apparently unrelated changes. The key word in this passage is the ‘simultaneous’ occurrence of a set of changes lin­ guists can observe in the data. In section 27.3.2, we will look at a case study that, accord­ ing to Lightfoot (1979), illustrates such a set of simultaneous (apparently unrelated) changes, leading to the emergence of modals, a new class of auxiliary verb.

27.2.2 Stepwise (incremental) change In functional, usage-based accounts of grammatical change, there is no a priori need for change to occur between one generation and the next, and therefore no theory-inherent requirement for any abrupt changes in grammatical representation. Instead, change is conceived of as a gradual process by which lexical items in the process of grammatical­ ization, for instance, become increasingly bleached with respect to their original seman­ tic content and take on more and more grammatical meaning (see e.g., Hopper and Trau­ gott 2003). Moreover, old and new uses of a grammaticalizing item exist side by side, both in the use of individual speakers and in the language community. As Traugott and Trousdale (2010: 23f.) point out, [m]icro changes are discrete…and, as conventionalizations, cognitively abrupt (in a tiny way) for individual speakers. However, on the assumption that innovation is not change, only consolidation of an innovation via transfer to a community is, changes at the level of the community are not discrete/abrupt. In section 27.3.2, we will therefore contrast the generative account of the evolution of modal auxiliaries with that given in grammaticalization theory. To sum up, grammatical change takes place in the individual’s acquisition of a language (i.e. between generations) in the generative approach whereas functional, usage-based models conceive of innovation as being initiated by the individual, but grammatical change as happening on the level of the language community.

(p. 585)

27.3 Mood and modality in English

Modality, in a broad definition, is a cover-term for linguistic strategies used to express speaker attitudes towards the proposition expressed in the clause, typically encoded on the lexical verb or within the verb phrase, but also elsewhere in the sentence, e.g., through modal adverbs like possibly. The focus here is on verbal expression of speaker at­ titudes. This can be done through inflectionally marking the lexical verb, i.e. grammatical mood, or through periphrastic means, i.e. the combination of a base form of the lexical Page 4 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar verb with a modal auxiliary. For more details on mood and modality in English, see Ziegel­ er, this volume.

27.3.1 Mood: the (near) loss of an inflectional category Old English had inherited a (fairly) systematic distinction between indicative and subjunc­ tive mood from Proto West Germanic. Subjunctives were mostly used in subordinate clauses to express counterfactuals and following verbs of command and desire (where they continue to be used in Modern English) but also in concessive clauses and (variably) in reported speech or after certain verbs such as þencan ‘to think/consider’.6 The inflec­ tional paradigm for the strong verb bīdan ‘await’ (Table 27.1) can be used to illustrate the different forms for early West Saxon; distinct subjunctive forms have been italicized.

Page 5 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar Table 27.1 Inflectional paradigm for OE bīdan ‘await’ (based on Hogg and Fulk 2011: 214) Present Indicative

Subjunctive

Indicative

Subjunctive

bīde

bīde

bād

bīde

2

bīdst

bīde

bīde

bīde

3

bītt

bide

bād

bīde

bīdað

bīden

bīdon

bīden

Sg. 1

Pl.

Past

Page 6 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar Towards the end of the Old English period, the system began to collapse, however, with the generalization of plural -on to the subjunctive, thus neutralizing the mood distinction in the preterite plural (Hogg 1992: 150). The ending weakened to schwa in (p. 586) late Old English (Lass 1992: 135). Further neutralization took place during the Middle English period with the loss of /-n/ in the plural; once word-final schwa disappeared, eventual loss of the ending occurred (Lass 1999: 158). Finally, when the second person singular pro­ noun fell into disuse in the Early Modern Period, one of the few remaining mood distinc­ tions disappeared, leaving Present-Day English with only residual use in very restricted contexts. A remnant of a historical present subjunctive is identifiable in mandative con­ texts (following expressions of command, suggestion, and so on) in instances where the bare form of the verb occurs with a third person singular subject (see (2)). The bare form of be is also used in mandative and conditional contexts (see (3) and (4), respectively). In hypothetical conditional clauses, finally, were is a remnant of a historical past subjunctive with first and third person singular subjects (see examples (5) and (6)).7 (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

With respect to the use of subjunctive forms, López-Couso and Mendez-Naya (1996: 412– 13), on the basis of evidence from the Helsinki Corpus, show that clearly marked subjunc­ tive forms as complements to requests and commands decrease from 100 per cent at the beginning of the Old English period to just 27 per cent at the end of the Middle English period. The inflectional subjunctive, with its drastically reduced paradigm, survives in for­ mulaic contexts (such as Long live the Queen) and as a relic form after certain conjunc­ tions (e.g., Lest there be any doubt). In addition, it is still regularly used after certain mandative triggers (such as important, request, advise) where its use even increases in Page 7 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar the twentieth century (see section 27.3.5), whereas past subjunctive were in hypothetical counterfactuals is on the decline (see Leech et al. 2009: 64–7). While English thus (largely) lost the inflectional means to express modality on verbs, it gained a new class of verbs that still allow it to express modal meaning in the verb phrase. The focus in the next section will be on the development of the core modals, i.e. (p. 587) verbs like will, would, can, could, rather than semi-modals used to, dare to, want to, etc. (see Krug 2000) or modal verbal idioms like try to/try and (see e.g., Hommerberg and Tottie 2007) or (had) better (see section 27.3.3).

27.3.2 Modality: the rise of a new class of verbs The development of the majority of modal auxiliaries from preterite present verbs8 has been used as a paradigm case to model grammatical change within both generative and functional, usage-based approaches. The focus in what follows will be on the syntactic changes involved in this grammatical change; for details on semantic changes that ac­ company the development, see Ziegeler (this volume) and section 27.3.3 below. Common ground for all accounts of the modal story is that the ancestors of verbs like will, might and can (i.e. Old English willan, magan, and cunnan) were (full) lexical verbs taking nominal elements (an NP or clause) as their complements, as in the following example (with sibbe ‘peace’ as the direct object of wolde ‘wanted’): (7)

But as early as Old English, these verbs could also combine with the infinitive of other lexical verbs, as with forspillan (‘destroy’) in the following example: (8)

The inflectional properties of Old English pre-modals, too, resembled those of full verbs in that they mostly agreed with the subject for person (with some exceptions) and number.9 In Present-Day English, modal verbs no longer take complements of the type illustrated in (7) but exclusively combine with the base form of lexical verbs in complex verb phrases; moreover, they have all the NICE properties typical of auxiliary verbs (see Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 92–3), as illustrated in the following examples:10

Page 8 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar (p. 588)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

In Present-Day English, core modals take direct negation without do-support and with negative contraction on the verb (N), and they allow interrogative formation by simple in­ version (I); in addition, they can be used in reduced constructions with ellipsis of the main verb (C), and carry nuclear stress in positive declaratives (E). For all of these properties to apply, substantial changes had to take place between Old English and Present-Day English, for which generative and functional accounts differ substantially. The changes (loss of their original syntactic and morphological characteristics) are described in Light­ foot (1979: 101–9) and summarized in Fischer and van der Wurff (2006: 148). In the fol­ lowing, the focus shall be on the general line of argumentation in generative and usagebased accounts rather than on the details of the change itself. Fischer and van der Wurff (2006) also provide a detailed critique of Lightfoot’s account,11 which distinguishes two phases for the change: an early one of apparently unconnected losses that stretches over a longer period of time (from Old English to the end of the Mid­ dle English period), and a second phase of connected changes that occur more or less si­ multaneously in the sixteenth century. According to Lightfoot (1979: 114), [t]he reanalysis was provoked by a number of changes which made it unclear whether the pre-modals were verbs or a unique category. … Thus the category membership of pre-modals became opaque and the grammar moved to avoid such opacity. The criticism of Lightfoot’s account mainly focuses on the difficulty of dating syntactic loss, with scholars providing examples of patterns during the second phase that should have been extinct after the first phase (e.g., instances of the pre-modals where they take a nominal complement after 1500; see e.g., Warner 1983 and Fischer and van der Wurff 2006). Moreover, Lightfoot’s account builds on the assumption that the preterite present verbs were ‘normal’ full verbs in the Old English period, an assumption which has also been questioned: most of the verbs that developed into modals showed some unusual Page 9 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar morphological properties and syntactic behaviour as early as Old English (one of the mor­ phological peculiarities being that the historical strong preterite forms had developed present-tense meanings, and new, weak past tense forms had evolved, which in turn lost their past tense meaning as they developed into modal verbs). In addition, functional accounts of the development draw on the observation that the dif­ ference between full verbs and auxiliaries is not a categorical one but rather of a gradient nature: core modals display all of the NICE properties, with marginal modals (p. 589) and semi-modals like need (to) and have to showing variability with respect to the criteria that are used to distinguish between full verbs and auxiliaries (see e.g., Leech et al. 2009: 92– 8). The gradient nature of the distinction also holds for the history of English: Warner (1983: 198) points out that variable do-support in the seventeenth century makes for cate­ gory overlap of the two kinds of verb during that period. We could argue that, to the ex­ tent that do-support is still variable with full verb have in formal contexts (see examples in (13)), and in view of the fact that a marginal modal like dare occasionally takes do-sup­ port in interrogatives and negated sentences (see examples in (14)),12 N(egation) and I(inversion) remain somewhat problematic as a diagnostic for auxiliarihood. (13)

(14)

According to Barber (1993: 275f.), dare is even moving towards full-verb syntax in inter­ rogatives and negated sentences (i.e. occurring with do-support rather than inversion/ bare negation); while dare is a low-frequency item and infrequently attested in the Brownfamily corpora, the little evidence that we do find does not support Barber’s view (see Ta­ ble 27.2).

Page 10 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar Table 27.2 Full-verb, mixed, and auxiliary syntax of dare in interrogative and negated sentences in the Brown-family corpora of American and British English (AmE and BrE)

Page 11 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar Full verb

Mixed

Auxiliary

Total

B-Brown (AmE, ±1931)

2

2

5

9

Brown (AmE, 1961)

2

2

5

9

Frown (AmE, 1992)

0

3

1

5

AE06 (AmE, 2006)

0

2

2

4

B-LOB (BrE, ±1931)

4

1

3

8

LOB (BrE, 1961)

1

3

9

13

FLOB (BrE, 1991)

2

3

6

9

BE06 (BrE, 2006)

0

2

5

7

Total

11

18

36

64

Page 12 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar The semantic changes involved in the grammaticalization of the new category of verbs are analysed as gradual rather than abrupt by scholars working within the function­ al paradigm (see Ziegeler, this volume, for details) and therefore do not support the idea of a catastrophic change, either. Another example of a gradual rather than abrupt devel­ opment is the loss of nonfinite forms of pre-modals which, according to Lightfoot (1979), however, was part of the ‘catastrophic’ change in the sixteenth century. Warner (1983, 1993) and Fischer (2004) maintain that the development is more complicated, differs from verb to verb, and, most importantly, is gradual rather than abrupt. (p. 590)

27.3.3 Modals: grammaticalization and constructionalization Modal verbs in English have been discussed as a prime example of grammaticalization (e.g., Heine 1993)13 but recently also as an instance of constructionalization (e.g., Trau­ gott and Trousdale 2013). Grammaticalization and constructionalization are closely relat­ ed concepts: according to Fried (2013: 423), grammaticalization aims to account for the series of changes involved in the change from lexical items into grammatical patterns, whereas construction grammar’s focus is on capturing the incremental nature of the change in that it specifically also takes frequency changes into account. But the case of the modal idiom had better shows that constructionalization is different from grammati­ calization in that it also covers partial developments, as we will see. The syntactic and morphological changes involved in the grammaticalization/construc­ tionalization of the modals were discussed above (section 27.3.2). In this section, we will briefly look at some of the semantic changes connected with the emergence of modal verbs before moving on to an account of the modal idiom (had) better as an example of constructionalization. The study of the semantic changes that are part of the grammaticalization of modal auxil­ iaries provides a good argument for grammatical change that can stretch over centuries and be characterized by long periods where different meanings exist side by side. More­ over, ambiguity or semantic underspecification for individual occurrences of modal verbs is highly relevant, as various studies on English modals have shown (see e.g., Traugott 1989, Palmer 1990). However, in terms of their general developmental paths, most schol­ ars agree that the pre-modals first took on deontic meaning, i.e. expressing permission or obligation (so-called ‘root’ modality), and that epistemic modality evolved later.14 In other words, the semantic change involved is from more ‘objective’ towards more ‘subjective’ meaning. For sculan/shall, Traugott (1989) provides the following examples of a clearly deontic (15) and a (somewhat weaker) epistemic use (16); the fact that these uses are al­ ready attested in Old English has (p. 591) been taken as further evidence of the longdrawn out process of change from lexical to auxiliary verb. (15)

Page 13 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar

(16)

Traugott (1989: 42f.) provides evidence for other modals, such as must, to argue that the semantic development is from deontic via weak subjective epistemic towards clearly epis­ temic meaning. Epistemic uses were typically supported by an epistemic adverb such as nedes in the context in Middle English, as in (17), and only later occurred without such adverbial support, as in (18), which can be taken as evidence that epistemic meaning has clearly grammaticalized: (17)

(18)

Importantly for a usage-based grammaticalization account, the process involved overlap and did not occur simultaneously for all verbs: ‘…many earlier meanings coexisted with later ones, and doubtless constrained the development of later ones’ (Traugott 1989: 43). According to Traugott and Trousdale (2013: 63; 2014: 259), the emergence of the modal schema can also be seen as a process of constructionalization that gave rise to a new form–meaning pairing, which in turn is part of the auxiliary schema (i.e. a subschema in a larger network; see also Hilpert, this volume, section 6.4.2). Once the schema exists, it can acquire new members, also at the periphery, as the case of (had) better will show. This view of the process fits in with one of the basic tenets of construction grammar, i.e. that our knowledge of language amounts to a network of constructions (i.e. form–mean­ ing pairings) or the ‘construct-i-con’ in Goldberg’s (2003: 219) words. Page 14 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar Let us now turn to the modal idiom (had) better. Denison and Cort (2010) detail its development from the Old English period, looking at syntactic as well as semantic and pragmatic changes involved in the process. They refrain from identifying better constructions unequivocally as an instance of grammaticalization, however, mainly be­ cause, according to them, the change is not necessarily unidirectional towards modal­ hood. Within a constructionalization account, this would not pose a problem since inheri­ tance of properties from the schema can also be partial. For the Late Modern Period, van der Auwera et al. (2013) provide empirical evidence from the Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (CLMET) substantiating the later developments, which are summarized in Figure 27.1. (p. 592)

Figure 27.1 The grammaticalization chain for the modal idiom (had) better in the Late Modern Period (after van der Auwera et al. 2013: 142)

In a nutshell, in a first step, the full form had better shows phonological reduction to ’d better. A parallel reduction of the subject and verb in so-called better proverbs of the type (It is) better (to) XP1 (than XP2) (e.g., Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t; see Denison and Cort 2010: 360) contributes to further reduction in form of the better modal idiom (see also Krug 2000: 211). This aspect of the development also makes sense within a construction grammar framework, where the modal idiom better would be seen as inheriting the option of a zero subject and zero verb from the better proverbs. In Present-Day English, there is some spurious evidence from child language that better might be on its way to becoming fully verbal (as in (19)), and thus offering the potential for further reanalysis.15 (p. 593)

(19)

A search in the eighty-million-word Oxford Children’s Corpus did not yield a single in­ stance of bettn’t,16 however, despite the fact that there is evidence of the use of spoken features in children’s writing (see Hundt 2016). Page 15 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar In the course of its history, (had) better has come to share a number of important syntac­ tic characteristics with core modals: it lacks non-finite variants and has an invariable ver­ bal element had, which is historically a past tense form but does not express past tense meaning any more. In addition, (had) better always combines with the base form of anoth­ er verb rather than a to-infinitive; shows contraction of the verbal element or even ellipsis (see examples (20) and (21), respectively); and takes simple not in negation (and not do-sup­ port, like lexical verbs). The negator can attach to or follow the verbal base (as in (22) and (23), with (22b) showing subject ellipsis); it can also follow better (see (24)), typically (but not exclusively) with verbal ellipsis: (20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

In terms of frequency developments, van der Auwera et al. (2013: 133) show that the full form had better declines significantly in British English during the twentieth century, (p. 594) whereas the reduced form ’d better increases to the same extent; the more fully Page 16 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar grammaticalized bare form better is attested from the eighteenth century in their data but only slowly increases during the twentieth century. With respect to semantic changes, their evidence further corroborates the shift from earlier deontic meanings to later epis­ temic uses, which remain rare even in Present-Day English (van der Auwera et al. 2013: 133–4). The earliest epistemic (what they call ‘optative’) use from their data is (25):17 (25)

The fact that the (had) better construction shares some, but not all, properties with the core modals is amenable to modelling modality within the construction grammar idea of a network of constructions.18

27.3.4 Syntactic demise: being to V The story of mood and modality in English is not only one of inflectional loss. The lan­ guage also lost some of the periphrastic constructions that had developed from Old Eng­ lish onwards. One example of such syntactic loss is the demise of non-finite variants of the semi-modal be to, which enjoyed a rather short lease of life between the end of the sixteenth century and around 1840 (see (26) for the earliest attested example in OED; the last, according to Visser 1963–1973: §1378, is from 1840). However, in a corpus-based study of the demise of non-finite being to V, Hundt (2014) found that the construction is attested considerably later: into the early 1900s and, occasionally, even in the twenty-first century in (American) speech (see examples (27) and (28), respectively). (26)

(27)

(p. 595)

(28)

Page 17 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar The finding of the corpus-based study on the (near-complete) demise of being to V is that English lost an extremely low-frequency pattern. Chronologically, this development is linked to the grammaticalization of the progressive passive (e.g., was being watched), which became available in the second half of the eighteenth century. Data from large cor­ pora thus mainly corroborate the accounts given in earlier studies (e.g., Warner 1995: 549; for the earliest attested progressive passive, see van Bergen 2013). Warner (1995) argues for a parametric change, though. As Hundt (2014: 19) points out, the fact that being to V is still occasionally attested beyond the period when the progres­ sive passive developed speaks against treating this change within a strict (parametric) formalist approach, where the rise of the construction that brings about the systemic change (i.e. the progressive passive) should block the ‘old’ pattern from appearing. Corpus evidence does not corroborate an alternative hypothesis, namely that being to V was ousted by its near-synonym having to V. Even though the two constructions are not fully equivalent in all contexts (see Hundt 2014 for details), they could be used with the same meaning in some contexts, as the following examples illustrate: (29)

(30)

Data from the Old Bailey Proceedings (OBP) corpus show that being to V had already de­ clined significantly before the non-finite alternative having to V started spreading in the second half of the eighteenth century (see Figure 27.2).

Figure 27.2 Being to V and semi-modal having to V (frequency per million words) in the OBP corpus (based on data from Hundt 2014: 181)

Corpus evidence thus does not provide an alternative explanation to the one offered by earlier studies (e.g., Warner 1995), but adds important details to the chronology of the de­ Page 18 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar velopment, and, crucially, evidence of the occasional use of the obsolescent pattern be­ yond the 1840s, which is relevant from a theoretical point of view.

27.3.5 Grammatical revival: the case of the mandative subjunctive After mandative or suasive expressions such as ask, stipulate, proposal, or essential, a that-clause in English can contain either a modal auxiliary like should or a verb inflecting for subjunctive mood (be for all persons but limited to third person singular subjects and present tense for all other verbs; for subjunctives, see examples (2) and (3) (p. 596) in sec­ tion 27.3.1 above).19 Various corpus studies have shown that the subjunctive, after de­ creasing to the point where it had become the minority variant in these contexts (e.g., Hundt 2009: 31), sees a revival in American English in the twentieth century, with other varieties (e.g., New Zealand, Australian, and British English) following suit (see Över­ gaard 1995, Hundt 1998a, Leech et al. 2009). Hundt and Gardner (2017) provide addi­ tional data from the 1930s prequels to the standard reference corpora of British and American English (BrE and AmE), i.e. B-LOB (±1931) and B-Brown (±1931), respectively, which allows them to corroborate the change in twentieth-century English on both sides of the Atlantic. Figure 27.3 shows that by the 1930s, AmE is clearly ahead of BrE in the revival of the mandative subjunctive.20 In fact, this is one of the changes where BrE is lagging behind significantly in a development that has reached near completion in written AmE: the only significant diachronic change emerging from a pair-wise comparison of the data in Figure 27.3 is the one between the 1960s and 1990s BrE corpora (LOB and F-LOB). In other words, the increase that, according to Övergaard (1995: 44–6), occurred in AmE (p. 597) between 1900 and 1920 had already made the subjunctive so frequent that further signifi­ cant increases after the 1930s were unlikely. Övergaard (1995) attributes the kick-start that the mandative subjunctive received in the US to language contact between English and languages with subjunctive forms (such as German, French, Spanish, and Italian) spoken by immigrants in the Mid-West.

Figure 27.3 Proportion of periphrastic constructions and mandative subjunctives in the Brown family of corpora (based on Hundt and Gardner 2017: 109); to­ tal number of variable contexts: B-LOB = 92; LOB = 111; FLOB = 117; B-Brown = 96; Brown = 134; Frown = 115

Page 19 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar Interestingly, the loss of the were-subjunctive in the protasis of conditional clauses (e.g., if I were kind to you; see (5) above) is much more advanced in written BrE than in AmE (see Leech et al. 2009: 64–7 and Hundt and Gardner 2017: 108): frequencies in the LOB corpo­ ra drop from about 80 per cent in the 1930s to just above 50 per cent in the 1990s, whereas those in the AmE corpora start from the slightly higher level of 83.4 per cent in the 1930s (B-Brown) and fall to just under 74 per cent in the 1990s (Frown). Together, the revival of the mandative subjunctive and the retarded change towards indicatives in con­ ditional clauses indicate that (written) AmE, overall, has been a relatively ‘subjunctivefriendly’ variety in the twentieth century.

27.3.6 Recent change in core modals and modal constructions One of the most noticeable recent grammatical changes that emerged from Leech et al.’s (2009) study of BrE and AmE on the basis of the Brown-family corpora is the significant decline in core modal verbs and a substantial rise in the frequency of semi-modals; while Leech et al. (2009) use written data, the same general trend has also been confirmed in spoken English (see e.g., Close and Aarts 2010 or Bowie et al. 2013). This section discuss­ es the overall development in these two related areas of English grammar. Figure 27.4 presents data on the core modals. The decrease of could is the only one that does not prove statistically significant in a log-likelihood test, and can is the only core modal that shows a slight (but non-significant) increase (see Leech et al. 2009: 283).21 (p. 598)

Figure 27.4 Diachronic development of core modals in the Brown-family of corpora (based on Leech et al. 2009: 283; raw total frequencies in BrE and AmE pooled together; all corpora are approximately 1,000,000 words in size)

In addition to the decline in frequency, some core modals also exhibit what Leech et al. (2009: 80) refer to as ‘paradigmatic atrophy’. All modals are anomalous (for historical Page 20 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar reasons) in that they lack person marking in the third person singular present indicative. Like the verbs they evolved from, they have largely lost the original tense opposition (e.g., the main difference between shall and should is a semantic rather than a temporal one).22 Additionally, a verb like shall is restricted with respect to the persons it can take as its subject: in BrE, especially, it almost exclusively takes first person subjects (as in Shall I close the window or Shall we start?).23 The few instances where it (p. 599) is still attested with a second or third person subject are stylistically marked in BrE: they are ei­ ther instances of archaic or specialized usage from legal and administrative writing (see Leech et al. 2009: 80). The situation, at first glance, appears to be somewhat different in the International Corpus of English (ICE), which also includes spoken data: Collins (2009: 136f.) finds that, in ICE-GB, ICE-Aus, and comparable data for AmE, speakers regularly use deontic shall with third person subjects: 59.6 per cent or 102 instances of all deontic uses of shall in his Australian, British, and American data violate the apparent ‘rule’ that shall is only used with first person subjects. This observation does not distinguish be­ tween evidence from the spoken and written parts of the corpus and pools the results for all three varieties. A closer look at ICE-GB, only, reveals that of the ninety-four instances of shall in the written part of the corpus, almost half (44 or 46.8 per cent) illustrate co-oc­ currence with a third-person subject. However, on closer inspection, these turn out to be very unevenly distributed, with 40/44 from only two texts in the administrative writing section of the corpus. The remaining instances are from similarly formal contexts (such as the formal letter from which example (31) is taken) or from quotations of legal texts (as il­ lustrated in example (32)): (31)

(32)

The ICE-GB written data thus confirm rather than contradict Leech et al.’s observation of an uneven distribution of shall across text types, which they refer to as ‘distributional fragmentation’ and take to be another characteristic of the obsolescence of core modals (Leech et al. 2009: 81). The question is whether any of these changes in the area of core modals are related to frequency developments of semi-modals.

Page 21 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar Figure 27.5 shows the development of the semi-modals in British and American English between 1961 and 1991/1992. An important detail that emerges from the comparison of Figures 27.4 and 27.5 is that the changes do not happen on the same scale: modals are, overall, much more frequent to start with and the decrease (over 3,000 instances) is very substantial (most notably the drop in usage that must and may display). The increase in semi-modals (a total of 530 instances) does not compensate for the dramatic loss in core modals in writing.24

Figure 27.5 Diachronic development of semi-modals in the Brown-family corpora (based on Leech et al. 2009: 286)

(p. 600)

Leech et al. (2009: 99–105) observe that evidence from corpora of spoken English

(DCPSE, the spoken component of the British National Corpus and the Longman Corpus of Spoken American English) points towards a much more frequent use of semi-modals in the spoken medium than in writing, which they take as a tentative argument for a devel­ opment where … the competitive relation between core modals and grammaticalizing semimodals in spoken English is an explanatory factor in accounting for the decline of the one and the ascendancy of the other in both spoken and written English. The balance of gain and loss in the spoken language, it seems, has a knock-on effect in the written language, even where that gain/loss equation does not (yet) material­ ize in the written language. (Leech et al. 2009: 116) In a detailed study on variation between must and have (got) to, Close and Aarts (2010) find that it is in the function of root modality that have to has been replacing must in spo­ ken English.

Page 22 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar In terms of the semantics, Leech et al. (2009: 114) point out that there is no simple oneto-one relation between core and semi-modals: for the expression of necessity and obliga­ tion, for instance, English has a set of four modals (must, should, ought (to), and needn’t) and four semi-modals (HAVE to, (HAVE) got to, need to, and (had) better) sharing the se­ mantic space. The story of the loss of modals is further complicated by (p. 601) the fact that the envelope of variation is not simply one where we find core modals on the one hand and semi-modals on the other hand, but one in which modal adverbs such as neces­ sarily, the mandative subjunctive (see section 27.3.5) and modal lexical expressions like be obliged to offer additional means to express the modal semantics (in this case, necessi­ ty and obligation). But even taking all these alternative means of expression into account does not fully explain the drastic decline in core modals in the recent history of the lan­ guage, prompting Geoffrey Leech (2012) to conclude that ‘I still don’t know where those modals have gone!’

27.4 Conclusion The aim of this chapter has been to give examples of changes in morphology and syntax, including recent change in English grammar, comparing their treatment in different grammatical models, notably the generative versus functional, usage-based approaches. The case studies from the area of mood and modality were used to illustrate instances of both morphological and syntactic loss as well as gain. Moreover, we saw that residual forms of formerly fully functional inflectional paradigms can be revived in a functional niche, as has been the case with the mandative subjunctive in the twentieth century. With respect to the recent decline in the frequency of core modals (see Leech et al. 2009), we might wonder whether this might eventually lead to a loss of this new category of verbs. Traugott and Trousdale (2013: 66–8) reinterpret the changes in frequency in the modal and semi-modal inventory within a construction grammar model: The obsolescence of the marginal core modals [such as shall, M.H.] has not yet led to loss of schematicity of the core modal construction, since all members are still used. However, the individual trajectories of each micro-construction suggest that alignment within the larger macro-envelope of core modals is becoming rather weak during obsolescence, and that many core modals are becoming restricted within the system. These are all constructional changes. (Traugott and Trousdale 2013: 67f.) In other words, once a constructional schema such as the modal auxiliary has developed, individual members of the category may be lost and the category may be weakened. Al­ ternatively, we could conceive of the modal schema in a more abstract way and envisage the core modal schema as a sub-schema alongside a more recent emergent modal subschema (see Krug 2000: 239), where micro-constructions (should, shall, be to, (had) bet­ ter) cluster around these more abstract prototypes, opening up the possibility of migra­ tion or attraction of individual members from one sub-schema to another or the hybridiza­ Page 23 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar tion of a member, as seems to be the case with dare (to), which allows both for bare nega­ tion (typical of core modals) and negation with do-support (also possible with some semimodals like have to or used to). In a construction (p. 602) grammar view of grammatical change it is also possible that a construction simply remains at the margin (e.g., (had) better) and never fully constructionalizes to the sub-schema of the core modals.

Acknowledgements I dedicate this chapter to the memory of Geoffrey Leech (16 January 1936–19 August 2014), who(m) I last met when he gave a guest lecture at the English Department in Zürich with the title ‘Where have all the modals gone?’ We are still awaiting a conclusive answer to this puzzling question, Geoff!

List of Corpora ARCHER = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers 3.2. 1990– 1993/2002/2007/2010/2013. Originally compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber (Northern Arizona University) and Edward Finegan (University of Southern Cali­ fornia); currently managed by a consortium of participants at fourteen universities; http://www.alc.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/lel/research/projects/archer/. AE06 = American English 2006. (period 2003–2008) Compiled by Paul Baker, Lancaster Uni­ versity. (Parallel in design and sampling principles to BE06.) http://www.helsinki.fi/ varieng/CoRD/corpora/BE06/index.html. BE06 = British English 2006. (period 2003–2008) Compiled by Paul Baker (University of Lan­ caster). http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/BE06/index.html. B-Brown = The 1930s BROWN Corpus. 2004–2013. Compiled by Marianne Hundt (University of Zurich). http://www.es.uzh.ch/Subsites/Projects/BBROWN.html. B-LOB = The BLOB-1931 Corpus. 2003–2006. Compiled by Geoffrey Leech and Paul Rayson (University of Lancaster). http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/BLOB-1931/ index.html. BNC = British National Corpus. Created by the BNC Consortium led by Oxford University Press. Accessed with Corpus Navigator at Zürich University. Brown = A standard corpus of Present-day edited American English, for use with digital com­ puters. 1964. Compiled by W. Nelson Francis and Henry Kučera (Brown University). http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/BROWN/.Brown family of corpora (Brown, LOB, Frown, FLOB, B-Brown, B-LOB, AE06, BE06) Page 24 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar COCA = Corpus of contemporary American English (1990–2012). Compiled by Mark Davies (Brigham Young University). https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/. COHA = Corpus of historical American English (1810–2009). s.a. Compiled by Mark Davies (Brigham Young University). https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/. DCPSE = Diachronic Corpus of Present-Day Spoken English (see http://www.helsinki.fi/ varieng/CoRD/corpora/DCPSE/). FLOB = Freiburg-LOB corpus. 1999. Compiled by Christian Mair (University of Freiburg). http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/FLOB/. Frown = Freiburg-Brown Corpus. 1999. Compiled by Christian Mair. http://www.helsinki.fi/ varieng/CoRD/corpora/FROWN/. (p. 603) HC = The Helsinki corpus of English texts: Diachronic and dialectal. 1991. Compiled by Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö, Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö, Saara Nevanlinna, Ir­ ma Taavitsainen, Terttu Nevalainen, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (University of Helsinki). http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HelsinkiCorpus/. LOB Corpus = Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen corpus. 1978. Compiled by Geoffrey Leech (Lancaster Uni­ versity), Stig Johansson (University of Oslo) (project leaders), and Knut Hofland (Uni­ versity of Bergen, head of computing). http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/ LOB/. TIME MAGAZINE = Time Magazine Corpus compiled by Mark Davies. https://www.english-corpora.org/ time/. OBP = Old Bailey Proceedings Corpus (1674–1913). http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/ corpora/OBC/. WWC = Wellington Corpus of Written New Zealand English. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/re­ sources/corpora-default#wwc.

Reference Aitchison, Jean (1991). Language Change: Progress or Decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barber, Charles (1993). The English Language: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 25 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar Close, Joanne, and Bas Aarts (2010). ‘Current change in the modal system of English. A case study of must, have to and have got to’, in Ursula Lenker, Judith Huber, and Robert Mailhammer (eds), The History of English Verbal and Nominal Constructions. Volume 1 of English Historical Linguistics 2008: Selected papers from the fifteenth International Con­ ference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 15), Munich, 24–30 August 2008. Ams­ terdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 165–82. Cruttenden, Alan (1979). Language in Infancy and Childhood. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Merja Kytö (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues. Spoken In­ teraction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Denison, David, and Alison Cort (2010). ‘Better as a verb’, in Kristin Davidse, Lieven Van­ delanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Gram­ maticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 349–83. Dreschler, Gretha Anthonia (2015). Passives and the Loss of Verb Second: A Study of Syn­ tactic and Information-Structural Factors. Ph.D. thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University. Fischer, Olga (2004). ‘The development of the modals in English: Radical versus gradual changes’, in David Hart (ed), English Modality in Context: Diachronic Perspectives. Bern: Lang, 16–32. Fischer, Olga, and Wim van der Wurff (2006). ‘Syntax’, in Richard Hogg and David Deni­ son (eds), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–98. Fried, Mirjam (2013). ‘Principles of constructional change’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 419–37. Heine, Bernd (1993). Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press. Hogg, Richard M. (1992). ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Norman Blake (ed), The Cam­ bridge History of the English Language, Vol. II 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 67–167. Hogg, Richard M., and R. D. Fulk (2011). A Grammar of Old English, Volume 2: Morpholo­ gy. Oxford: Blackwell. Hommerberg, Charlotte, and Gunnel Tottie (2007). ‘Try to or try and? Verb complementa­ tion in British and American English.’ ICAME Journal 31: 45–64. Hundt, Marianne (1998a). ‘It is important that this study (should) be based on the analy­ sis of parallel corpora: On the use of the mandative subjunctive in four varieties of Eng­

Page 26 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar lish’, in Hans Lindquist, Staffan Klintborg, Magnus Levin, and Maria Estling (eds), The Major Varieties of English. Växjö: Växjö University Press, 159–75. Hundt, Marianne (2007). English Mediopassive Constructions: A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Study of Their Origin, Spread and Current Status. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hundt, Marianne (2008). ‘Text corpora’, in Anke Lüdeling and Merja Kytö (eds), Corpus Linguistics [HSK 29.1]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 168–87. Hundt, Marianne (2009). ‘Colonial lag, colonial innovation, or simply language change?’, in Günter Rohdenburg and Julia Schlüter (eds), One Language, Two Grammars: Differ­ ences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–37. Hundt, Marianne (2014). ‘The demise of the being to V construction.’ Transactions of the Philological Society 112: 167–87. Hundt, Marianne (2016). ‘Error, feature, (incipient) change – or something else altogeth­ er? On the role of low-frequency deviant patterns for the description of Englishes’, in Ele­ na Seoane and Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds), World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 37–60. Hundt, Marianne, and Anne-Christine Gardner (2017). ‘Corpus-based approaches: Watch­ ing English change’, in Laurel J. Brinton (ed), English Historical Linguistics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 96–130. Hundt, Marianne, Sandra Mollin, and Simone E. Pfenninger (eds) (2017). The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lass, Roger (1992). ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Norman Blake (ed), The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. II 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23–155. Lass, Roger (1999). ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Roger Lass (ed), The Cambridge His­ tory of the English Language, Vol. III 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–186. Lass, Roger (2006). ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Richard Hogg and David Denison (eds), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 43– 108. Leech, Geoffrey N. (2012). ‘Where have all the modals gone? On the recent loss of fre­ quency of English modal auxiliaries.’ Guest lecture, English Department, Zürich, 18 April 2012. Leech, Geoffrey N., Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair, and Nicholas Smith (2009). Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 27 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar Lieven, Elena (2017). ‘Developing language from usage: Explaining errors’, in Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin, and Simone E. Pfenninger (eds), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. López-Couso, María José and Belén Méndez-Naya (1996). ‘On the use of the subjunctive and modals in Old and Middle English dependent commands and requests: Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97: 411–22. Los, Bettelou (2012). ‘Generative approaches to English historical linguistics’, in Alexan­ der Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton (eds), English Historical Linguistics. An International Handbook, vol. 2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1613–31. Mair, Christian (2014a). ‘Do we got a difference? Divergent developments of semi-auxil­ iary (have) got (to) in British and American English’, in Marianne Hundt (ed), Late Mod­ ern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–76. Narrog, Heiko (2005b). ‘Modality, mood, and change of modal meanings: A new perspec­ tive.’ Cognitive Linguistics 16: 677–731. Nevalainen, Terttu (2015). ‘Descriptive adequacy of the S-curve model in diachronic stud­ ies of language change’, in Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (ed), Can We Predict Linguis­ tic Change? (Studies in Variation, Contact and Change in English, 16). Erlangen-Nürn­ berg: Friedrich-Alexander University. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/ 16/nevalainen/. Nevalainen, Terttu, and Elisabeth Closs Traugott (eds) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Övergaard, Gerd (1995). The Mandative Subjunctive in American and British English in the 20th Century. Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksell. Palmer, Frank R. (1965). A Linguistic Study of the English Verb. London: Longman. Schreier, Daniel, and Marianne Hundt (eds) (2013). English as a Contact Language. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Nicholas, and Geoffrey Leech (2013). ‘Verb structures in twentieth-century British English’, in Bas Aarts, Joanne Close, Geoffrey Leech, and Sean Wallis (eds), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 68–98. Sturtevant, Edgar H. (1947). An Introduction to Linguistic Science. New Haven: Yale Uni­ versity Press. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid and Wim van der Wurff (eds) (2009) Current Issues in Late Modern English. Berlin and New York: Peter Lang.

Page 28 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1992). ‘Syntax’, in Richard M. Hogg (ed), The Cambridge His­ tory of the English Language. Vol. I, From the Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: University Press, 168–289. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Graeme Trousdale (2010). ‘Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?’, in Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Graeme Trousdale (eds), Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins, 19–44. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Graeme Trousdale (2013). Constructionalization and Con­ structional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Graeme Trousdale (2014). ‘Contentful constructionaliza­ tion.’ Journal of Historical Linguistics 4(2): 256–83. van Bergen, Linda (2013). ‘Early progressive passives.’ Folia Linguistica 34(1): 173–207. van der Auwera, Johan, Dirk Noël, and An Van linden (2013). ‘Had better, ’d better and better: Diachronic and transatlantic variation’, in Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carratero, Jorge Arús Hita, and Johan van der Auwera (eds), English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 119–54. Visser, Fredericus Th. (1963–1973). An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Vol. III(1). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Waller, Tim (2005). The Subjunctive in Present-Day British English: A Survey, with Partic­ ular Reference to the Mandative Subjunctive. M.A. thesis. London: University College London. Warner, Anthony R. (1983). ‘Review article: D.W. Lightfoot, Principles of Diachronic Syn­ tax.’ Journal of Linguistics 19(1): 187–209. Warner, Anthony R. (1995). ‘Predicting the progressive passive: Parametric change within a lexicalist framework.’ Language 71(3): 533–57.

Notes: (1) Emphasis in examples has been added throughout. For details of COCA and other cor­ pora cited, see the list at the end of the chapter. (2) Since the case studies come from a relatively restricted area of grammatical change in the verb phrase, the reader is referred to other publications for changes in the noun phrase or word order. A good chronological overview of morphological change in English (and interaction with phonological change) is provided in Lass (2006). Fischer and van der Wurff (2006) give an excellent and detailed description of the main syntactic changes from Old English to Modern English. Los (2015) covers both morphological and syntactic change, as well as discussing pragmatic aspects of syntax. Page 29 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar (3) See the contributions in Hundt et al. (2017) for an in-depth treatment of these factors in the history of English as well as in psycholinguistic research. (4) Background on corpus methodology is given in Wallis (this volume). For the distinction between a ‘corpus’ and ‘text database’, see e.g., Hundt (2008: 170, 178). For a thorough discussion and re-evaluation of different kinds of evidence in historical linguistics, see the chapters in Part I of Nevalainen and Traugott (2012). (5) The rhythmical allusion to the foxtrot is from Aitchison (1991: 83). For a recent critical discussion of the adequacy of the S-curve model, see Nevalainen (2015). For a detailed discussion of the maths behind this finding, see Sean Wallis at https:// corplingstats.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/logistic-multinomial/. (6) Traugott (1992: 239) points out, though, that ‘[c]hoice of mood (indicative vs. subjunc­ tive) in complements is extremely complex, and is not adequately understood.… there ap­ pear to be no or at least few absolute rules.’ On semantically ‘empty’ subjunctives, see Fischer and van der Wurff (2006: 142f.). (7) There have been debates in the literature over how the subjunctive in Present-Day English should be analysed (e.g., whether it should be considered an inflectional catego­ ry). See Aarts (2012) for a discussion of the issues. (8) Preterite present verbs are verbs that combined a historical past tense form, which had acquired present-tense meaning, with a new (weak) past tense marker. (9) The main exception, for historical reasons, involves present tense third person singu­ lar forms. (10) Note that negation and inversion are not innovative features of core modals. These properties used to be shared by all verbs, but the grammaticalization of do-support for lexical verbs in the history of English restricted their use to auxiliaries. (11) For critical discussions of Lightfoot (1979) up until the early 1990s, see Denison (1993: 329–31). (12) Note that dare also allows for mixed patterns that combine, e.g., do-support with a bare infinitive, as in the following example: ‘To me, all premarital sex was immoral; if I did not dare have sex with my own girl-friend, I could scarcely imagine it with anyone else’ (Frown, G01). For variable do-support with semi-modal got to, see Mair (2014a). (13) For additional references, see the chapter on modality by Ziegeler, this volume. (14) For an alternative view, according to which deontic and epistemic modality may evolve simultaneously, see Narrog (2005b). (15) Van der Auwera et al. (2013: 21) attribute this example to Sturtevant (1947), but it is typically quoted as evidence for grammaticalization discussed in Palmer (1965: 49) and later analyses. Cruttenden (1979: 51) maintains that instances like You’d better go, Page 30 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar bettn’t you? are examples of a ‘false modal’ use attested in child language; whether er­ rors in acquisition may lead to language change is still a somewhat controversial issue (see the discussion in Lieven 2017). (16) The corpus contains a collection of writing by children aged thirteen or younger from a BBC writing competition in 2012/13. Thanks go to Nilanjana Banerji (Oxford University Press) for running the search in the corpus for me. (17) Denison and Cort (2010: 374) quote an earlier example from 1712, but also point out that this is ‘unusually early’. (18) Similarly, Krug’s (2000: 239) gravitation model of emerging English modals could be integrated conceptually into a constructionalization framework and the notion of the con­ struct-i-con. (19) In a sentence such as I suggest that we base our study on the analysis of representa­ tive corpus data, the verb base is underspecified with respect to mood (i.e. indeterminate between a subjunctive or indicative interpretation). Such examples are not included in the data set on which Figure 27.2 is based. The indicative (e.g., I suggest that he leaves earlier today) is not attested in the American written corpora and was therefore also ex­ cluded from the British data in Figure 27.3 to allow for more direct comparison of the two options. Leech et al. (2009: 55–7) show that it is very infrequent in BrE writing but is reg­ ularly used in spoken BrE. (20) Preliminary evidence from DCPSE indicates that the increase of mandative subjunc­ tives in BrE is limited largely to the written medium (see Waller 2005). (21) Strictly speaking, two data points are not sufficient to verify diachronic develop­ ments, but subsequent studies (e.g., Smith and Leech 2013) have verified the trend. (22) There is, however, variation among the modals in this regard, with past-time uses of could and would still quite frequent. (23) Note that in some regional varieties of English (notably Scottish and Irish English, and occasionally in regional varieties of New Zealand English where Scottish influence was strong), will has encroached on the domain of shall even with first person subjects in offers and suggestions, giving rise to sentences like ‘Babe, will I ring us a taxi and take you to the doctor?’ (Wellington Corpus of Written New Zealand English, K32). (24) There are three notable exceptions to the general development of semi-modals: BE to, (had) better, and (HAVE) got to decrease rather than increase, the first of these even sig­ nificantly so.

Marianne Hundt

Page 31 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Change in Grammar Marianne Hundt is professor of English linguistics at the University of Zurich. Her research interests are variation and change in contemporary and late Modern Eng­ lish, especially grammatical change. She has also done research on varieties of Eng­ lish as a first language, second-language varieties of English (especially in Fiji and South Asia), and language in the Indian diaspora. She has been involved in the com­ pilation of various electronic corpora: FLOB, Frown, B-Brown, ICE-Fiji, ARCHER, and a corpus of early New Zealand texts. Recent publications include Change in Contem­ porary English: A Grammatical Study (with G. Leech, C. Mair, and N. Smith; CUP, 2009), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes (edit­ ed with J. Mukherjee; Benjamins, 2011), and Mapping Unity and Diversity WorldWide (edited with U. Gut; Benjamins, 2012). [email protected]

Page 32 of 32

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammati­ cal features   Peter Siemund The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region, Morphology and Syntax Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.29

Abstract and Keywords This chapter discusses non-standard grammatical features of regional varieties of English in relation to their Standard English functional equivalents. It pursues a cross-linguistic typological approach in the classification and interpretation of these features. This ap­ proach helps to reveal the often highly systematic relationship between standard and non-standard variants as well as the universal basis of the underlying cognitive princi­ ples. Illustration is drawn from reflexive marking, pronominal gender and case, tense and aspect, negation and negative concord, subject–verb agreement, and clause structure, which here includes ditransitive constructions, embedded inversion, and the formation of relative clauses. Keywords: grammatical variation, language typology, language universals, pronominal systems, tense and aspect, negation, subject–verb agreement, clause structure

28.1 Introduction THE purpose of the present chapter is to discuss non-standard grammatical features of regional varieties of English in relation to their Standard English functional equivalents, focusing on those varieties used primarily by native speakers. The term ‘grammatical variation’ will be used to address differences in form and function between non-standard and standard Englishes. I here approach regional varieties of English from a cross-lin­ guistic, typological perspective. The discussion will for the most part exclude grammati­ cal variation found within Standard English, such as that between the of-genitive and the s-genitive (e.g., the decision of the committee versus the committee’s decision); the influ­ ence of genre on such variation is discussed in Chapter 30, this volume. The term ‘Standard English’ refers to a difficult concept, as is well known. According to Trudgill (1999b), Standard English is essentially a sociolect—a ‘social dialect’ in his terms —used by the educated middle and upper classes, on the media, in education, and in Page 1 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features academia. Crucially, it can be combined with different accents, and is found on different stylistic levels and in different registers (or genres). Widely used grammars of English like Quirk et al. (1985) or Huddleston and Pullum (2002) provide descriptions of Standard English, thus codifying and further standardizing it. We may in principle distinguish sev­ eral Standard Englishes, as, for example, Standard British and American English, Stan­ dard Australian English, Standard Singapore English, Standard Nigerian English, and so on, since in all the relevant territories we find a norm-conscious educated middle class. It is a matter of some debate if some of these Standard Englishes represent separate stan­ dards, or if they can be subsumed under British and American English respectively. Aus­ tralia and New Zealand are traditionally considered territories (p. 605) in which the British English norm prevails, but we also find positions that view them as Standard Eng­ lishes in their own right or as more strongly influenced by North American English, espe­ cially more recently. Canadian English is generally subsumed under the North American standard, though in this case, too, we can observe endeavours to recognize it as a sepa­ rate norm (compare the contributions to Hickey 2012b). Quite typically, we do not find categorical differences between the various Standard Englishes, but distributional differ­ ences that are captured by the term ‘gradient grammar’ in the research literature (see Hundt 1998b on New Zealand English; Bresnan and Hay 2008 on New Zealand and Amer­ ican English; Hinrichs et al. 2015 on American and British English). Such gradient differ­ ences will not be the main focus here, though some results of this research strand will be included. Even though the term ‘Standard English’ is very difficult to define, there is widespread consensus that Standard British and North American English represent two norms that speakers and learners of English worldwide use as a point of orientation. What the associ­ ated territories have in common is that English is primarily learnt and used there as a first language (referred to as ‘L1 varieties’ in Chapter 29, this volume). In Kachru’s (1985) terms, they represent the inner circle of English, although the number of speakers who learn and use English there as a second or additional language has vastly increased over the past decades. In some urban contexts, such as certain parts of London, Toronto, and Vancouver, non-native speakers outnumber native speakers or the situation is close to parity. There is reason to believe that the inner circle Englishes are changing due to these external influences (Cheshire et al. 2011). Inner circle Englishes contrast with those of the outer circle, which comprise the vari­ eties spoken in the former British and US American colonies, such as India, Singapore, Nigeria, and the Philippines. These will only marginally be of interest here and only to the extent that they preserve non-standard regional features of the inner circle territories (see Chapter 29, this volume, where these Englishes are called ‘L2-varieties’). As the more recent discussion of New Englishes as well as English-based Pidgins and Creoles shows, the historical diffusion of inner circle non-standard features into other parts of the world had long been underrated (Mufwene 2001, Davydova 2013). Ireland represents a special case since it ceased being a British colony long before the other colonies, lies very close to the British mainland, and shows a substantially higher use of English in compari­ Page 2 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features son to its indigenous language Irish. Accordingly, it will here be treated as an inner circle area. The discussion of regional variants in relation to Standard English can be pursued from three different perspectives. Firstly, we could process the different inner circle territories one by one, offering descriptive surveys of the standard and non-standard features en­ countered. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it produces considerable over­ lap, as several locales in the old and new world manifest the same features for reasons of historical migration patterns. Secondly, one could adopt an altogether historical perspec­ tive and chart the correspondences between current standard and non-standard features and their respective historical precursors. This approach is quite illuminating, since some of today’s non-standard regional features (p. 606) can be traced to historical standard fea­ tures and vice versa (e.g., rhoticity, negative concord, etc.). And thirdly, we can adopt a phenomenological perspective and explore the distribution and variation of specific gram­ matical features. This approach will be pursued here for a selection of morpho-syntactic features. It is consistent with a cross-linguistic or typological approach to language varia­ tion, the main difference being that we here investigate regional varieties of the same language, whereas typology’s prime interest lies in the charting of grammatical variation across genetically different languages. I will introduce the overall approach and its appli­ cation to the study of regional variation in more detail in section 28.2. Needless to say, in an overview article like this it is impossible to provide a comprehen­ sive and minutely detailed account of English regional variation. There is simply too much out there (compare the electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English, Kortmann and Lunkenheimer 2013). Instead, I will here focus on a selection of morpho-syntactic vari­ ables that are per se informative, come from different grammatical domains, and can be related to the respective standard variants in a systematic way. They come from pronomi­ nal systems, tense and aspect, negation, subject–verb agreement, and clause structure.

28.2 The typological approach to the study of varieties and variation 28.2.1 Exploring the patterns and limits of language variation Typological research shows that languages are constrained with respect to their formal means of expression, their functions, and especially the interplay between form and func­ tion. In other words, the logically conceivable space of variation is heavily curtailed so that clusters of form types and functions emerge as well as prototypical mappings of form and function. To give an example, languages typically offer dedicated clause types (i.e. form types) for expressing questions and requests (interrogatives and imperatives; see Chapter 18, this volume, on clause types), but there seem to be no languages with a dedi­ cated clause type for promises or apologies (‘promissives’ or ‘apologetics’). Similarly, we often find dedicated plural and dual morphology, but are less likely to encounter gram­ Page 3 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features matical marking for ‘trials’ or ‘paucals’—though these do exist. Certain phenomena are less likely to occur than others or do not exist at all. The taxonomic goal of charting variation is common to both language typology and varia­ tion studies, though they clearly differ in the object of their study. While language typolo­ gy—at least in the ideal case—considers a representative selection of genetically indepen­ dent languages from the pool of six to seven thousand attested languages in the world, variation studies is interested in the extent of heterogeneity found in one language. The roots of variation studies can be traced back to the kind of traditional (p. 607) dialectology pursued in the nineteenth and twentieth century in Europe that saw the advent of com­ prehensive dialect atlases, primarily for French, English, and German (e.g., the Survey of English Dialects directed by Harold Orton; Orton and Dieth 1962–1971). Since the bound­ aries between languages and dialects are fluid, typology and variation studies necessarily overlap. For example, typological studies within the group of Germanic, Romance, or Malay languages could easily be subsumed under variation studies, at least from a crosslinguistic perspective, since the relative differences within these language groups are comparatively small. Language typology and dialectology also differ in relation to the phenomena they are pri­ marily interested in. The main objective of traditional dialectology consisted in the chart­ ing of lexical differences and differences in pronunciation. For instance, British dialects show rhotic and non-rhotic pronunciations as well as different realizations of certain seg­ ments (voiced initial fricatives versus voiceless ones, as in /zevn/ versus /sevn/). There are many lexical differences (e.g., bairn versus child). More recent sociolinguistic studies in­ vestigate phonological and grammatical variants, though the focus is more on the social determinants in urban areas and less on traditional dialect areas. For example, the distri­ bution of the discourse marker like heavily depends on the age and sex of the speakers in certain conurbations (Tagliamonte 2005). Typological studies are also concerned with the variants of certain variables, although we here talk about categories and their values. Ty­ pologists aim to investigate, firstly, whether a certain grammatical category exists in a language; secondly, which values it can assume; and thirdly, in which ways it is encoded. For example, we may be interested in studying the category of number cross-linguistical­ ly: whether languages realize it at all; which distinctions are drawn (singular, dual, plural, etc.); and by means of which strategy it is encoded (suffix, prefix, modifier, etc.; see Cor­ bett 2000). Variation studies define a certain variable and its values at the outset to see which external and internal factors determine their distribution.

28.2.2 Language universals If, as outlined above, the logically conceivable space of language variation is constrained, we may ask which points or areas in this space are invariably attested and whether logi­ cal connections exist between otherwise independent areas. This brings us to a brief dis­ cussion of language universals that can be conceptualized as the crisscrossing of either absolute (i.e. exceptionless) or statistical universals, on the one hand, and conditional ver­

Page 4 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features sus unconditional universals on the other. Table 28.1 shows the resulting four basic types of universals in an overview fashion. Table 28.1 Logical types of universal statement (following Greenberg), taken from Evans and Levinson (2009: 437) Absolute (exception­ less)

Statistical (tenden­ cies)

Uncondition­ al (unre­ stricted)

Type 1. ‘Unrestricted absolute universals’ All languages have prop­ erty X

Type 2. ‘Unrestricted tendencies’ Most languages have property X

Conditional (restricted)

Type 3. ‘Exceptionless implicational universals’ If a language has prop­ erty X, it also has prop­

Type 4. ‘Statistical im­ plicational universals’ If a language has prop­ erty X, it will tend to

erty Y

have property Y

True absolute universals are rare and perhaps not even especially interesting. We can here list the fact that all (spoken) languages possess and distinguish between consonan­ tal and vowel sounds, even though they differ heavily in the ratios of consonants to vow­ els (Maddieson 2013). Similarly, it is widely believed that all languages chunk the speech signal into constituents at some underlying level of representation, and that (p. 608) syn­ tactic operations (like passivization, topicalization, etc.) work on constituents rather than individual words. Other widely discussed absolute universals concern recursion, i.e. the stacking of structurally identical syntactic material (John believes that Mary thinks that Sue said that…), and parts of speech systems, where a minimal contrast between nouns and verbs is widely believed to be universal. Most universals, nevertheless, are statistical in nature, meaning that they are attested in the overwhelming majority of languages or at least have several exceptions. For example, although word order systems in which the subject precedes the object definitely represent the norm, there are several languages that show object–subject order in their basic word order pattern. Conditional (or implicational) universals try to capture the observation that certain prop­ erties in the logical space of variation occur or tend to occur with other properties. Put differently, some properties come to be predictors of other properties. The abstract phras­ ing of such conditional universals is shown in (1), with (1a) describing the case of ab­ solute and (1b) that of statistical conditional universals. (1)

Page 5 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

Such conditional universals may also be stacked, thus forming chains of implicational de­ pendencies referred to as ‘hierarchies’. As for parts of speech systems, certain word classes serve as predictors for others, as illustrated in (2)—to be read from right to left (with the presence of one class implicating the presence of the class(es) to its left: e.g., if adverbs are found in a particular language, then adjectives (and nouns and verbs) will al­ so be found there). Here, the implicational connections exist between different values of the same category, i.e. word class. (2)

We can also observe implicational connections between different categories. For example, basic word order is a fairly good predictor of adposition–head order, provided (p. 609) a language has adpositions. Closely related to conditional universals is the notion of seman­ tic maps. These are graphic representations of related cognitive domains where cognitive relations are rendered in terms of topographic vicinity. The closer the cognitive relations, the nearer they are placed on the semantic map. It is understood that grammatical mark­ ers cover adjacent areas on these maps. The territorial connections may be interpreted in various ways, inter alia, grammaticalization paths, historical developments, polysemy pat­ terns, or conditional universals. Applying the typological approach, I will in what follows explore a number of non-stan­ dard grammatical subsystems of English. In particular, I will try to show that non-stan­ dard does not mean idiosyncratic, but that there can often be detected some systematic relationship to the corresponding standard features. Typological generalizations help to make these systematic relationships explicit.

28.3 Pronominal systems Let us now turn to a discussion of selected grammatical subsystems of English, starting with pronominal systems. Within this broad domain, I will here be concerned with reflex­ ive pronouns, pronominal gender, and pronominal case.

28.3.1 Reflexive pronouns and reflexive marking In comparison to the standard English paradigm of reflexive pronouns, the one found in regional varieties of Great Britain and the United States, though also in other parts of the world (Cheshire et al. 1993: 77, Kortmann and Szmrecsanyi 2004: 1163), is shown in ex­ ample (3). The main difference concerns the forms of the third person that involve posses­ sive pronouns just as do those of the first and second person.

Page 6 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features (3)

Accordingly, the paradigm is more regular than the standard paradigm where object forms of the pronouns appear in the third person. Some illustration can be found in (4). (4)

Changes in the paradigm form myself to meself can also be observed, as shown in (5), as the relevant dialects use me as a possessive pronoun (Beal 1993: 205–6, Edwards 1993: 230, Burridge 2004: 1118, Kortmann 2004: 1097–8). (p. 610)

(5)

There are also differences in the distribution of reflexive pronouns. In the standard vari­ eties, co-referential noun phrases subcategorized by the same verb obligatorily trigger re­ flexive pronouns in object positions. Some regional varieties admit simple pronouns in such positions. Example (6) illustrates this for indirect objects, with first person pronouns being most likely to participate. The distribution of dedicated reflexive pronouns by and large follows the implicational hierarchy in (7), i.e. if a variety requires them in the first person, they will also be obligatory in second and third person. This predicts the higher frequency of simple pronouns in the first person. (6)

(7)

Page 7 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features In rare cases, we can also find simple pronouns in co-referential direct object positions. These represent archaic cases that reflect Old English usage, where dedicated reflexive markers did not exist. The parallels are illustrated in examples (8) and (9). (8)

(9)

Especially in Irish English, but for reasons of historical migration also in Newfoundland English (through Irish settlers), reflexive pronouns can be found in subject position. Con­ sider the examples in (10). This is a highly unusual pattern, though as argued in Siemund (2002), these occurrences of seeming reflexives are more appropriately analysed as inten­ sive self-forms, which characterize the relevant referent as important or central (König and Siemund 2000). (10)

Both standard and regional varieties do not typically draw a formal distinction be­ tween intensive self-forms and reflexive markers, as shown in example (11). The self-forms in the Irish English examples in (10) semantically pattern with the intensive forms in (11a), though the nominal or pronominal head is missing. (p. 611)

(11)

Page 8 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

28.3.2 Pronominal gender A second area of pronominal variation concerns gendered pronouns, i.e. the use of mas­ culine he and feminine she in contrast to neuter it. Standard usage is based on a semantic split between animate (human) and inanimate (non-human) referents, and in the domain of humans and (certain) animals between male and female. The gender system is purely referential, with pronominal forms not being triggered by the lexical properties of some seemingly controlling noun, but by the properties of the referents themselves. This is il­ lustrated in example (12). Some extensions of the animate pronouns into the domain of inanimates are attested (ships, cars, moon, sun, etc.), though these represent marginal, colloquial, or literary usage. (12)

Some varieties—and we are here again talking about traditional dialectal systems—offer strikingly different parameters of organization. For example, pronominal gender in the traditional dialects of Southwest England (Somerset, Devon) is organized around the mass/count distinction of nominals, with masculine he covering the countable domain— both animate and inanimate—and neuter it the domain of masses, substances, liquids, as well as abstract concepts. Feminine she is by and large restricted to females. The mass/ count system was transported to Newfoundland and Tasmania as a result of migration. There, the split between he and she is based on different principles, with she being used for mobile entities as well as instruments of various kinds. Less regular, though, frequent extensions of he and she to inanimates can also be observed in Orkney and Shetland Eng­ lish, Irish English, and some varieties of American English (Kortmann 2004: 1097, Pawley 2004: 616–28, Schneider 2004: 1113, Wagner 2004, Siemund 2008). Some examples of such extension can be found in (13). (13)

Page 9 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features The usage of neuter it in relation to liquids and abstract concepts is illustrated in example (14), there being a contrasting pair of pronouns in (14a). (p. 612)

(14)

At first sight, the dialectal mass/count systems appear completely unrelated to the system of pronominal gender found in the standard varieties. Here, typological studies can help to see important connections. One construct that has turned out to be especially useful is the so-called ‘hierarchy of individuation’, as provided by Figure 28.1. We can view it as ei­ ther an implicational hierarchy or a semantic map in which noun classes are ordered ac­ cording to their degree of individuality or boundedness. Descriptions of humans range at the top (left), while abstract and mass nouns are placed at the bottom (right). Nouns de­ scribing animals and inanimate objects go in between.

Figure 28.1 Morphosyntactic distinctions along a continuum of ‘individuality’ (Sasse 1993: 659, Siemu­ nd 2008: 4). By permission of Mouton de Gruyter

Several grammatical subsystems have proven sensitive to this hierarchy, including person and number marking, word order, and case marking (Croft 2004). The general observa­ tion is that if some grammatical distinction is available for a certain noun class, it will al­ so be available for all noun classes further to its left. Regarding English pronominal gen­ der, we can see that the split between he and she on the one hand, and neuter it, on the other, varies between dialects and standard varieties on this hierarchy. Whereas the stan­ dard varieties place the split between humans and animals (with some extensions into the domain of animals), the dialectal systems simply move it further to the right. (p. 613)

28.3.3 Pronominal case

A third area of pronominal variation is furnished by case contrasts, relating to differences in both form and distribution. Consider the examples in (15) illustrating a split between subject and object case forms in the second person that was lost in the standard varieties. Arguably, the dialectal systems are more regular than standard English in this respect. (15) Page 10 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

Case contrasts typically follow the animacy hierarchy shown in (16) that can be viewed as a slightly different formulation of the hierarchy of individuation introduced above. Again, the observation is that if some noun class on this hierarchy shows case marking, all noun classes further to its left will also show case marking. It is noteworthy that the standard varieties run counter to the predictions made by this hierarchy, since there is no case con­ trast on second person pronouns. (16)

As far as the distribution of case-marked pronouns is concerned, we can first of all ob­ serve the extension of object forms to possessive contexts, as in example (17). (17)

Moreover, there is a more general phenomenon frequently referred to as ‘pronoun ex­ change’ whereby subject forms can appear in object position and vice versa, even though the former process is more widespread. Some illustration is provided in (18) and (19). Again, we are here talking about a traditional dialectal feature (Kortmann 2004: 1096–7, Wagner 2004: 157–9). (18)

(p. 614)

(19)

Page 11 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features Pronoun exchange has been most widely observed in the Southwest of England, but it can also be found in several other varieties, including those of East Anglia, the Southeast of England, the North of England, and Newfoundland (Beal 2004: 117–88, Clarke 2004: 313, Trudgill 2004: 147–8). Pronoun exchange is not categorical, though there seems to be a functional contrast to the effect that subject forms in object position can be used for em­ phasis, as emphatic forms so to speak.

28.4 Tense and aspect Having surveyed a nominal subsystem, let us now turn to the verb phrase, focusing on tense and aspect marking. Again, these are domains that offer considerable variation both in terms of form and function. Moreover, there are substantial regional differences.

28.4.1 Tense marking The English domain of tense marking covers categories such as present, perfect, past, and future, the perfect here being subsumed under tense for expository reasons. Its sta­ tus is clearly different from the others, since it can be combined with past, present, and future. Non-standard tense uses—here focusing on the differences—can be related to the standard distributions as shown in Figure 28.2. In addition, we can observe differences in the formal encoding, to which we will turn later.

Figure 28.2 Correspondences between non-standard and standard tense use (Siemund 2013: 114)

Using different varieties, the examples below illustrate these correspondences, namely the present tense in present perfect contexts (20a), the present perfect in past tense con­ texts (20b), the past tense in present perfect contexts (20c), and the interchangeable use of the past tense and the past perfect (20d). Such non-standard uses of the standard Eng­ lish form types are by no means restricted to the varieties mentioned in (20), but relative­ ly widespread. (p. 615)

(20)

Page 12 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

Non-standard form types can be more clearly associated with particular regions. For ex­ ample, the so-called ‘after-perfect’ can be analysed as a calque on an underlying Irish construction and hence only occurs in Irish-English contact areas. It is one of the most conspicuous features of Irish English (21), replacing present perfect (21a) and past per­ fect (21b). Its occurrence in Newfoundland English is due to Irish settlers exporting it to the New World (22). (21)

(22)

Perhaps as a consequence of historical retention and innovative language contact, Irish English (and its descendant Newfoundland English) is especially prolific in perfect con­ structions. As well as the after-perfect and, of course, the standard have-perfect, we find the so-called ‘medial object perfect’ in which the participle is placed after the transitive direct object, as in example (23). Moreover, these as well as some other traditional di­ alects use two perfect auxiliaries, namely be besides have. This is illustrated in (24). (23)

(24)

Page 13 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features The proliferation of perfect constructions in Irish English is quite unexpected from a cross-linguistic perspective, as the perfect as such is not an especially widespread catego­ ry. In Dahl and Velupillai’s (2013) sample of 222 languages, no fewer than 114 languages lack this category, i.e. more than fifty per cent of the languages sampled (p. 616) express the relevant semantic territory differently. It stands to reason that either the present or the past takes over in these cases, as evidenced by the more extensive past tense use in North American Englishes (Elsness 2009: 230). All traditional varieties of English, though, possess have-perfects. These are practically restricted to European languages (German, Swedish, Spanish, etc.). They typically originate in resultative constructions (e.g., I have the letter written ‘I possess the letter and it is in a written state’) and may continue to grammaticalize into narrative tenses, as in German and French. Such devel­ opments may be behind the observed use of the present perfect in past tense contexts in Australian English (Then he’s hit her on the head; Collins and Peters 2004: 597).

28.4.2 Aspect marking While tenses relate the time of situation to the moment of speaking (or some other refer­ ence point), aspectual distinctions permit the speaker to portray the situation time in dif­ ferent ways—whether it is over, still ongoing, regularly repeated, etc. As grammatical marking, aspectual distinctions practically require the speaker to take up a certain per­ spective on situation time. For example, for every English sentence that we produce we need to decide whether we want to portray the situation as ongoing or not (progressive versus non-progressive/habitual). Regional varieties mainly offer differences along the progressive/habitual dimension, es­ pecially regarding the encoding of these aspectual distinctions. Habitual aspects are fre­ quently expressed by non-emphatic do (Wales, Southwest England), but there are also other structural options of which perhaps Irish English displays the greatest array. De­ pending on how one counts, this variety has no fewer than six ways to express habituality. The examples in (25) offer a summary of the structural options. The verbs do and be appear in various constructions and also in combination with one another (Filppula 2004). (25)

The examples in (26) illustrate these structural options, though it remains difficult to tell whether there are differences in meaning. Page 14 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features (26)

The second area of variation in the aspectual domain concerns the progressive. Concerning its ways of encoding, we need to mention ‘a-prefixing’, which is a rather ar­ (p. 617)

chaic strategy of participle formation, mainly found in Appalachian English, Newfound­ land English, and the traditional dialects of Southwest England. Examples can be found in (27) below. Historically, the prefix originates in a locative preposition (on). (27)

Language contact has also contributed to the stock of progressive constructions in Eng­ lish, notably the busy-progressive found in White South African English. Consider the ex­ ample in (28), which represents a structural calque on an underlying Dutch construction (bezig ‘busy’). (28)

In terms of distribution, there is hardly any non-standard variety of English for which a more extended use of the progressive aspect has not been observed. This concerns vari­ eties of both the inner and outer circle. A more extended use of the progressive aspect Page 15 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features with stative verbs has been reported from Scottish English, Irish English, New Zealand and Australian English, and perhaps others. This appears to be a fairly general phenome­ non. Example (29) illustrates stative verb usage with data from Irish English. (29)

We need to bear in mind, though, that standard and non-standard usage may be difficult to tell apart here, since the progressive shows a tendency to encroach upon the domain of habituals even in Standard English (e.g., We are going to the opera a lot these days). Therefore, apparent regional non-standard uses as in example (30) can probably be subsumed under Standard English. (p. 618)

(30)

28.5 Negation A cross-linguistically stable observation is that negative sentences are marked, whereas affirmative sentences are unmarked (Miestamo 2010). This is clearly visible in the stan­ dard varieties. Regional varieties follow this trend, but offer more variation regarding sentential negation. In addition, they show different behaviour in the use of multiple neg­ ative expressions, namely negative concord. We will consider these areas one by one.

28.5.1 Sentential negation Everybody is aware of invariable ain’t as a sentential negator. It is attested in various di­ alects of England, in Newfoundland English, and in the Englishes of Norfolk Island and the Caribbean. It is also a prominent feature of African American Vernacular English and widely used in colloquial English. The form ain’t is completely invariable and substitutes for negative have or be, partially also negative do. Some illustration is provided in (31). There are also main verb uses of have, as shown in example (32). (31)

Page 16 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

(32)

A second non-standard sentential negator is the adverb never that occurs in some traditional dialects of England, Scottish English, Appalachian English, Newfoundland (p. 619)

English, and Australian Vernacular English. Example (33) provides some illustration. The crucial point here is that never in its use as a sentential negator does not negate the en­ tire past time sphere (I’ve never been to Hawai), but only the occurrence of a specific event. (33)

The invariant form ain’t is only one example of paradigm simplification under negation. Others include what is known as ‘third person singular don’t’ where positive do and does fall together in negative don’t, and the levelling of negative past tense be to either wasn’t or weren’t (Anderwald 2002: 198–201). Table 28.2 summarizes these asymmetries.

Page 17 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features Table 28.2 Asymmetrical paradigms (adapted from Anderwald 2002: 199) Positive

am

Nega­ tive

ain’t

is

are

has

have

do don’t

does

was

were

wasn’t/weren’t

Page 18 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

28.5.2 Negative concord In sharp contrast to standard English (I didn’t see nobody ‘I saw somebody’), several neg­ ative expressions in one clause do not cancel each other out in various regional English­ es, but achieve an overall negative interpretation. This is known as ‘negative concord’, al­ so referred to as ‘multiple negation’ in the literature. Negative concord may be preverbal or postverbal, as illustrated in (34a) and (34b). (34)

As a non-standard feature, negative concord is very common. It can be encountered in many traditional vernaculars, though it is probably best known from African American Vernacular English (especially preverbal negative concord). Based on corpus evidence sampled from British dialects, Anderwald (2002: 110) documents negative concord in rates of up to thirty per cent—counted against the positions where it could occur in prin­ ciple. Negative concord is rather common in the languages of the world. For example, Haspelmath (2013a) finds no fewer than 170 languages with negative concord in an over­ all sample of 206 languages. The co-occurrence of predicate negation and negative indefi­ nites, as in Standard English, is ruled out by a mere eleven languages. Illustration of neg­ ative concord from (Standard) Spanish and Italian is provided below. (p. 620)

(35)

(36)

Today’s dialectal negative concord clearly has historical precursors, with the prohibition of negative concord in the standard varieties even being due to prescriptive efforts (see Curzan 2014). Example (37) offers such a case of historical negative concord. (37)

Page 19 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

28.6 Subject–verb agreement Standard English subject–verb agreement is restricted to the third person singular present tense that marks the finite verb with the suffix -s. Hardly any other grammatical feature is more prone to regional and social variation. The dialects of East Anglia, for in­ stance, tend not to use it at all, using bare verb stems instead (zero marking). Trudgill (2004: 142) states that this pattern is characteristic of and restricted to East Anglia. Ex­ amples are provided in (38). (38)

Most other dialects of Britain, however, tend towards an extended use of the -s suffix. Such paradigm regularization is common in many western and northern dialects of Eng­ land, but it can also be found in the South of Britain, as example (39) shows. Using the -s suffix consistently perhaps helps to differentiate between past tense, present tense, and infinitival forms. (p. 621)

(39)

A very special and cross-linguistically rather unique agreement system is the Northern Subject Rule that, as its name suggests, can be encountered in northern English and Scottish dialects. A common formulation is that in (40). Its most curious property is the adjacency condition between finite verb and pronominal subjects, leading to data such as (41). Adjacency as a condition on agreement is very rare cross-linguistically (Corbett 2006: Chapter 6). (40)

(41) Page 20 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

The formulation of the Northern Subject Rule in (40) predicts a categorical system, but such systems are rarely found. There always seems to be variation. Therefore, the alter­ native formulation in (42) captures the empirical reality more adequately. (42)

Pietsch (2005: 6) views the formulation of the Northern Subject Rule in (42) as the result of competition between two categorical systems, namely the traditional Northern Subject Rule (40), on the one hand, and the agreement pattern found in Standard English, on the other. Similarly, Godfrey and Tagliamonte (1999: 106) conceptualize the distribution of the -s suffix as a statistical problem, since verbs can take it variably in practically identi­ cal contexts, also in other non-standard varieties. The examples in (43) provide evidence. (43)

The observable variation is due to an intricate mix of phonological, lexical, seman­ tic, and syntactic conditioning factors. For example, the verb say, habitual contexts, full noun phrase subjects, as well as subject non-adjacency favour the appearance of the -s suffix. In other words, the Northern Subject Rule describes only a subset of the relevant factors. (p. 622)

A second area of subject–verb agreement concerns the past tense forms of be (was/were), whose distribution in the standard varieties follows the singular–plural opposition, except for the second person singular (you were). Regional varieties here manifest the analogical extension of one form into the domain of the other. This is known as ‘was/were-levelling’ or ‘was/were-generalization’. Some examples illustrating was-generalization can be found Page 21 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features in (44); those in (45) show were-generalization. The phenomenon is rather common and can be encountered in the British Isles, several North American dialects, South African English, and (non-standard) Australian English. (44)

(45)

On the whole, was-levelling seems more widespread than were-levelling, but the levelling process is sensitive to negation such that were becomes tied to negative and was to posi­ tive clauses, as shown in the examples in (46) and (47). Again, we are here dealing with a statistical generalization and not a categorical rule (Nevins and Parrott 2010: 1145, 1148). (46)

(47)

A third area of non-standard subject–verb agreement is known as ‘third person singular don’t’ and involves missing agreement on the verb do in negative contexts. It appears to be related to the omission of verbal -s in East Anglia, though it is by no means restricted to this area (Anderwald 2002: 151–70). Some examples can be found in (48). (48)

Page 22 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

Anderwald (2002: 151–70), in her data sample drawn from the British National Corpus, posits the implicational connection that all dialects that allow she don’t also per­ mit he don’t, though not vice versa. In addition, she generalizes that third person singular don’t is most frequent in declarative clauses, then tag questions, and least frequent in (full) interrogative clauses. (p. 623)

28.7 Clause structure The final section of this chapter will be dedicated to clause structure issues. Again, a rea­ sonable selection needs to be made, since the observable variation is considerable. I will here focus on ditransitive constructions, embedded interrogatives, and relative clauses.

28.7.1 Ditransitive constructions In standard English ditransitive or double object constructions, the object encoding the recipient is positioned before the theme object (indirect versus direct object), as in exam­ ple (49a). This is known in the literature as the ‘canonical double object construction’. Northern English dialects offer the ‘alternative double object construction’ (49b), with the theme located before the recipient (Gast 2007: 34), although it ‘is not especially common’ (Hughes et al. 2005: 19). (49)

Variation with pronominal objects is more pervasive. According to Hughes et al. (2005: 19), the alternative ordering in (50a) is ‘very common in the north of England, but is not found in the south’. The opposite pronominalization in (50b) is less common, but can ‘be heard in the north of England, particularly if there is contrastive stress on him’. Due to in­ formation structuring, the same holds for canonical examples like She gave the man it (see Chapter 22, this volume). (50)

Page 23 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

With two pronominal objects, the alternative ordering appears just as common as the canonical construction (though some speakers accept neither). This is shown in exam­ ple (51). Hughes et al. (2005: 19) say that the alternative ordering ‘is very common in­ deed [in the North of England, PS], and is also quite acceptable to many southern speak­ ers’. (p. 624)

(51)

We may note that variation really only concerns the double object construction, as the re­ versal of recipient and theme in the prepositional construction is rejected by speakers of all varieties (Siewierska and Hollmann 2007: 86–7): (52)

According to Gast (2007: 37–8), we can distinguish three major types of varieties in rela­ tion to object ordering in ditransitive constructions, namely (see also Gerwin 2013): i. varieties that have only the canonical (but not the alternative) double object con­ struction, but that do not use it when both objects are pronominal (*gave me it, *gave it me, gave it to me; e.g., standard British English); ii. varieties that have only the canonical double object construction and that do allow it in sentences with two pronominal objects (gave me it, *gave it me, gave it to me; e.g., some north-eastern varieties of British English); iii. varieties that have both the canonical and the alternative double object construc­ tion and that use the latter when both objects are pronominal (*gave me it, gave it me, gave it to me; e.g., some (north)western varieties of British English). (Gast 2007: 37–8) To be sure, the above rules try to capture variation in British English, but say nothing on the distributions in North American dialects or Australian English. Very little is known about that. Figure 28.3 offers more fine-grained dialectal information for England.

Page 24 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

Figure 28.3 Map ‘Give it me’, taken from An Atlas of English Dialects by Clive Upton and J. D. A. Widdow­ son (1996: 52) By permission of Oxford University Press.

Interestingly enough, the recipient–theme order found in standard English is consistent with cross-linguistically attested ordering patterns. Animate noun phrases generally pre­ cede inanimate ones (Haspelmath 2013b). This ordering preference is weakened for pronominal objects and clitics, and again, such variation is not restricted to English (Gensler 2003, Siemund 2013: 231–2). (p. 625)

(p. 626)

28.7.2 Embedded inversion

Standard English, as is well known, has subject–auxiliary inversion in main clause inter­ rogatives, though not in embedded interrogatives. The latter show the same word order as declaratives. These differences are illustrated in examples (53) and (54). (53)

(54)

Especially in the context of the so-called ‘Celtic Englishes’, we find data that show inver­ sion of subject and auxiliary in embedded clauses, widely referred to as ‘embedded inver­ Page 25 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features sion’. It can be found with embedded polar (55) and constituent (or open) interrogatives (56). (55)

(56)

Davydova at al. (2011: 305–16) compare embedded inversion across several non-standard varieties and document particularly high rates of it for embedded polar interrogatives in Irish English, suggesting an analysis in terms of Irish substrate influence. There remain important methodological problems, though, as embedded inversion needs to be distin­ guished from main clause inversion in direct speech (Siemund 2013: 244–5).

28.7.3 Relative clauses As a type of noun modification, relative clauses in English are placed after the noun that they modify and are typically introduced by a relative marker. The most widely used rela­ tive marker in regional varieties is that, especially in northern English dialects (p. 627) and the English of Northern Ireland (Tagliamonte et al. 2005: 87), but we also find what, at, as, and possessively used that (where Standard English would have whose). The form at can be analysed as a reduced variant of that. The examples in (57) illustrate these points (see Hinrichs et al. 2015 on the rise of that in written registers, especially in Ameri­ can English). (57)

Page 26 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

In addition to the overt marking of the relative clause with a relative marker, head noun and relative clause may also be simply juxtaposed. This ‘gap strategy’ is widely used in Standard English, except for forming relative clauses on subjects (*the girl spoke first meaning ‘the girl who spoke first’). Non-standard regional Englishes, by contrast, widely employ subject gapping, as shown in (58). (58)

Tagliamonte et al. (2005: 96) show, however, that subject gapping is contextually con­ strained, and typically occurs in existential constructions (59a), cleft sentences (59b), and possessive constructions (59c). (59)

Another area of variation in the domain of relative clauses concerns so-called ‘resumptive pronouns’ or ‘pronoun retention’, in which pronominal copies of the head noun of the rel­ ative clause fill the gap that would otherwise be left by relativization. Resumptive pro­ nouns are usually not available in standard English, but as the examples in (60) (p. 628) make clear, they can be found in British regional varieties. Their frequency of occurrence, however, seems to be rather low (Herrmann 2003). (60) Page 27 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features

The strategy of relativization, i.e. gapping, relative marker, and pronoun retention, inter­ acts with and is constrained by the so-called ‘accessibility hierarchy’ in (61) below (Keenan and Comrie 1977). (61)

The accessibility hierarchy is a typical implicational hierarchy. It predicts that if noun phrases in a certain syntactic function can be relativized on, this will also be possible for noun phrases in all functions further to its left. Interestingly, the standard English restric­ tion on subject gapping violates the accessibility hierarchy, though non-standard English­ es conform with it. Moreover, Keenan and Comrie (1977: 92–3) argue that the hierarchy is reversed for pronoun retention.

28.8 Summary and conclusion In the present article, I have argued for a cross-linguistic, typological approach to the study of non-standard grammatical features. After exploring the methodology of language typology and the major generalizations resulting from this research endeavour, I exam­ ined the non-standard features of English found in five domains of grammar, namely pronominal systems, tense and aspect, negation, subject–verb agreement, and clause structure. I have tried to show that the cross-linguistic approach offers valuable insights into the relationship between non-standard and standard features and helps to position them in a universal linguistic categorial system. An overview article like this must necessarily remain incomplete, unfortunately. We should also bear in mind that I have focused here on inner circle varieties, excluding the huge array of language contact phenomena found in outer circle varieties (see Chapter 29, this volume). Further information concerning these issues can be found in Kortmann et al. (2004) as well as Siemund (2013). The major grammatical domains not included here are the determiner system and modal verbs. Both offer remarkable non-standard form types and distributions, as, for example, three distance contrasts in the system of demonstratives, or the famous double and triple modals of especially (p. 629) Scottish and Southern US English. Again, Kortmann et al. (2004) and Siemund (2013) offer useful starting points to explore these domains. The grammatical domains treated here also al­ low for more fine-grained observations, often relating to specific regions of the English-

Page 28 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features speaking world, notably benefactive datives in Southern US English, invariant interroga­ tive tags in British dialects, and markers of future time reference, among others.

Reference Anderwald, Lieselotte (2002). Negation in Non-Standard British English: Gaps, Regular­ izations and Asymmetries. London: Routledge. Anderwald, Lieselotte (2004). ‘The varieties of English spoken in the Southeast of Eng­ land: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 175–95. Beal, Joan (1993). ‘The grammar of Tyneside and Northumbrian English’, in James Milroy and Lesley Milroy (eds), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. London: Longman, 187–213. Beal, Joan (2004). ‘English dialects in the North of England: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar W. Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 114–41. Bowerman, Sean (2004). ‘White South African English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 948–61. Bresnan, Joan, and Jennifer Hay (2008). ‘Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English.’ Lingua 118(2): 245–59. Burridge, Kate (2004). ‘Synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in the Pacific and Australasia’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 1116–31. Cheshire, Jenny, Paul Kerswill, Sue Fox, and Eivind Torgersen (2011). ‘Contact, the fea­ ture pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English.’ Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15: 151–96. Cheshire, Jenny, Viv Edwards, and Pamela Whittle (1993). ‘Non-standard English and di­ alect levelling’, in James Milroy and Lesley Milroy (eds), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. London/New York: Longman, 53–96. Christian, Donna (1991). ‘The personal dative in Appalachian speech’, in Peter Trudgill and Jack K. Chambers (eds), Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation. Lon­ don: Longman, 11–17. Clarke, Sandra (2004). ‘Newfoundland English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kort­ mann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 303–18.

Page 29 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features Collins, Peter, and Pam Peters (2004). ‘Australian English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds), (2004), 593–610. Corbett, Greville G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, William (2004). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Curzan, Anne (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dahl, Östen, and Viveka Velupillai (2013). ‘The perfect’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/68. Davydova, Julia, Michaela Hilbert, Lukas Pietsch, and Peter Siemund (2011). ‘Comparing varieties of English: Problems and perspectives’, in Peter Siemund (ed), Linguistic Univer­ sals and Language Variation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 291–323. Edwards, Viv (1993). ‘The grammar of southern British English’, in James Milroy and Les­ ley Milroy (eds), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. Lon­ don: Longman, 214–42. Elsness, Johan (2009). ‘The present perfect and the preterite’, in Günter Rohdenburg and Julia Schlüter (eds), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 228–45. Evans, Nicholas, and Stephen Levinson (2009). ‘The myth of language universals: Lan­ guage diversity and its importance for cognitive science.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–92. Faltz, Leonard M. (1985). Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Gar­ land. Filppula, Markku (1999). A Grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian Style. Lon­ don: Routledge. Filppula, Markku (2004). ‘Irish English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 73–101. Gast, Volker (2007). ‘I gave it him – on the motivation of the alternative double object con­ struction in varieties of British English’, in Anna Siewierska and Willem Hollmann (eds), Ditransitivity: Special Issue of Functions of Language 14(1): 31–56. Gensler, Orin (2003). ‘Object ordering in verbs marking two pronominal objects: Nonex­ planation and explanation.’ Linguistic Typology 7(2): 187–231. Page 30 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features Gerwin, Johanna (2013). ‘Give it me!: Pronominal ditransitives in English dialects.’ Eng­ lish Language and Linguistics 17(3): 445–63. Godfrey, Elizabeth, and Sali Tagliamonte (1999). ‘Another piece of the verbal -s story: Evi­ dence from Devon in Southwest England.’ Language Variation and Change 11(1): 87–121. Haspelmath, Martin (2013a). ‘Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 115. Available online at http:// wals.info/chapter/115 (last accessed 6 April 2019). Haspelmath, Martin (2013b). ‘Ditransitive constructions: The verb “give”’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Mu­ nich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 105. Available online at http://wals.info/chap­ ter/105 (last accessed 6 April 2019). Hengeveld, Kees (1992). Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Herrmann, Tanja (2003). Relative Clauses in Dialects of English: A Typological Approach. PhD thesis. Freiburg: University of Freiburg. Hickey, Raymond (ed) (2012b) Standards of English: Codified Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinrichs, Lars, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, and Axel Bohmann (2015). ‘Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause.’ Language 91(4): 806–36. Hughes, Arthur, Peter Trudgill, and Dominic Watt (2005). English Accents and Dialects: An Introduction to Social and Regional Varieties of English in the British Isles. London: Hodder Arnold. Hundt, Marianne (1998b). New Zealand English Grammar: Fact or Fiction? Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kachru, Braj B. (1985). ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle’, in Randolph Quirk and Henry Widdowson (eds), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and the British Council, 11–30. Keenan, Edward, and Bernard Comrie (1977). ‘Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.’ Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99. König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund (2000). ‘Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective’, in Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci Curl (eds), Reflexives: Forms and Func­ tions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 41–74.

Page 31 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features Kortmann, Bernd (2004). ‘Synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in the British Isles’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 1089–103. Kortmann, Bernd, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (2004). ‘Global synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in English’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 1142–1202. Kortmann, Bernd, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (2011). ‘Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in world Englishes: Prospects and limitations of searching for universals’, in Pe­ ter Siemund (ed), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 257–83. Kortmann, Bernd, and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds) (2013). The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English 2.0. [eWAVE 2.0]. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary An­ thropology. http://ewave-atlas.org. Maddieson, Ian (2013). ‘Consonant-vowel ratio’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspel­ math (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/3 (last accessed 7 April 2019). McCormick, Kay (2004). ‘Cape Flats English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kort­ mann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 993–1005. Melchers, Gunnel (2004). ‘English spoken in Orkney and Shetland: Morphology, syntax and lexicon’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 34–46. Miestamo, Matti (2007). ‘Negation – an overview of typological research.’ Language and Linguistics Compass 1(5): 552–70. Miestamo, Matti (2010). ‘Negatives without negators’, in Jan Wohlgemuth and Michael Cysouw (eds), Rethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 45). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 169–94. Montgomery, Michael (2004). ‘Appalachian English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Ko­ rtmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 245–80. Moss, Lesley (2014). Corpus Stylistics and Henry James’ Syntax. Ph.D. thesis. London: University College London. Murray, Thomas, and Beth Lee Simon (2004). ‘Colloquial American English: Grammatical features’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 221–44.

Page 32 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features Nevalainen, Terttu (2006). ‘Negative concord as an English “Vernacular Universal”: So­ cial history and linguistic typology.’ English Language and Linguistics 34(3): 257–78. Nevins, Andrew, and Jeffrey Parrott (2010). ‘Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties.’ Lingua 120(5): 1135–59. Orton, Harold, and Eugen Dieth (eds) (1962–1971). Survey of English Dialects, 13 vol­ umes. Leeds: E.J. Arnold and Son Ltd. Pawley, Andrew (2004). ‘Australian Vernacular English: Some grammatical characteris­ tics’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 611–42. Penhallurick, Robert (2004). ‘Welsh English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 102–13. Pietsch, Lukas (2005). Variable Grammars: Verbal Agreement in Northern Dialects of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pietsch, Lukas (2009). ‘Hiberno-English medial-object perfects reconsidered: A case of contact-induced grammaticalisation.’ Studies in Language 33(3): 528–568. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (1993). ‘Syntactic categories and subcategories’, in Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann (eds), Syntax. Ein inter­ nationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung/An International Handbook of Contem­ porary Research (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication, 9). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 646–86. Schneider, Edgar W. (2004). ‘Synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in the Amer­ icas and the Caribbean’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Sch­ neider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 1104–15. Siemund, Peter (2002). ‘Reflexive and intensive self-forms across varieties of English.’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (ZAA) 50(3): 250–68. Siemund, Peter (2008). Pronominal Gender in English: A Study of English Varieties from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. London: Routledge. Siemund, Peter (2013). Varieties of English: A Typological Approach. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Siewierska, Anna, and Willem Hollmann (2007). ‘Ditransitive clauses in English with spe­ cial reference to Lancashire dialect’, in Mike Hannay and Gerald J. Steen (eds), Structur­ al-Functional Studies in English Grammar: In Honour of Lachlan Mackenzie (Studies in Language Companion Series, 83). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83–102.

Page 33 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features Silverstein, Michael (1976). ‘Hierarchy of features and ergativity’, in R. M. W. Dixon (ed), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages (Linguistic Series, 22). Canberra: Aus­ tralian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 112–71. Tagliamonte, Sali (1998). ‘Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York.’ Language Variation and Change 10(2): 153–91. Tagliamonte, Sali (2005). ‘So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conver­ sation of young Canadians.’ Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1896–1915. Trudgill, Peter (1999b). The Dialects of England. Oxford: Blackwell. Trudgill, Peter (2004). ‘The dialect of East Anglia: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kort­ mann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 142–53. Trudgill, Peter, and Jack Chambers (1991). Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation. London/New York: Longman. Upton, Clive, and J. D. A. Widdowson (1996). An Atlas of English Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wagner, Susanne (2004). ‘English dialects in the Southwest: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 154–74. Wolfram, Walt (2004a). ‘Rural and ethnic varieties in the Southeast: Morphology and syn­ tax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Up­ ton (eds) (2004), 281–302. Wolfram, Walt (2004b). ‘Urban African American vernacular English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 319–40. Wright, Joseph (1898–1905). The English Dialect Dictionary, 6 volumes. Oxford: Henry Frowde. Zupitza, Julius (ed) (1966). Aelfrics Grammatik und Glossar. Berlin: Weidmannsche Ver­ lagsbuchhandlung.

Peter Siemund

Peter Siemund has been Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Ham­ burg since 2001. He pursues a crosslinguistic typological approach in his work on re­ flexivity and self-intensifiers, pronominal gender, interrogative constructions, speech acts and clause types, argument structure, tense and aspect, varieties of English, lan­ guage contact, and multilingual development. His publications include, as author, Pronominal Gender in English: A Study of English Varieties from a Cross-Linguistic Page 34 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Regional Varieties of English: Non-standard grammatical features Perspective (2008, Routledge), Varieties of English: A Typological Approach (2013, CUP), and Speech Acts and Clause Types: English in a Cross-Linguistic Context (2018, OUP), and, as Editor, Linguistic Universals and Language Variation (2011, Mouton de Gruyter) and Foreign Language Education in Multilingual Classrooms (with Andreas Bonnet; 2018, John Benjamins).

Page 35 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World

Global Variation in the Anglophone World   Bernd Kortmann The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.21

Abstract and Keywords Based on the data set in the electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English, the primary purpose of this chapter is to determine the areal and global reach as well as the degree of distinctiveness of morphosyntactic properties for fifty spontaneous spoken L1 and L2 Englishes as well as twenty-six English-based pidgins and creoles spoken in seven Anglo­ phone world regions (Africa, North America, Australia, British Isles, the Caribbean, the Pacific, South and Southeast Asia). Central questions addressed include the following: Which are the most widespread non-standard morphosyntactic features in the Anglo­ phone world? Are there distinctive, or even diagnostic, features for the different variety types? Is it possible to identify systematic correlations between variety type and different degrees of structural complexity? Which are the most widespread or even diagnostic fea­ tures for the different parts of the English-speaking world? Keywords: morphosyntax, morphology, grammar, L1, L2, pidgins, creoles, complexity, non-standard

29.1 Introduction THE present chapter will be concerned with morphosyntactic variation in the Englishspeaking world. Like Siemund’s chapter in this volume (see Chapter 28), it is informed by a typological approach to the study of dialects and World Englishes (cf. e.g., Anderwald and Kortmann 2013, Siemund 2013). However, while Chapter 28 is feature-oriented and offers a qualitative discussion of features selected from individual domains of non-stan­ dard grammar in native speaker varieties of English, the primary purpose of the present chapter is a different one. It rather seeks to identify the areal and global reach as well as the degree of distinctiveness of morphosyntactic properties for individual types of vari­ eties and Anglophone world regions. Almost all of the features discussed in Chapter 28 form part of the feature set analysed for this purpose; likewise the native speaker vari­ eties considered in Chapter 28 form a subset of the varieties investigated here.

Page 1 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World The following account is based on the data set in the electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English (Kortmann and Lunkenheimer 2013; eWAVE version 2.0: http://www.ewaveatlas.org) as well as on analyses of this data set as offered most comprehensively in Kort­ mann and Lunkenheimer (2012a). The eWAVE data set includes ratings, examples, and in­ teractive maps for 235 morphosyntactic features covering twelve domains of grammar in seventy-six different varieties of English. The features covered are non-standard in the sense that they are not normally considered to be part of the ‘common core’ of (typically written) English, i.e. of ‘what is left when all regional and other distinctions are stripped away’ (McArthur 1992: 983). None of these features would normally be used in the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classroom. (p. 631) There are hundreds of candidates for such non-standard features in spontaneous spoken Englishes and English-based pidgins and creoles around the world.1 For details on the selection of the 235 features in WAVE, compare Kortmann and Lunkenheimer (2012b: 4f.). The language varieties covered in the data set comprise a range of different types: thirtyone L1 (native-speaker) and nineteen L2 (non-native) spontaneous spoken varieties of English as well as twenty-six English-based pidgins and creoles from all Anglophone world regions (cf. E. W. Schneider 2011: 28f. for a brief discussion of the arguments whether or not to consider English-based pidgins and creoles as varieties of English, as is done by himself and in the present chapter). By L1 varieties we understand native speak­ er (or mother-tongue) varieties, which also stand at the centre of Peter Siemund’s Chap­ ter 28 in this volume. According to Trudgill (2009a), L1 varieties can broadly be subdivid­ ed into low-contact varieties (largely, traditional regional dialects) and high-contact vari­ eties, i.e. varieties of English with a distinct contact history, be it contact with other lan­ guages or with other English dialects. So Englishes with a colonial background typically qualify as high-contact L1 Englishes (e.g., Australian English, New Zealand English, Ba­ hamian English, but also Irish English). The category of L2 varieties includes predomi­ nantly ‘indigenized non-native varieties of English that have a certain degree of prestige and normative status in their political communities’, such as Pakistani English or the East African Englishes, ‘but also non-native varieties that compete with local L1 varieties for prestige and normative status’, such as Chicano English in the US or Black South African English (Kortmann and Lunkenheimer 2012b: 3). In terms of Kachru’s three-circles model of World Englishes developed in the 1980s, L1 and L2 varieties form the Inner and the Outer Circle respectively (cf. E. W. Schneider 2011: 31–2). For more information on L1 and L2 varieties from a typological perspective, see section 29.4. This uniquely comprehensive data set, collected in a uniform way by a team of more than eighty specialists for the relevant varieties and thus securing a high degree of compara­ bility, allows us to answer many of the big questions in the study of language-internal structural variation on a global scale. Of these, the following will primarily be addressed here (with the relevant section in parentheses): • Which major typological patterns emerge when examining morphosyntactic variation across the Anglophone world? What is more powerful in explaining the observable pat­

Page 2 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World terns of variation: the typological signal (i.e. variety type) or the geographical signal (i.e. Anglophone world region)? (See section 29.2.) • Which are the most widespread non-standard morphosyntactic features in the Anglo­ phone world, and can they be attributed to the globalization of English? (See section 29.3.) • Are there distinctive, or even diagnostic, features for the different variety types (L1s, L2s, pidgins, and creoles)? Is it possible to identify systematic correlations between variety type and different degrees of structural complexity? (See section 29.4.) (p. 632)

• Which are the most widespread or even diagnostic features for the different parts of the English-speaking world (i.e. for the Anglophone world regions Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Australia, the British Isles, the Caribbean, North America, and the Pa­ cific)? (See section 29.5.) The final and most challenging question to be tackled is the following (section 29.6): How are we to interpret the different types of diagnostic features that will be identified in sec­ tions 29.4 and 29.5, on the one hand, and the most widespread features in the Anglo­ phone world (section 29.3), on the other hand, against Mair’s (2014b) suggestion of a World System of (Standard and Non-Standard) Englishes, with Standard American Eng­ lish as its hub? The major drift of this chapter thus is to offer a global perspective on mor­ phosyntactic variation across the highly diverse range of spontaneous spoken Englishes and English-based pidgins and creoles. First, however, Tables 29.1 and 29.2 provide more information on the (e)WAVE database, i.e. the varieties and domains of grammar covered. The distribution of the different vari­ ety types across Anglophone world regions in Table 29.1 shows (see the columns labelled ‘L1’, ‘L2’, and ‘P/C’ on the right) that we can distinguish between two broad classes of world regions: rather homogeneous ones (the British Isles and North America as perva­ sively L1 regions, the Caribbean as pervasively a creole region), as opposed to rather het­ erogeneous ones, where one variety type may predominate (such as L2 in Africa and Asia, pidgins and creoles in the Pacific, L1 in Australia), but where there is still a sizeable num­ ber of representatives of at least one other variety type to be found.

Page 3 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Table 29.1 Seventy-six varieties in WAVE: world regions World region

Varieties

L1

L2

P/C

sum

British Isles/ Europe

L1: Orkney and Shetland E (O&SE), North of England (North), SW of England (SW), SE of England (SE), East An­ glia (EA), Scot­ tish E (ScE), Ir­ ish E (IrE), Welsh E (WelE), Manx E (ManxE), Chan­ nel Islands E (ChlsE); L2: Maltese E (MltE); P/C: British Creole (BrC)

10

1

1

12

Page 4 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World North America

L1: Newfoundland E (NfldE), Ap­ palachian E (AppE), Ozark E (OzE), South­ east American Enclave dialects (SEAmE), Collo­ quial American E (CollAmE), Urban African American Ver­ nacular E (UAAVE), Rural African Ameri­ can Vernacular E (RAAVE), Ear­ lier African American Ver­ nacular E (EAAVE); L2: Chicano E (ChcE); P/C: Gullah

8

1

1

10

Page 5 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Caribbean

L1: Bahamian E (BahE); L2: Jamaican E (JamE); P/C: Jamaican C (JamC), Bahami­ an C (BahC), Barbadian C (Bajan), Be­ lizean C (BelC), Trinidadian C (TrinC), Eastern Maroon C (EMarC), Sranan, Sara­ maccan (Saram), Guyanese C (GuyC), San An­ drés C (SanAC), Vincentian C (VinC)

1

1

11

13

Africa

L1: Liberian Settler E (LibSE), White South African E (WhSAfE),

3

9

5

17

Page 6 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World White Zimbab­ wean E (WhZ­ imE); L2: Ghanaian E (GhE), Nigerian E (NigE), Cameroon E (CamE), Kenyan E (KenE), Tan­ zanian E (TznE), Ugan­ dan E (UgE), Black South African E (BlSAfE), Indian South African E (InSAfE), Cape Flats English (CFE); P/C: Ghanaian Pid­ gin (GhP), Nigerian Pidgin (NigP), Cameroon Pid­ gin (CamP), Krio, Vernacu­ lar Liberian E (VLibE) Page 7 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Asia

L1: Colloquial Singapore E (CollSgE), Philippine E (PhilE); L2: Indian E (IndE), Pakistan E (PakE), Sri Lan­ ka E (SLkE), Hong Kong E (HKE), Malaysian E (MalE); P/C: Butler E (ButlE)

2

5

1

8

Australia

L1: Aboriginal E (AbE), Aus­ tralian E (AusE), Aus­ tralian Vernacu­ lar E (AusVE); P/C: Torres Strait C (TorSC), Roper River C (RRC [Kriol])

3

0

2

5

Page 8 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Pacific

L1: New Zealand E (NZE); L2: Colloquial Fiji E (CollFijiE), Acrolectal Fiji E (FijiE); P/C: Hawaiian C (HawC), Bisla­ ma (Bisl), Nor­ folk Island/Pit­ cairn E (Norf’k), Palmerston E (PalmE), Tok Pisin (TP)

1

2

5

8

Isolates/South Atlantic

L1: St. Helena E (StHE), Tris­ tan da Cunha E (TdCE), Falk­ land Islands E (FlkE)

3

0

0

3

Totals

WAVE 2.0

31

19

26

76

Note: P/C = pidgins and creoles

Page 9 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Table 29.2 Domains of grammar covered in WAVE (235 features in all) Grammatical domain

Feature totals

Percentage of 235

Pronouns

47

20.0%

Noun phrase

40

17.0%

Tense and aspect

33

14.0%

Modal verbs

7

3.0%

Verb morphology

26

11.0%

Negation

16

6.8%

Agreement

15

6.4%

Relativization

15

6.4%

Complementation

11

4.7%

Adverbial subordination

5

2.1%

Adverbs and prepositions

7

3.0%

Discourse organization and

13

5.5%

word order Table 29.2 shows how the features covered in WAVE are distributed across different grammatical domains. For a complete overview of the 235 features (including definitions and examples), see http://ewave-atlas.org/parameters or, for the bare list of features, Foldout 1 in Kortmann and Lunkenheimer (2012a).

29.2 Patterns of morphosyntactic variation across the Anglophone world In this section we will look at the major results which emerge when applying to the entire WAVE data set (presence versus absence of all 235 features in all seventy-six varieties) the NeighborNet algorithm, a clustering method originally developed in bioinformatics, but by now well-established in representing and exploring variation (p. 633) (p. 634) in lin­ guistics. The basic information needed when looking at the resulting networks is that ‘the distances were measured by determining presence (i.e. attestedness …) and absence of Page 10 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World features, then calculating the proportion of mismatches between varieties’ (Kortmann and Wolk 2012: 919f.).2 The shorter the distance between any two varieties, the more ty­ pologically similar they are, i.e. the higher is the number of co-presences and co-absences for the 235-member feature set. Vice versa, the longer the distance between any two vari­ eties, the more typologically dissimilar they are. The global network in Figure 29.1 allows us to answer the first two key questions con­ cerning patterns of grammatical variation in the English-speaking world: Which major ty­ pological patterns emerge when examining morphosyntactic variation across the Anglo­ phone world, and is it the typological signal (i.e. variety type) or the geographical signal (i.e. Anglophone world region) that is more powerful in explaining the observable pat­ terns of variation?

Figure 29.1 Global network for the entire WAVE fea­ ture set (N = 235)

Figure 29.1 reveals four major clusters, numbered counterclockwise Cluster 1–4, begin­ ning with the bottom right cluster. It emerges that the morphosyntactic typological pro­ files of the seventy-six WAVE varieties pattern rather neatly according to variety type. Thus Cluster 1 consists almost exclusively of mother-tongue varieties of English (some high-contact (L1c) and all low-contact L1 varieties (L1t) in the sample), Cluster 2 (p. 635) of L2 varieties of English, Cluster 3 of pidgins, creoles and creoloids3, and Cluster 4 of pidgins and creoles, on the one hand, and the majority of high-contact L1 varieties, on the other hand. The major division between the four clusters is the one between the two righthand and two lefthand sets of clusters: on the right L1 and L2 varieties and on the left all pidgins/creoles, the four creoloids (AbE, PalmE, CollFijE, ButlE), and the African, American, and Caribbean high-contact L1 varieties.4 There are only four appar­ ent outliers: Chicano English (an L2 patterning with the L1 Cluster 1), White South African and White Zimbabwean English (L1 varieties patterning with the L2 varieties in Cluster 2), and Jamaican English (an L2 placed in the P/C Cluster 3). For an elaborate dis­ cussion of these outliers and the four clusters, in general, see Kortmann and Wolk (2012: 920–32). (p. 636)

Page 11 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World The geographical composition of the four clusters is outlined in Table 29.3. Note that the clusterings within the geographical labels in Figure 29.1 can include historically related varieties that are not physically in the same area (e.g., Newfoundland English is (p. 637) part of the BrIs 1 cluster, right next to its two major historical input varieties Irish Eng­ lish and dialects of Southwest England). When trying to explain the overall structure of this network, it becomes obvious at a glance that, even though geographical groupings are perceptible, they are clearly secondary to the cluster groupings according to variety type. The clustering in Figure 29.1 thus convincingly shows that the socio-historical con­ ditions under which varieties of English emerged and are currently used correlate with their overall morphosyntactic profiles. For example, regardless where in the world L2 Englishes are spoken, their grammars tend to be more like each other than the grammars of Englishes spoken in the same Anglophone world region. Analogously, this applies to L1 Englishes and English-based pidgins and creoles.

Page 12 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Table 29.3 Geographical composition of the clusters in the global net­ work Cluster 3 (Pidgins, creoles, creoloids)

Cluster 2 (L2 varieties)

--

ButlE (As)

Af1

WhSAfE, CFE, WhZimE

Aus/ Pac2

CollFijiE, PalmE, AbE

As1

SLkE, PakE, FijiE

--

HawC (Pac)

Af2

TznE, UgE, NigE, KenE, GhE,

Car1

JamE, BrC, SanAC, BelC

Aus/ Pac3

Norf’k, RRC, TorSC,

As2

CollSgE, MalE

Bislama, TP

Af3

InSAfE, BlSAfE

Krio, CamP, NigP,

As3

IndE, PhilE, HKE

Af4

CamE

GhP Car2

Saramaccan, Sranan, EMarC

Cluster 4 (Pidgins, creoles, L1c)

Cluster 1 (L1 varieties)

--

Gullah (Am)

BrIs1

IrE, NfdlE, WelE, SW, North

Car3

GuyC, VinC, JamC, BahC, Bajan,

Am1

AppE, OzE, CollAmE

TrinC

BrIs2

ManxE, SE, FlkE, EA

Af5

LibSE, VLibSE

Aus/ Pac1

AusVE, AusE, NZE

Am2

RAAVE, UAAVE, SEAmE

BrIs3

ScE, O&SE, ChIsE

Page 13 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World --

TdCE (Isolate), StHE (Isolate),

--

ChcE (Am)

EAAVE (Am), BahE (Car) There is no Anglophone world region which is found in only one of these four major clus­ ters. Even the British Isles, although represented by three groups of L1 varieties in Clus­ ter 1, have as an outlier British Creole (BrC), which is neatly positioned right next to Ja­ maican English in the Car1 sub-cluster in Cluster 3. The number of geographical sub-clus­ ters per Anglophone world region varies between two (North America) and five (Africa). The global network in Figure 29.1 is based on the entire set of 235 WAVE features, but of course other such networks can be generated for different subsets of features, thus possi­ bly revealing other interesting clusterings. One obvious choice for selecting subsets of features are the twelve grammar domains in Table 29.2. The network in Figure 29.2, for example, shows the clustering for the thirty-three Tense and Aspect features in WAVE. As in the global network, the L1 and L2 clusters clearly pattern on the right5 and a solid, even purer pidgin/creole cluster patterns on the left. Differently from the global network, however, Figure 29.2 shows a separate cluster (loosely labelled ‘AAVE et al.’) consisting of largely high-contact L1 varieties. This cluster is positioned nearer to the main L1 cluster and notably includes all three AAVE varieties as well as varieties which are either histori­ cally (LibSE, BahE) or geographically (SEAmE) related to AAVE. So in individual domains of grammar, as shown here for Tense and Aspect, subsets of varieties may cluster differ­ ently, moderately but distinctly, from their clustering based on the entire 235-feature set used in WAVE.

Figure 29.2 Tense and Aspect network in WAVE

In a global take on morphosyntactic variation in the Anglophone world, the following three sections will identify three sets of particularly prominent features out of the 235 WAVE features. The most widespread features across all seventy-six WAVE varieties, socalled angloversals (cf. Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann 2009b, Kortmann and Szmrecsanyi 2011), will be identified in section 29.3. In the two sections that follow prominence is to Page 14 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World be understood in the sense of distinctiveness: which morphosyntactic (p. 638) (p. 639) fea­ tures are most distinctive, or even diagnostic, of (a) individual variety types (so-called var­ ioversals; section 29.4) and (b) individual Anglophone world regions (sometimes called areoversals; section 29.5).6

29.3 Angloversals For identifying the most widespread non-standard morphosyntactic features in the Anglo­ phone world, a threshold of 80 per cent of varieties was defined. Table 29.4 lists and illus­ trates those six features which are attested in the largest number of varieties of English and English-based pidgins and creoles worldwide. The ‘total’ column shows the number of varieties in which each feature is attested, while the rightmost column shows the attes­ tation rate (AR) out of a total of seventy-six WAVE varieties. The AR of the top four fea­ tures ranges between 89 per cent and 92 per cent, the least expected of these perhaps being the second most widely attested angloversal, F34 (special forms or phrases (p. 640) for the second person plural pronoun like youse/yinz/y’all or you guys/you ones/you lot). It should be noted that each of the angloversals in Table 29.4 is widely used, or at the very least of medium-frequency use, in the individual WAVE varieties. Figuring prominently among those few varieties where these angloversals are not found (see the column ‘ab­ sent in’) are L2 varieties (e.g., Nigerian English, Ugandan English, Acrolectal Fiji English) and especially (Pacific) pidgins and creoles (notably Tok Pisin and Bislama).

Page 15 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Table 29.4 Vernacular angloversals: top 6 (≥ 80%) No.

Feature

Absent in

Total

AR worldwide

F229

no inversion/no aux­ iliaries in main clause yes/no questions (You get the point?)

North, SE, AppE, ChcE, NigE, TP

70

92%

F34

forms or phrases for the second per­ son plural pronoun other than you (e.g. youse, yinz, y’all, you guys, yufela)

O&SE, SE, TznE, UgE, HKE, FijiE, Saramaccan

69

91%

F221

adverbs other than degree modifiers have the same form as adjectives (Come quick!)

PakE, SLkE, HKE, FijiE, BelC, Bisla­ ma, TP

69

91%

F7

me instead of I in coordinate subjects (me and my brother)

FijiE, EMarC, Sara­ maccan, TorSC, PalmE, Bislama, Norf’k, TP

68

89%

Page 16 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World F159

never as preverbal past tense negator (S he never came this morning)

O&SE, ChcE, JamE, UgE, NigE, IndE, SLkE, EMarC, Sara­ maccan, Sranan, RRC, Bislama, TP

63

83%

F154

multiple negation/ negative concord (H e won’t do no harm)

O&SE, WhSAfE, CollSgE, GhE, NigE, TznE, PakE, SLkE, MalE, FijiE, RRC, TP, Bislama, GhP, NigP

61

80%

Page 17 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World If we lower the threshold to 70 per cent, we arrive at the next most widely attested fea­ tures in the Anglophone world. These are listed in Table 29.5. Table 29.5 Vernacular angloversals: top runners-up (≥ 70%) No.

Feature

To­ tal

AR world­ wide

F220

degree modifier adverbs have the same form as adjectives (This is real healthy)

60

79%

F147

was for conditional were (if I was you)

58

76%

F78

double comparatives and superlatives (That’s so much more easier to follow)

56

74%

F172

existential/presentational there’s/there is/there was with plural subjects

54

71%

54

71%

(There’s three people in the garden) F228

no inversion/no auxiliaries in wh-ques­ tions (What you doing?)

The question of what we can learn from the WAVE data set about global varieties and the globalization of English will be addressed in section 29.6 below. It is obvious that the set of vernacular angloversals should play a prominent role in this discussion. It thus seems justified to state at this point already that the vast majority of the eleven features in Ta­ bles 29.4 and 29.5 have gained wide social acceptance among native L1 speakers and can be considered part of what may be called standardizing non-standard English. In fact, for many speakers, especially in the US, quite a few of these features may already have reached the status of spontaneous spoken Standard English. The only angloversals to which this does not appear to apply are F154 (multiple negation) and F78 (double com­ paratives and superlatives) since both are widely stigmatized. They are clearly ‘above consciousness’ features attracting much explicit negative comment, especially in school settings (cf. also Kortmann 2006: 615 f.).

29.4 Variety types: diagnostic features The global network in Figure 29.1 visualized that the crucial factor explaining the observ­ able clusterings of the WAVE varieties is variety type. In other words, the (p. 641) gram­ mars of those varieties that belong to the same variety type resemble each other most. Page 18 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World The primary aim of the present section is to identify the diagnostic, i.e. most distinctive, features for each of the three major variety types represented in the WAVE data set (L1, L2, and pidgins/creoles). The central metric that will be used is the attestation rate (AR) of a given feature for a given variety type vis-à-vis the attestation rate of the same feature in all other varieties (i.e. the attestation rate difference = AR difference). For the first measure we will use a 60 per cent threshold, for the AR difference a 40 per cent thresh­ old. In other words, a given feature qualifies as diagnostic (a) if it is attested in at least 60 per cent of the varieties belonging to a certain variety type and (b) if its attestation rate is at least 40 per cent higher than in all varieties belonging to other variety types.7 For the thirty-one L1 varieties in WAVE these thresholds yield the four top diagnostic features in Table 29.6, which are sorted by AR difference (as in all of the tables in this section).8

Page 19 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Table 29.6 Top diagnostic features of L1 varieties (AR ≥ 60%, AR difference ≥ 40%), sorted by AR difference No.

Feature

AR L1 (N=31)

AR difference

L1 exceptions

F234

like as a focussing device (Yeah, it was like 115 dollars)

87%

55%

O&SE, OzE, AppE, LibSE

F28

use of us + NP in subject function (Us kids used to play in the barn)

90%

50%

O&SE, LibSE, Col­ lSgE

F1

she/her used for inanimate referents (She’s a nice bike)

80%

47%

SE, EAAVE, AppE, LibSE, WhZimE, CollSgE

F155

ain’t as the negated form of be (They’re all in there, ain’t they?)

74%

44%

O&SE, IrE, ManxE, WhSAfE, CollSgE, PhilE, AbE, NZE

Page 20 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Listed in Table 29.7 are top features whose presence is most characteristic of the ten tra­ ditional (or low-contact) L1 (L1t) varieties in WAVE, in general, but specifically in con­ trast with the high-contact L1 (L1c) varieties. All of these traditional dialects are spoken in the British Isles and North America. In the British Isles these are Orkney and Shetland English, Scottish English, the dialects of East Anglia, the North, the Southwest and Southeast of England; in North America these are Newfoundland English (as the only rep­ resentative of English in Canada in WAVE), Appalachian English, Ozark English, and the Southeast American enclave dialects.

Page 21 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Table 29.7 Top diagnostic features of traditional L1 varieties (AR ≥ 60%, AR difference ≥ 40%), sorted by AR differ­ ence No.

Feature

AR L1t (N=10)

AR L1c (N=21)

AR-difference (%L1t−%L1c)

F188

relativizer at (This is the man at painted my house)

70%

14%

56%

F181

agreement sensitive to subject type (e.g., birds sings versus they sing)

70%

23%

47%

F35

forms or phrases for the second per­ son singular pro­ noun other than you (e.g., ye, thou, thee)

60%

18%

42%

Page 22 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World These three features, at least two of which (F188, F35) are rather archaic, are closely followed by F2 ‘he/him used for inanimate referents’ (e.g., I bet thee cansn’ climb he [a tree]) and F232 ‘either order of objects in double (pronominal) object constructions’ (e.g., He couldn’t give him it). For both features the AR difference is 37 per cent (60 per cent AR in traditional L1 varieties versus 23 per cent in high-contact L1 Eng­ lishes). Most of these five features can be considered as instances of what has been called ornamental rule complexity in the recent complexity debate triggered by McWhorter (2001): they add morphological or syntactic contrasts, distinctions, or asymmetries with­ out providing a communicative or functional bonus (cf. Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann 2012: 8–13, 16f.). (p. 642)

Following Trudgill’s (2009a) suggestion of a new, contact-based typological split of vari­ eties of English, the following (types of) Englishes qualify as high-contact L1 varieties: transplanted L1 Englishes or colonial standards (e.g., Australian English, New Zealand English, White South African English), language-shift Englishes (by virtue of being a shift or even shifted variety, e.g., Irish English or Colloquial Singapore English), and the (spo­ ken) standard varieties of British and American English. Within the WAVE universe, the following twenty-one varieties have been classified as high-contact L1 (L1c) varieties. As this list shows, L1c varieties are found in all Anglophone world regions: Africa:

Liberian Settler English, White South African English, White Zimbabwean English

America:

Colloquial American English, Urban AAVE, Rural AAVE; additionally, as a historical variety: Earlier AAVE

Asia:

Colloquial Singapore English, Philippine English

Australia:

Aboriginal English, Australian English, Australian Ver­ nacular English

British Isles:

Irish English, Welsh English, Manx English, Channel Islands English

Caribbean:

Bahamian English

Pacific:

New Zealand English

Isolates:

St Helena English, Tristan da Cunha English, Falkland Islands English

The top diagnostic features of this variety type, specifically in contrast with tradi­ tional L1 varieties, are listed in Table 29.8. (p. 643)

Page 23 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World

Page 24 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Table 29.8 Top diagnostic features of high-contact L1 varieties (AR ≥ 60%, AR difference ≥ 40%), sorted by AR dif­ ference

Page 25 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World No.

Feature

AR L1c (N=21)

AR L1t (N=10)

AR-difference (%L1c−%L1t)

F3

alternative forms/ phrases for referen­ tial (non-dummy) it (When you off the thing [‘switch it off’] you press that one; FijiE)

73%

20%

53%

F66

indefinite article one/wan (Longa Kil­ durk gotta one stumpy-tail horse. ‘At Kildurk there is a stumpy-tailed horse’; AbE)

59%

10%

49%

F132

zero past tense forms of regular verbs(My grandfa­ ther belong to Thomas Jefferson; EAAVE)

59%

10%

49%

Page 26 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World F174

deletion of auxiliary be: before progres­ sive (Togba, you laugh­ ing; LibSE)

64%

20%

44%

Page 27 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World The following three deletion features are worth mentioning, too. Although they are attest­ ed in only 45 per cent of all L1c varieties, they are completely absent in the traditional L1 varieties: F176

deletion of copula be: be­ fore NPs

But this one Ø not your car. (CollSgE)

F177

deletion of copula be: be­ fore AdjPs

Ou mudder Ø crook, eh?

‘Your mother’s ill, isn’t she?’ (AbE) F178

deletion of copula be: be­ fore locatives

Khatib Ø very near my place. (CollSgE)

These deletion features, like the majority of the top diagnostic L1c features in Table 29.8, qualify as features that rather simplify the rule system of the relevant variety when judged against the system of (written) Standard English (StE). Simplifying features of a different sort, namely features facilitating second language acquisition by adults and thus known to recur in (adult) L2 learners’ interlanguage varieties (so-called L2 simple fea­ tures; see Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann 2012: 16), figure prominently among the top diag­ nostic features of the nineteen L2 varieties in WAVE, listed in Table 29.9.

Page 28 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Table 29.9 Top diagnostic features of L2 varieties (AR ≥ 60%, AR difference ≥ 40%), sorted by AR difference No.

Feature

AR L2 (N=19)

AR-difference

L2 exceptions

F45

insertion of it where StE favours zero (My old life I want to spend it in India; IndE)

89%

46%

ChcE, JamE, CFE

F209

addition of to where StE has bare infini­ tive(She made me to go there; IndSAfE)

72%

41%

MaltE, ChcE, JamE, FijiE, CollFijiE, CFE

F55

different count/ mass noun distinc­ tions result-ing in use of plural for StE singular (I have done a lot of re­ searches in this area; HKE)

94%

40%

ChcE, CFE

Page 29 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World F100

levelling between present perfect and simple past: present perfect for StE sim­ ple past (It has been established hundreds of years ago; GhE)

83%

40%

ChcE, NigE, KenE, CFE

F84

comparative mark­ ing only with than (It might be beauti­ ful than those big ones; BlSAfE)

61%

39%

MaltE, ChcE, JamE, GhE, InSAfE, PakE, FijiE, CFE

Page 30 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Interestingly, as the NeighborNet clustering based on the full feature set in Figure 29.3 shows, the L2 varieties of the Anglophone world fall into two broad clusters. Lunken­ heimer (2012b: 858–64) convincingly argues that the major factor responsible for the split between these two clusters is the degree of difference (or autonomy) from Standard English. On average, the varieties in Cluster I on the left attest far fewer non-standard morphosyntactic features (mean value: 49.9) than those in Cluster II on the right (mean value: 90.6). Within Cluster I, the varieties in sub-cluster a appear to be (p. 644) even more conservative and oriented towards Standard English than those in sub-cluster b. From an areal perspective, it is remarkable that almost all East and West African L2 vari­ eties are members of Cluster I, more exactly of its sub-cluster a, with Cameroon English (of all Cluster II varieties) being most strongly pulled towards this sub-cluster. By con­ trast, most of the features in the Cluster II varieties, and many more than those attested for the Cluster I varieties, can be explained by a higher degree of restructuring and in terms of processes characteristic for learner language.

Figure 29.3 NeighborNet clustering of L2 varieties in WAVE Note: The varieties shown are as follows, listed counter-clockwise. Cluster I, sub-cluster a: KenE, NigE, UgE, TznE; sub-cluster b: FijiE, GhE, PakE, SLkE, ChcE; Cluster II, sub-cluster c: JamE, CollFi­ jiE; other: MaltE, InSAfE, BlSAfE, IndE, HKE, MalE, CamE.

In terms of Schneider’s four-phase Dynamic Model of the development of Postcolonial Englishes (2007), one can say that all nineteen L2 varieties in WAVE show some degree of structural nativization and have thus reached phase three (nativization). The major differ­ ence between the two clusters is, however, that the varieties in Cluster I are oriented more strongly towards an exogenous (i.e. Standard English) norm and are therefore still closer to Schneider’s phase two (exonormative stabilization), whereas the Cluster II vari­

Page 31 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World eties are further advanced in the direction of endonormativity, either having already moved or currently moving into phase four (endonormative stabilization). The last variety type to be considered in this section is constituted by the seven pidgins and nineteen creoles in the WAVE data set. It is for this variety type that we find by far the largest set of diagnostic features of all variety types. For reasons of space, the 60 per cent AR threshold for diagnostic features has therefore been raised to 75 per cent. This yields the five features in Table 29.10.

Page 32 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Table 29.10 The most diagnostic features of English-based pidgins and creoles (AR of P/Cs ≥ 75%, AR difference ≥ 40%), sorted by AR difference No.

Feature

AR P/Cs (N=26)

AR difference

P/C exceptions

F5

generalized third person singular pro­ noun: subject pro­ nouns (That girl, it is living on Aitutaki now; PalmE)

81%

43%

SanAC, TrinC, HawC, ButlE, Norf’k

F10

no gender distinc­ tion in third person singular (De pretty girl make Jack lay he head in him lap; BahC)

88%

42%

TrinC, PalmE, HawC

F6

generalized third person singular pro­ noun: object pro­ nouns (À sí-am ‘I saw him/her/it’; NigP)

77%

42%

SanAC, TrinC, Bisla­ ma, VLibE, ButlE, TP

Page 33 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World F177

deletion of copula be: before AdjPs (Sh e happy; Bajan)

92%

41%

TP, Saramaccan

F205

existentials with forms of get (Gat or­ lem fish in ar sorl­ water. ‘There are lots of fish in the sea’; Norfolk Island/ Pitcairn English)

81%

40%

BrC, Gullah, EMarC, Saramac­ can, Sranan

Page 34 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ­ ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World A series of studies by Kortmann and Szmrecsanyi, based in part on the WAVE data, has shown that, in line with McWhorter (2001), English-based pidgins and creoles exhibit the highest degree of structural simplification of grammar compared with all (p. 645) (p. 646) other variety types. That is, compared with L1 and L2 varieties of English, they show the highest proportion of both features which simplify their grammars vis-à-vis the standard grammar (notably regularization of irregular paradigms, levelling processes, loosening of syntactic rules) and features which are known to be characteristic of interlanguage vari­ eties, especially of the (unmonitored) speech of adult language learners. These so-called L2-simple features include avoidance of inflections, widespread copula absence, avoid­ ance of agreement, the tendency to overgeneralize, etc. This finding, in turn, that within the Anglophone world these two types of structural simplification are most widely found in pidgins and creoles supports the claim (e.g., by Trudgill 2009a,b) that simplification in the domain of grammar correlates with degree of contact. Pidgins and creoles are, of course, contact varieties par excellence.

29.5 Anglophone world regions: distinctive and diagnostic features This section will zoom in on the geographical signal in the WAVE dataset. More exactly, we will identify those morphosyntactic features which are most characteristic for the indi­ vidual Anglophone world regions.9 As in the previous section, the attestation rate (AR) of a given feature serves as the cru­ cial metric for identifying areal distinctiveness. More exactly, the following three thresh­ olds were defined for a given feature to qualify as a strong local signal, possibly even as a feature diagnostic of a given Anglophone world region (see footnote 8 on how in general the thresholds were determined): (i) the 50 per cent mark, i.e. the feature in question must be attested in at least 50 per cent of all the L1/ L2 varieties, pidgins or creoles in the relevant world region; (ii) the 40 per cent mark, i.e. in addition, for a feature to de­ serve mention in this section, its AR in only one world region must exceed the AR of this feature in the rest of the world (RoW) by at least 40 per cent (calculus: AR region minus AR RoW); (iii) the 60 per cent mark, i.e. features where the AR difference ‘region minus RoW’ reaches or exceeds 60 per cent are considered diagnostic for a given world region. Only these diagnostic features are marked in bold throughout the tables in this section. On the whole, sixty-six out of the 235 WAVE features (i.e. about 28 per cent) qualify mini­ mally as distinctive (crossing thresholds i and ii) or even diagnostic (also crossing thresh­ old iii) of a given Anglophone world region. However, these features are very (p. 647) un­ evenly distributed across the English-speaking world. The strongest geographical signals are found for America (i.e. in WAVE the US varieties joined by Newfoundland English), the Caribbean, and South and Southeast Asia. Almost 84 per cent of the sixty-six areally most distinctive morphosyntactic features fall into one of these three Anglophone world regions, with the Caribbean clearly taking the lead (25), followed by America (18) and, at some distance, Asia (13). This ‘ranking order’ in terms of areality based on the absolute Page 35 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World numbers is confirmed when quantified against the average number of attested mor­ phosyntactic features for each of these three world regions: the twenty-five areally most distinctive Caribbean features translate into a proportion of 27.7 per cent (against the Caribbean feature average of 90.4), for America the corresponding eighteen features translate into 18.1 per cent (against the American feature average of 99.4), and the thir­ teen features most distinctive for Asia account for 15.5 per cent of the Asian feature aver­ age (83.6). Moreover, the Caribbean is most distinctively marked by features which are both diagnostic and of medium to high usage frequency within individual varieties (twen­ ty out of the twenty-one exclusively Caribbean features). Remarkable for South and Southeast Asia is the fact that, out of its thirteen areally distinctive features, four are found in all eight varieties. This is by far the highest proportion of true areoversals among these areally diagnostic features for any Anglophone world region. The relevant four features are the following, three of them, not coincidentally (cf. Schröter and Kort­ mann 2016), relating to deletion processes (F43, F62, F63): F43

pro-drop with sub­ jects

Yeah, always Øi play TV games and hei didn’t care about her. (HKE)

F62

zero where StE has

That was Ø first time I did promise

definite article

them. (SgE)

F63

zero where StE has indefinite article

Can I get Ø better grade? (HKE)

F100

present perfect for

I have learned to play piano a few

StE simple past

years ago but now I forget. (HKE)

By contrast, among their areally most diagnostic features America and the Caribbean have only one each with 100 per cent coverage, namely F9 and F114 respectively: F9

benefactive ‘personal da­ tive’ construction

I got me a new car. (UAAVE)

F114

go-based future markers

He gun build de house. ‘He will build the house.’ (Bajan)

As indicated by the bold print, Table 29.11 includes all and only those morphosyntactic features which are truly diagnostic of individual Anglophone world regions, i.e. which cross the 60 per cent threshold for AR difference between the region and the rest of the Anglophone world. Again it emerges that almost all of these areally diagnostic features (p. 648) are attested in America, Asia, and the Caribbean. Only the very last feature in the table (F37 ‘more number distinctions in personal pronouns than simply singular versus plural’) is diagnostic for both Australia and the Pacific. Page 36 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Table 29.11 Diagnostic morphosyntactic features per Anglophone world region No.

Feature

Re­ gion

Example from world re­ gion

F9

benefactive ‘personal dative’ construction

Am

They found them an apartment (ChcE)

F105

completive/perfect have/be + done + past participle

Am

He is done gone (EAAVE)

F125

new quasi modals: core modal meanings

Am

He belongs to come here today ‘He ought to come…’ (AppE)

F218

affirmative anymore ‘nowadays’

Am

Anymore they have a hard time protecting things like that (AppE)

F226

‘negative inversion’

Am

Ain nobody ga worry wid you (Gullah)

F104

completive/perfect

Am,

He done gone (Bajan)

done

Car

F22

you as (modifying) possessive pronoun

Car

Tuck in you shirt (TrinC)

F23

second person pro­ noun forms other than you as (modify­ ing) possessive pro­ noun

Car

Tek out unu buk! (SanAC)

F114*

go-based future markers

Car

Mi go pik dem uhp (VinC)

F141

other forms/phrases for copula be: before locatives

Car

Mi sisa de na skoro ‘My sister is at school’ (Sranan)

Page 37 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World F150

serial verbs: come = ‘movement towards’

Car

Run come quick (TrinC)

F201

for-based comple­ mentizers

Car

I haad fi kraas di riba ‘It’s hard to cross the river’ (JamC)

F206

existentials with forms of have

Car

You have people that own big piece a land (BelC)

F100

levelling of the differ­ ence between present perfect and simple past: present perfect for StE sim­ ple past

As

Ben has return back the product yesterday (MalE)

F127

non-standard use of

As

Must I give you some wa­

modals for politeness reasons F37

ter? (HKE)

more number distinc­

Aus,

tions in personal pro­ nouns than simply

Pac

We two is going… (PalmE)

singular versus plur­ al (AR difference region – rest of world ≥ 60%; * for medium-frequency features, ** for high-frequency/pervasive features) Contrasting sharply with the three Anglophone world regions which account for the bulk of areally diagnostic features, there are far fewer (between two and four) features which are highly distinctive, let alone diagnostic, of one of the other four world regions. (p. 649) (p. 650) Among these is not a single feature that is attested in all varieties of the relevant world region. Moreover, the vast majority of the features in Tables 29.12–14 are optional and used rather infrequently in the individual varieties. The most distinctive features for the British Isles and Africa are shown in Tables 29.12 and 29.13, respectively.

Page 38 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Table 29.12 Top distinctive features for the British Isles No.

Feature

Example

F95

be sat/stood with pro­ gressive meaning

I was sat at the bus stop for ages. (North) He was stood on the corner. (EA)

F180

was/were generalization

When you come home fae your honeymoon if you had one, you was ‘kirkit’. (ScE)

F163

was – weren’t split

They wus interested, but I weren’t. (EA)

F232

either order of pronom­ inal objects in double

She’d teach us it. (SW) Give me it / Give it me. (North)

object constructions

Table 29.13 Top distinctive features for Africa No.

Feature

Example

F59

double determiners

This our country is terrible. (CamE)

F71

no number distinction

Despite all this ‘beehive-like’ ac­

in demonstratives

tivities… (KenE)

F116

come-based future/in­ gressive markers

He is coming to attend to you. ‘… is about to …’ (NigE)

F214

conjunction-doubling: clause + conj. + conj. + clause

It was Busketi who played but yet still the guy performed won­ derfully. (GhE)

Striking for Australia and the Pacific is their high proportion of features (five out of six; see Table 29.14) which are hardly or not at all found elsewhere in the Anglophone world. The two most important instances of these are F36 ‘distinct forms for inclusive/exclusive first person non-singular’ and, as the only truly diagnostic one (i.e. crossing the 60 per cent AR difference threshold), F37 ‘more number distinctions in personal pronouns than simply singular versus plural’. Features such as these two are most likely explained by very strong substrate influence (with transfer of L1 features to English). Page 39 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Table 29.14 Top distinctive features for the Australia Pacific region No.

Feature

Example

F36

distinct forms for in­ clusive/exclusive first person non-sin­ gular

afla (inclusive, i.e. ‘we, including you’) versusmifela (exclusive, i.e. ‘we, not including you’) (Norf’k/Pit­ cairn English)

F37

more number dis­ tinctions in pro­ nouns than simply singular versus plural

Hemii goe nawii. ‘Let the two of us go swim.’ (Norf’k/Pitcairn English)

F76

postnominal phras­ es with bilong/

dog blong/blo maan ‘the man’s dog’ (AusC)

blong/long/blo to ex­ press possession F143

F162

transitive verb suf­

Mi bin bai-im kaikai. ‘I bought-TR

fix -em/-im/-um

some food’ (TorSC)

no more/nomo as negative existential

Nomo kaukau in da haus. ‘There no food in the house.’ (HawC)

marker

29.6 The World System of Englishes A global perspective on the currently observable variation across the grammars of vari­ eties of English and English-based pidgins and creoles may help us in making predictions concerning the spontaneous spoken standard varieties of the future. More exactly, the present section will focus on the following question: How are we to interpret the most widespread features in the Anglophone world, i.e. angloversals (section 29.3), on the one hand, and the different types of distinctive and diagnostic features identified in sections 29.4 and 29.5, on the other hand, against Mair’s (2014b) suggestion of a World System of (Standard and Non-Standard) Englishes? Mair’s World System complements traditional World Englishes models in that it breaks ‘… new ground … in shedding light on the unexpectedly wide reach of a small number of non-standard varieties of English, particularly in the post-colonial world’ (2014b: 69). This endeavour is part of the World Englishes research strand interested in the ‘deterrito­ rialization of vernaculars through globalization’ (2014b: 65), especially via computer-me­ Page 40 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World diated communication. As one aspect of this deterritorialization process, Mair considers the global spread of non-standard morphosyntactic features. This, in turn, makes this model interesting for the WAVE perspective on global morphosyntactic variation. Mair’s World System of Standard and Non-standard Englishes looks as follows (2014b: 70; bold print as in the original): • hyper-central variety / hub of the World System of Englishes: Standard American English • super-central varieties: (1) standard: British English, Australian English, South African English, Niger­ ian English, Indian English, and a very small number of others (2) non-standard: AAVE, Jamaican Creole, popular London, and a very small number of others (+ domain-specific English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) us­ es: science, business, international law, etc.) (p. 651)

• central varieties:

(1) standard: Irish English, Scottish (Standard) English, Jamaican English, Ghanaian English, Kenyan English, Sri Lankan English, Pakistani English, New Zealand English, and a small number of others (2) non-standard: Northern English urban koinés, US Southern, and a small number of others • peripheral varieties: (1) standard: Maltese English, St. Kitts English, Cameroonian English, Papua New Guinea English, and others (2) non-standard: all traditional rurally based non-standard dialects, plus a large number of colonial varieties including pidgins and creoles. Against the background of the previous sections, Mair is certainly right in considering the traditional L1 varieties and pidgins/creoles to be peripheral varieties, i.e. peripheral in the sense that they will play little to no role in contributing to the pool of morphosyntactic features of an emerging spontaneous spoken global standard of English. Consequently, this means that high-contact L1 varieties10 and, especially in Africa and Asia, indigenized L2 varieties contribute most to this kind of feature pool. Not surprisingly, many of the rel­ evant L1c and L2 varieties in the WAVE data set are thus listed among the central and su­ per-central (standard) varieties of Mair’s model. The main relevance of Mair’s model in the context of the present chapter lies, however, in the central role he ascribes to the standard and non-standard US varieties as hyper-central (Standard American English) and super-central varieties (AAVE). Urban AAVE enjoys a particularly high degree of (sub-)cultural salience and prestige in hip-hop music and the social media around the world. According to Mair, super-central non-standard varieties such as Urban AAVE (and, for example, popular London in the UK) serve an important function as carriers or propa­ gators of a globalized non-standard English, with some of the relevant morphosyntactic Page 41 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World features increasingly finding their way into an emerging global spontaneous spoken stan­ dard. What, in a more concrete way, can the WAVE data set contribute to predicting the US im­ pact on the future shape of the grammar of spontaneous spoken global (non-)standard English? Part of the answer has already been given: we have identified the sets of: • angloversals (attested in minimally 80 per cent of the seventy-six WAVE varieties; Ta­ ble 29.4) and their immediate runners-up (attestation in minimally 70 per cent; Table 29.5), • top diagnostic features of L1 varieties, in general (Table 29.6), and of high-contact L1 varieties (which both Standard American English and AAVE qualify as), in particular (Table 29.8), and • areally distinctive features of America (including those in Table 29.11), with the L1c varieties Colloquial American English and Urban AAVE belonging to the ten WAVE varieties spoken in North America. (p. 652)

If we add up the features in all the sets in (a) to (c) the total is thirty-seven, and indeed out of these, thirty-four are attested in Colloquial American English and even as many as thirty-six in Urban AAVE, for both varieties in the vast majority of cases with medium-tohigh usage frequencies. So if we want to characterize the backbone of the grammar of the super-central spoken non-standard, possibly even increasingly standardizing hyper-cen­ tral spoken non-standard, then this set of some thirty morphosyntactic features already moves us much further forward. Additional candidates for the future global spoken nonstandard we may glean from WAVE by identifying features of medium-to-high frequency that are attested in both Colloquial American English and Urban AAVE. As top candidates among these qualify the following, especially since almost all of them are simplifying fea­ tures (e.g., all the regularization features) and a couple have already attained a nearglobal reach (most prominently F235 ‘quotative like’): • F48 ‘regularization of plural formation: extension of -s to StE irregular plurals’ (e.g., sheeps, mices) • F49 ‘regularization of plural formation: phonological regularization’ (e.g., wifes) • F52 ‘associative plural marked by postposed and them/them all/dem’ (e.g., Marcia and them left already?) • F79 ‘regularized comparison strategies: extension of synthetic marking’ (e.g., beauti­ fulest) • F80 ‘regularized comparison strategies: extension of analytic marking’ (e.g., the most happy instead of happiest) • F227 ‘inverted word order in indirect questions’ (I wonder could they have done it to­ day), and • F235 ‘like as a quotative particle’ (e.g., I’m like ‘that’s right’).

Page 42 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World In sum, then, this section has shown how Mair’s model and WAVE can fruitfully comple­ ment and enrich each other in making present-day morphosyntactic variation across the Anglophone world the basis for predicting the likely future shape of global spontaneous spoken standard English.

29.7 Conclusion This chapter has looked at global variation in the Anglophone world from the point of view of morphology and syntax using a typological approach. This approach is interested in determining patterns of variation and the search for universals, which in the context of variation across English boils down to the search for angloversals, (p. 653) varioversals, and areoversals. The central tool which was specifically designed for this purpose and which has served as the basis for this chapter is eWAVE (the electronic World Atlas of Va­ rieties of English). This tool offers a uniform data set and secures a high degree of com­ parability despite the evident heterogeneity in the morphosyntax of the seventy-six vari­ eties of English and English-based pidgins and creoles it covers. Moreover, this tool is dy­ namic in that it can be easily modified, corrected, or enlarged as a result of the systemat­ ic testing of individual features or feature sets against natural language corpora of Eng­ lish (see also Chapter 4, this volume), and by adding to the data set further morphosyn­ tactic features or varieties of English. The survey given in this chapter is meant to offer orientation and a reference frame for anyone interested in investigating morphosyntactic variation across Englishes, at whatev­ er level (feature, grammar domain, variety, world region) and degree of granularity. It should help avoid the notorious problem of not seeing the wood for the trees, of forget­ ting the big picture in view of all the admittedly fascinating insights into individual vari­ eties at the ground level, i.e. particular language and communication (including usage) phenomena. The comparative approach in dialectology (especially in the study of dialect syntax) and in World Englishes research has seen an increasing number of followers. Fu­ ture research on the grammars of World Englishes and varieties of English will no longer be restricted to simply identifying morphosyntactic features that are different from Stan­ dard English. It will become standard procedure to immediately check in how many other varieties of English a feature can be found as well, and what the nature of the relevant varieties, the relevant subsystems of grammar, and their usage conditions is. Another aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that mapping the currently observable vari­ ation on a global scale will help us in predicting likely future developments, especially concerning emerging world-regional standards, global international spoken English, and the future spoken standard. Such mappings are necessarily reductionist. At the same time they are extremely useful as a point of reference for research based on other types of da­ ta sets on morphosyntactic variation in the Anglophone world, independent of the re­ search paradigms (e.g., functionalist, formalist, corpus-linguistic, contact-linguistic, di­ alectological, variationist, creolist) within which they have been collected.

Page 43 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World

Acknowledgements Many thanks to Agnes Schneider and Verena Schröter for their support in preparing the statistics and analyses in sections 29.2 and 29.5, and to Christoph Wolk, the WAVE chief statistician, for the two NeighborNet diagrams (or phenetic networks) included as Fig­ ures 29.1 and 29.2. Many thanks, too, for the extremely helpful comments by the volume editors, Ray Hickey, and one anonymous reviewer.

Reference Anderwald, Lieselotte (2012). ‘Negation in Varieties of English’, in Raymond Hickey (ed), Areal Features of the Anglophone World. Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter, 299–328. Anderwald, Lieselotte, and Bernd Kortmann (2013). ‘Typological methods in dialectol­ ogy’, in Manfred Krug and Julia Schlüter (eds), Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 313–33. Kortmann, Bernd (2006). ‘Syntactic variation in English: A global perspective’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 603–24. Kortmann, Bernd (2013). ‘How powerful is geography as an explanatory factor of varia­ tion? Areal features in the Anglophone world’, in Peter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stuken­ brock, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds), Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographi­ cal, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 165– 94. Kortmann, Bernd, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (2004). ‘Global synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in English’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 1142–1202. Kortmann, Bernd, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (2011). ‘Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in world Englishes: Prospects and limitations of searching for universals’, in Pe­ ter Siemund (ed), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 257–83. Kortmann, Bernd, and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds) (2012a). The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Kortmann, Bernd, and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (2012b). ‘Introduction’, in Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/ Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–11. Kortmann, Bernd, and Verena Schröter (2017). ‘Varieties of English’, in Raymond Hickey (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 304–30.

Page 44 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Kortmann, Bernd, and Christoph Wolk (2012). ‘Morphosyntactic variation in the Anglo­ phone world: A global perspective’, in Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 906– 36. Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (2012a). ‘Tense and aspect’, in Raymond Hickey (ed), Areal Fea­ tures of the Anglophone World. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 329–58. Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (2012b). ‘Typological profile: L2 varieties’, in Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/ Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 844–72. Mair, Christian (2014b). ‘Globalisation and the transnational impact of non-standard vari­ eties’, in Eugene Green and Charles F. Meyer (eds), The Variability of Current World Eng­ lishes. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 65–96. McArthur, Tom (1992). ‘Standard English’, in Tom McArthur (ed), The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 982–4. McWhorter, John (2001). ‘The world’s simplest grammars are Creole grammars.’ Linguis­ tic Typology 6: 125–66. Schneider, Agnes (2012). ‘Typological profile: Pidgins and Creoles’, in Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/ Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 874–904. Schneider, Edgar W. (2011). English Around the World: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Schröter, Verena, and Bernd Kortmann (2016). ‘Pronoun deletion in Hong Kong English and colloquial Singaporean English’, in Alexander Onysko (ed), Language Contact in World Englishes. Special issue of World Englishes 35(2): 221–41. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (2012). ‘Typological profile: L1 varieties’, in Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/ Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 826–42. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Bernd Kortmann (2009b). ‘Vernacular universals and An­ gloversals in a typological perspective’, in Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, and Heli Paulasto (eds), Vernacular Universals and Language Contacts: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond. London/New York: Routledge, 33–53. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Bernd Kortmann (2012). ‘Introduction’, in Bernd Kortmann and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds), Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 6–34. Trudgill, Peter (1999a). ‘Standard English: What it isn’t’, in Tony Bex and Richard Watts (eds), Standard English: The Widening Debate. London: Routledge, 117–28. Page 45 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World Trudgill, Peter (2009a). ‘Vernacular universals and the sociolinguistic typology of English dialects’, in Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, and Heli Paulasto (eds), Vernacular Univer­ sals and Language Contacts: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond. London/New York: Routledge, 304–22. Wagner, Susanne (2012). ‘Pronominal systems’, in Raymond Hickey (ed), Areal Features of the Anglophone World. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 379–408.

Notes: (1) The notions standard and non-standard are notoriously difficult to come to grips with, which is why some people prefer to define standard in terms of what it is not (e.g., Trudg­ ill 1999a; for a recent more detailed discussion of the notions standard and Standard Eng­ lish, see Hickey 2012b). (2) For further details of this algorithm, especially the more refined ‘clustering with noise’ method as developed in dialectometry and applied to the WAVE data set, cf. Kortmann and Wolk 2012: 919f. It is there that the reader will also find a sophisticated explanation for the parallel lines forming box-like shapes. Basically, what they indicate is that a given variety is somewhat ‘torn’ between two major clusters: in the top right part of Figure 29.1, for example, the Southern African Englishes, especially White South African English and Cape Flats English, dominantly pattern with L2 Englishes (Cluster 2), but also exhibit quite a number of morphosyntactic features shared by the L1 varieties in Cluster 1. (3) A creoloid is a creole-like language whose development has not involved a pidgin stage and which, despite many creole features, also exhibits structural properties typical of in­ digenized L2 and high-contact L1 varieties. (4) Note that the class of high-contact L1 varieties is rather heterogeneous. It includes socalled transplanted L1 Englishes or colonial standards, L1 varieties with a pronounced contact history (e.g., the African American and White Southern African varieties of Eng­ lish), as well as language-shift Englishes, i.e. those currently shifting from an L2 to an L1 status for an increasing part of the relevant speaker community (e.g., Colloquial Singa­ porean English, also known as Singlish). L1 varieties which underwent this process in the past include Irish English and Welsh English. For further discussion see section 29.4. (5) With regard to the L1 cluster in Figure 29.2, the following is reassuring to note when relating it to the Tense and Aspect section in Chapter 28 (this volume): (a) the properties discussed there form a proper subset of the thirty-three-member set of Tense and Aspect features in WAVE; more importantly, (b) since Chapter 28 reports exclusively on L1 vari­ eties of English, it is nice to see that all of the relevant varieties cluster together in Fig­ ure 29.2 (and, I may add, in the vast majority of the corresponding networks for the other domains of grammar covered in WAVE). (6) Compare Anderwald and Kortmann (2013: 327–31) for a survey of how the concept of linguistic universals in language typology has been applied in dialectology and the study Page 46 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Global Variation in the Anglophone World of World Englishes. Compare also Siemund (2013: 10–18) and in Chapter 28 (this vol­ ume). (7) These may be called convenience thresholds. Like the ones in the previous and the fol­ lowing section, these thresholds were not predetermined, but decided on as the ones with the highest distinctive power in light of the percentages which emerged from the relevant data analyses. (8) For detailed accounts of the typological profiles of the different variety types see Szm­ recsanyi (2012) for L1 varieties, Lunkenheimer (2012b) for L2 varieties, and A. Schneider (2012) for pidgins and creoles. (9) See Kortmann (2013) and Kortmann and Schröter (2017) for much more differentiated accounts of areal patterns when exploring morphosyntactic variation across the Anglo­ phone world. Table 29.11 is based on the Synopsis section of the latter article. Detailed accounts of major areal patterns for the grammar domains of pronouns, negation, and tense and aspect, all based on a somewhat smaller WAVE dataset, can be found in Wagn­ er (2012), Anderwald (2012), and Lunkenheimer (2012a) respectively. For synopses of the morphosyntactic variation in the individual world regions, the reader may consult the re­ gional profiles in Kortmann and Lunkenheimer (2012a: 678–823). (10) Recall that, according to Trudgill (2009a), high-contact L1 varieties include not only many non-standard varieties, but also the spoken standard varieties of, for example, British and American English.

Bernd Kortmann

Bernd Kortmann is Full Professor of English Language and Linguistics at the Univer­ sity of Freiburg, Germany. His publications include four monographs, six edited vol­ umes (with four more volumes currently in preparation), a two‐volume handbook‐ cum‐CD‐ROM on the phonology and morphosyntax of the varieties of English around the world (2004), and about 80 articles and reviews in journals and collective vol­ umes. His main research interest over the last decade has been the grammar of non‐ standard varieties of English around the world, especially from a typological perspec­ tive. His most recent relevant publications are an electronic atlas mapping grammati­ cal variation in the anglophone world (Kortmann/Lunkenheimer 2011, www.ewaveatlas.org) an open access research tool and the corresponding print atlas (Kortmann/ Lunkenheimer 2012, Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English). [email protected]

Page 47 of 47

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation

Genre Variation   Heidrun Dorgeloh and Anja Wanner The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.7

Abstract and Keywords This chapter gives a critical survey of research traditions and findings in the study of genre variation, both from a grammar and a text linguistic perspective. After introducing foundational concepts, the chapter discusses the dimension of spoken versus written lan­ guage, including the question of medial versus conceptual orality, the distinction between narrative and non-narrative genres as well as characteristics of computer-mediated com­ munication, weaving in data and insights from studies in both linguistics and rhetoric. Shifting to a focus on specific grammatical constructions, the chapter then moves on to three areas of syntactic inquiry that are illuminated by genre considerations: variation in grammatical complexity, the representation of agents, and word order variation. The chapter ends with reflecting on the competence/performance distinction and thoughts on the idea that spoken language follows a different grammar than written language. Keywords: computer-mediated communication, complexity, genre, narrative, register, rhetoric, spoken versus written, text linguistics, syntactic variation, word order

THE concept of ‘genre’ (from Latin genus, ‘kind, people’) has a long tradition in literary and linguistic studies. It captures the idea that speakers adapt their language, including their usage of grammar, according to the situation in which it is used and that distinct form-based linguistic patterns converge in specific types of text. Genre, therefore, is in­ herently associated with morphosyntactic variation. In this chapter we will give a critical survey of research traditions and insights in the study of genre variation and will discuss case studies as examples. Special emphasis will be paid to grammatical constructions that are known to vary by the dichotomy of written versus spoken language as well as to grammar in evolving text types and the digital media.

30.1 Introduction Any overview of the study of linguistic variation and genre needs to start with defining the concept of genre, a term which Swales (1990: 33) describes as ‘highly attractive’ but also ‘extremely slippery’. It is both attractive and slippery because it can be used to frame Page 1 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation very distinct questions about patterns and categories in different domains of investiga­ tion, such as literary studies, visual arts, in addition to linguistics. Even within linguistics, the term ‘genre’ is not used consistently. If there is any consensus at all, it is that the study of genre in linguistics is concerned with patterns of linguistic variation based on sit­ uational factors of communication, such as the communicative purpose of a text, its topic, and production circumstances (e.g., speaking versus writing). There is also agreement that situation-based language variation exists at the level of the system as well as at the level of the individual speaker: all speech communities have different genres and all speakers adapt their language according to situation. The two main paradigms of exploration can broadly be characterized as the ‘genre as so­ cial action’ approach (Miller 1984), which focuses on the functions of genres in guiding speakers to understand and participate in the actions of a community, and the (p. 655) ‘genre as a determinant of linguistic variation’ approach, which emphasizes linguistic form and patterns arising from situational factors (Biber et al. 1999). The first line of in­ quiry draws on categories and questions from rhetorical studies and considers genres as ‘not just forms’, but rather as ‘frames for social action’ (Bazerman 1997: 19); the second line of inquiry is more closely related to the sociolinguistic study of language variation, but with a focus on variation by situation rather than by speaker-based categories, such as gender, age, or class. We will restrict ourselves to the second approach here (for a more comprehensive approach, see Dorgeloh and Wanner 2010). Further terminological complications arise from the overlap—to the degree of inter­ changeability—between the terms ‘genre’ and the more established term ‘register’. Tradi­ tionally, the study of registers is concerned with linguistic varieties that describe patterns of situational variation. Register variation recognizes that ‘[p]eople speak differently de­ pending on whether they are addressing someone older or younger, of the same or oppo­ site sex, of the same or higher or lower status…; whether they are speaking on a formal occasion or casually, whether they are participating in a religious ritual, a sports event, or a courtroom scene’ (Ferguson 1994: 15). A genre analysis has a different focus: while it also examines which linguistic features are associated with which situational settings, it describes conventions, which may or may not align with linguistic features, and it gener­ ally considers the text as a whole. An example would be Swales’s (1990) work on re­ search articles in English, which relates linguistic features, such as the use of past tense or inanimate subjects, to the textual structure of the genre, in particular the Introduc­ tion–Methods–Results–Discussion format. However, such a principled distinction between the study of registers and genres is not the norm. As Biber and Conrad (2009: 21) point out, ‘[m]any studies simply adopt one of these terms and disregard the other’. For example, Biber et al. (1999) stick with the term ‘register’ and do not bring up the term ‘genre’ at all, while Biber and Conrad (2009) make efforts to distinguish between a ‘register perspective’ and a ‘genre perspective’ on func­ tional linguistic variation. The former calls for a quantitative approach (in order to deter­ mine linguistic features that are pervasive and frequent), while the latter is not con­ cerned with pervasiveness, but rather with what is typical. For example, the boundary Page 2 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation marker ‘Amen’ is clearly a marker of the genre ‘prayer’, but it is not a pervasive feature of prayers. For this overview we will stick with the term ‘genre’, fully aware that many of the studies we report use the term ‘register’. This being a handbook on grammar, we will focus on grammatical structures and patterns that have emerged, from a variety of stud­ ies in this field, as salient in either a register or a genre. In section 30.2, we introduce the reader to research traditions in the study of genre and grammatical variation, including approaches that consider genre a determinant of linguis­ tic variation and such that look at how genres develop over time. Section 30.3 focuses on specific situational environments and the grammatical patterns associated with them, in particular patterns associated with spoken language (section 30.3.1) and written lan­ guage (section 30.3.2), including linguistic features associated with digital media. In sec­ tion 30.4, we shift our lens to major grammatical concepts discussed in the context of genre variation. Section 30.4.1 presents studies on complexity, section 30.4.2 is con­ cerned with the syntactic representation of agentivity, and in section 30.4.3 we (p. 656) discuss word order phenomena, such as inversion and adverbial placement. In section 30.5, we conclude by reflecting on the relationship between variation and grammar as a system.

30.2 Research traditions in the study of genre variation Two different perspectives are possible when doing research on the impact of genre on grammar. Either genres are a determinant, in the sense of ‘predictor’ (Biber 2012), of grammatical variation, or one or several genres constitutes the object of linguistic investi­ gation. While the former, variationist perspective means looking at proportional preferences of two or more grammatical variants, genres often differ in that within them certain grammatical forms are more or less pervasive (see Biber 1995: 29). The study of grammatical variation rests upon the structural availability of variants, i.e. ‘formal alternatives which […] are nearly equivalent in meaning’ (Biber et al. 1999: 14). Many grammatical phenomena studied in this field concern individual grammatical cate­ gories, such as: • the system of relative pronouns (wh-pronoun, that, or ‘zero’) • complementizer deletion (that versus ‘zero’) • the co-existence of the of-genitive and the s-genitive (the car of my sister versus my sister’s car) • analytic and synthetic comparison of adjectives (more fresh versus fresher) • placement of verbal particles (give up something versus give something up). The English genitive is one widely studied case of grammatical variation for which the role of genre is generally acknowledged. Rosenbach (2014), in a state-of-the-art article, Page 3 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation describes the choice between noun phrases such as the company’s legal status and the le­ gal status of the company (Rosenbach 2014: 215), or women’s roles (Grafmiller 2014: 479) as opposed to the roles of women, as an effect, among others, of spoken versus writ­ ten English as well as of individual genres. Genre is described here as ‘orthogonal’ to lin­ guistic factors (Rosenbach 2014: 234), which means that in each context internal factors, such as animacy and informational density, and genre are interdependent in a character­ istic way. For example, the preference for the of-genitive in most genres is ‘significantly attenuated in journalistic English’ (Grafmiller 2014: 492): Although speakers are in gen­ eral ‘less likely to use s-genitives in writing than in spoken conversation […a] potential genitive is about 1.8 times more likely to be an s-genitive in newspaper writing’ (Grafmiller 2014: 483) than in other written texts. There is also research on grammatical variation that compares the strength of the impact of individual genres. Hundt and Mair (1999) coined the concept of ‘agile’ as opposed to ‘uptight’ genres, referring to the relative openness of a textual category to (p. 657) inter­ nal variation and ongoing innovation. Several of these studies show that changes current­ ly under way in English, such as the long-term development of non-finite clauses (see Leech et al. 2009), take place at varying speed in different genres. For example, the use of infinitival rather than V-ing complements with the verbs start or begin (the team start­ ed to break down versus the team started breaking down) had already become the norm in news writing by the end of the twentieth century, news writing being thus ‘an agile genre quick to respond to trends in the language’ (Mair 2003: 337). In a similar vein, Mondorf (2010) finds genre effects in the replacement of reflexives by particles in resul­ tative constructions (such as straighten oneself versus straighten up). Although the gener­ al pattern of variation is that there is ‘a spread of the particle at the expense of the reflexive’ (Mondorf 2010: 225), the reflexive nonetheless ‘stands its ground’ in the writ­ ten, obviously less agile genre in this respect, as opposed to a more innovative trend in speech. Turning now to the interaction of grammar and genre with individual genres as object of investigation, this line of research ranges from early work on English styles (e.g., Crystal and Davy 1969) to multi-dimensional studies of register variation (Biber 1988, 1995). What unites this kind of work is the aim to identify and compare genres through charac­ teristic densities of occurrence of grammatical features. This permits the comparison of genres, either with respect to particular areas of interest, for instance, grammatical com­ plexity or the use of pronouns, or with respect to groups of co-occurring features (the ‘di­ mensions’), such as ‘involved versus informational’ or ‘narrative versus non-narrative’. The dimension ‘narrative concerns’, for example, is marked by a pervasive use of pasttense verbs, third person pronouns, perfect-aspect verbs, public (or speech act) verbs, synthetic negation, as well as present-participial clauses (Biber 1988). Individual positive correlations of grammatical features and widely studied registers include the pervasive­ ness of nominal features (nominalizations, nouns as premodifiers, PPs as post-modifiers) in news language and academic prose, as in (1), or the presence of ‘nested’ subordinate clauses in legal English (Hiltunen 2012), as in (2): Page 4 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation (1)

(2)

There is also work on the grammar of individual registers in the study of English for Spe­ cific Purposes (Paltridge and Starfield 2013), for example, on the depersonalized gram­ mar of ‘disease language’ in the field of medicine (Fleischman 2001: 475), which assigns to an ill person the grammatical subject of an agentive verb, while at the same time this person has the semantic role of patient or experiencer (She started chemotherapy; see Dorgeloh 2016: 55). Most grammatical features in professionalized varieties (p. 658) are multi-functional, but in some cases they even become grammatical markers of these vari­ eties. For instance, in ‘Aviation English’, we find many verbs in the imperative, and some of them, such as the verbal, imperative use of standby (meaning ‘wait and I will call you’), are highly unlikely outside this specialized context (Bieswanger 2016: 76). The analysis of grammar also constitutes a major research tool for text analysis in the study of literature. In poetry, grammar is considered a ‘tool for creating literary meaning’ (Jeffries 2006: 648, see also Chapter 31 in this volume), and for narrative prose grammatical constructions have been described as establishing perspective and point of view (e.g., Ehrlich 1990). For example, inversion and other word order patterns in Eng­ lish evoke the setting of a story world from an ‘eyewitness’ perspective (see section 30.4.3). Work in the tradition of historical pragmatics investigates genre changes and the way these induce changes in grammar usage. Medical research articles, for example, under­ went a rhetorical shift, following which medical case material no longer constituted the centre of interest. This triggered significant changes in the grammar of the clause, such as the increase of non-animate subjects and passive constructions (Atkinson 1999). Simi­ larly, the rise of experiment-based articles in science furthered nominalization and premodification in the noun phrase (Gotti 2010: 104; also Biber and Gray 2010, 2011). The majority of these research traditions draw heavily on corpus methodology (discussed in Chapter 4, this volume). As methods of digital inquiry have developed, linguistic corpo­ ra have grown enormously, both in size and variety. What used to be a benchmark corpus at one million words (e.g., the BROWN corpus of American English, compiled in the 1960s) is now considered small, and reference corpora are about one hundred times big­ ger, such as the BNC (British National Corpus, one hundred million words) or COCA (Cor­ pus of Contemporary American English, 560 million words; Davies 2008–). Yet, for the analysis of grammar in individual genres one needs to look at smaller, more carefully bal­ Page 5 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation anced and classified corpora (Hundt and Leech 2012; see also Mukherjee 2006). Ulti­ mately, much work in this tradition, although sometimes called into question for its lack of representativeness, is still of a qualitative nature.

30.3 The effect of medium This section will highlight ‘one of the most important situational parameters’ (Biber and Conrad 2009: 43) for the linguistic description of genres: the distinction between spoken and written language (also referred to as ‘channel’ or ‘mode’ of communication). After outlining the theoretical underpinnings of this distinction, we will present key findings from studies of spoken language (section 30.3.1) and written language (section 30.3.2). One of the most established parameters in the study of genre variation is the distinction between spoken and written language, to the extent that stereotypical writing—planned, edited, created for publication—is seen as having the ‘opposite characteristics’ of stereo­ typical speech (Biber 1988: 37). The labels ‘written’ or ‘spoken’ (p. 659) language are usu­ ally linked not just to the channel of the discourse, but to whole clusters of situational— and linguistic—characteristics. Traditionally, spoken language is associated with sponta­ neous production and a high degree of interactivity between speaker and addressee, while written language, with a delay between production and reception, is often planned or edited. Participants in spoken discourse are typically in face-to-face contact and can therefore rely on paralinguistic cues, such as gestures and facial expressions, as well as intonation, to construct the meaning of an utterance (Tannen 1982). In written discourse, on the other hand, spelling, punctuation, and layout can be used to structure discourse units (Crystal 2001). However, these are just generalizations, and while they may be ade­ quate to describe the situational differences between conversations and expository prose, the two genres used most frequently to represent speech and writing (Biber 1988: 48), there are many examples of texts that are spoken but carefully planned (such as political speeches), or written but produced under (self-imposed) time constraints and not ad­ dressed towards an unknown audience (personal letters, diary entries). One widely accepted attempt to disentangle different aspects of the spoken/written para­ meter is Koch and Oesterreicher’s (1985) distinction between medially and conceptually oral or written language. Medially, the spoken/written distinction is truly a dichotomy: spoken language is conveyed through phonic code, written language is conveyed through graphic code (1985: 17),1 and texts can be transposed from one code to another (for ex­ ample, a speech, once delivered orally, may be printed). Conceptually, i.e. with regard to the communicative strategies that are employed, the two modes ‘written’ and ‘spoken’ should be regarded as idealized poles (or prototypes) with a continuum of realizations in between (1985: 17–18). While this model can capture the idea that genres are more or less related to the ideal­ ized prototypes of private conversation and expository prose, it has been criticized for its narrow definition of ‘medial’ (Dürscheid 2003). Koch and Oesterreicher are only interest­ ed in the medium as a mode of representation (graphic versus phonic); they do not con­ Page 6 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation sider the medium as a channel of transmission. Therefore, their model cannot easily cap­ ture genre characteristics of computer-mediated communication, which is perceived as neither spoken nor written, but of its own kind (Crystal 2001; see also section 30.3.2). Writing from a bottom-up perspective, Biber (1988: 24) argues that quantitative corpus data do not warrant an ‘absolute spoken/written distinction’. He finds that ‘variation among texts within speech and writing is often as great as the variation across the two modes’. His later work confirms that there are no absolute linguistic markers of (medial­ ly) spoken versus written language, and that, due to more uniform production circum­ stances, spoken genres show less variation than written genres: ‘[A]n author can create almost any kind of text in writing, and so written texts can be highly similar to spoken texts, or they can be dramatically different. In contrast, all spoken texts are (p. 660) sur­ prisingly similar linguistically, regardless of communicative purpose’ (Biber and Conrad 2009: 261). Despite these findings, the categorization as spoken or written language is perceived as genre-formative and is kept up in large benchmark corpora, such as the BNC (British National Corpus), COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English), and LGSWE (Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English; see Biber et al. 1999).

30.3.1 Grammatical features of spoken English The most widely studied spoken language variety is conversation. Its features of grammar correlate with a situation in which speaker and addressee usually share the same context, they can directly seek information from each other, and there is little planning ahead. As a result, features of grammar pervasive in speech are first- and second-person pronouns, interrogatives and imperatives, relatively short clauses, and a high density of verbs (since there is typically one verb per clause, texts with shorter clauses also have proportionally more verbs than texts with long clauses). There are also grammatical characteristics associated particularly with conversation, such as verbless clauses (probably not your cup of tea mum), left-dislocation (Rik Maio, I can’t stand him), prefaces (I mean), and tag questions (did we?), exemplified in (3) below, taken from BNC (Davies 2004–): (3)

Page 7 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation

(p. 661)

As can be seen in the extract, talking in highly interactive situations leads to a lot

of ellipsis, mostly for reasons of economy. Verbless clauses are typical of speech, even though more specific forms of ellipsis, such as ‘compressed’ adverbial clauses (if neces­ sary, when in trouble), also occur regularly in written English (Wiechman and Kerz 2013). Subject ellipsis, i.e. a finite sentence with a non-overt subject, is also characteristic of in­ formal spoken English, but, again, also occurs in written genres, for example, in diary writing (Weir 2012), notes or postcards (Haegeman and Ihsane 1999), as well as nowa­ days in many (conceptually oral) digital genres. Examples from personal blogs from the CORE Corpus of Online Registers of English (Davies 2016–) are given in (4) below: (4)

Another typical feature is sentence coordination, which in speech usually means a ‘loose’ continuation (Hughes 1996: 33), with and functioning as an ‘initiator’ of the following clause or turn (Biber et al. 1999: 84). Another construction affecting the left clause pe­ Page 8 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation riphery is left-dislocation, which is by far more frequent in conversation than in written discourse. It has plausibly been argued to originate in a turn sequence such as in (5) (tak­ en from Geluykens 1992: 35). (5)

Other discourse-motivated constructions that typically correlate with conversational con­ texts are right-dislocated NPs (as in It’s useless, that printer) as well as demonstrative wh-clefts (as in That’s what I want). See Chapter 22 in this volume for further discussion of dislocations and clefts as information packaging constructions. To these features of grammar typical and more pervasive in the spoken mode, Biber et al. (1999: 1052–66) add various features of a ‘grammar of conversation’. These are, on the one hand, grammatical peculiarities due to ‘dysfluency and error’ (Biber et al. 1999: 1052), such as silent or filled pauses, repetitions, reformulations and repairs, or blended and incomplete utterances. In the corpus sample of conversation investigated for the LGSWE, Biber et al. find a percentage of 38.6 per cent of non-clausal units. On the other hand, there are individual expressions or phrases added to clausal grammar for pragmat­ ic or discourse reasons, as illustrated in (3) above. Depending on their position in the clause, one may classify them as prefaces (I thought well just watch that; I mean I can’t stand Rik …) or tags (I thought he was in fifties I did). Their role is predominantly interac­ tive and pragmatic, which is why some of them are treated in the literature as discourse markers. It has also been argued that complement-taking predicates with a meaning of stance in the main clause (I thought well just watch (p. 662) that, I knew you wanted it taped) originate as parentheticals in conversation (Thompson 2002: 136; for an alterna­ tive view see Newmeyer 2010). A grammatical symptom supporting this would be the omission of the complementizer that, which is also more common in speech than in writ­ ing (Biber et al. 1999: 680). Varieties within speech also show genre-specific grammatical variation. In university of­ fice hours, for example, one finds twice as many conditional clauses as in everyday con­ versation (Biber and Conrad 2009: 100), while in doctor–patient encounters conditional usage differs across the speech of doctors and of patients. Patients are not only more con­ cerned with predicting and therefore use more conditionals overall, they also combine tense and modality in patterns significantly different from those used by their doctors (Dorgeloh 2014). There are thus many spoken sub-genres with a different and character­ istic pattern of pervasive grammatical features.

Page 9 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation

30.3.2 Grammatical features of written English Among the situational characteristics that set written and spoken language apart, in addi­ tion to the mode/channel of expression, are the relationship between the participants, the production circumstances, the setting, and the purpose of the communication. Writer and addressee often do not know each other, they typically do not share the same time/place setting, and written language is often edited and associated with ‘communicating infor­ mation rather than developing a personal relationship’ (Biber and Conrad 2009: 109). The following sentences (from COCA) are easily recognizable as samples of written English. (6)

The data in (6) illustrate a number of pervasive grammatical features found to be charac­ teristic of writing (Biber 1988, Biber et al. 1999, Biber and Conrad 2009): • longer and more complex sentences than in spoken English (both sentences are com­ plex in the sense that they include two subordinate clauses as well as sentence-initial adverbials) • higher density of nouns (in relation to overall word count) and more morphologically complex nouns (investors, perception) • more noun modification through N–N compounding (vowel perception), PP modifiers (of Dutch vowels), and prenominal adjectives (short-term growth, lip-rounding feature). Since adjectives often occur as prenominal modifiers, it does not come as a sur­ prise that written texts also have higher numbers of adjectives. Whereas in conversation many noun phrases are realized as pronouns and noun modifiers are rare, more complex noun phrases are the norm in writing (Biber et al. 1999: 578). In the written genres of academic prose and news writing, adjectives are the most common pre-modifier, followed by nouns (N–N compounds). As for post-modifiers, prepositional phrases are about three times as common as relative clauses (Biber et al. 1999: 603). (p. 663)

Unlike spoken language, written language is not acquired without instruction. Not only do children need to learn to spell words correctly (not an easy feat in English), they also learn early on how to write in different genres. The curriculum for second graders in the USA, for example, includes instruction in writing narratives (‘use temporal words to sig­ nal order’), opinion pieces (‘use linking words’), and explanatory texts (‘introduce topic’).2 Due to their more permanent nature, written texts are under a lot more scrutiny than Page 10 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation spoken texts—they are the target of style manuals, self-styled language mavens, and grammar checkers built into word-processing software (Curzan 2014). Linguistic charac­ teristics of particular genres therefore are not necessarily an unmediated reflection of the underlying situational characteristics, they may very well result from prescriptive ideas about certain genres or venues of publication.3 Some electronic corpora of English are only made up of data from written language. The Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen Corpus (LOB), compiled in the 1970s, consists of ten written gen­ res, of which academic prose, press reportage, and fiction have received the most atten­ tion. They correspond to the three broad categories of written English in Biber et al. (1999): academic prose, news writing, and fiction. News writing and academic prose are very similar with regard to production circumstances (both go through a process of edit­ ing), but they are very different with regard to audience (more specialized in the case of academic prose) and communicative purpose, resulting in preferences for different lin­ guistic patterns. News writing has a tradition of separating factual reporting (the actual news section) from stating one’s opinion (editorials, op-eds, and columns), while in the modern research article the factual is always intertwined with interpretation (Bazerman 1988, Biber and Conrad 2009: 112). These differences result in a higher use of the past tense in news writing (reporting what happened) and of the present tense in academic writing (the interpretation part). Due to its narrative structure, news writing has more time adverbials (also see section 30.4.3), while academic prose, with its focus on argu­ mentation and interpretation, shows more causal connectors. As a result of the need to describe complex concepts with precision, academic prose uses more nouns overall, more nominalizations, and (p. 664) more noun modifiers, especially postnominal PPs and prenominal adjectives, than news writing. By contrast, more interactive grammatical fea­ tures, such as pronouns and questions, which are typical of conversations, occur with lower frequency in both news writing and academic prose. Fictional genres share some of the situational characteristics of academic prose and news writing: the text is carefully planned and edited, it is also generally written for a large un­ specified audience, and there is no real interaction between author and reader. However, Biber and Conrad (2009: 132) find that ‘these external situational characteristics have al­ most no influence on the linguistic characteristics of a fictional text’. Rather, it is the fic­ tional world that is constructed that determines what kind of language is used. For exam­ ple, if the story is told from a first-person point of view, a high frequency of first-person pronouns is to be expected. Fiction writing can also include large stretches of dialogue, personal letters, or diary entries, in which case the sampled language is not so much a re­ flection of ‘fiction’ as a genre, but rather of the embedded text type, such as narration or description. When situational circumstances change, genres change as well—and new constructions emerge that serve the changed communicative purpose better. The experimental re­ search article today is considered ‘one of the most highly conventionalized genres in English’ (Biber and Conrad 2009: 162), with clearly defined sections (Abstract, Introduc­ tion, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion; see also Swales 1990). Each of these sec­ Page 11 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation tions is organized along conventionalized rhetorical moves, resulting in formulaic opening strings like This paper argues… (Dorgeloh and Wanner 2009). Other linguistic character­ istics of the modern research article are a low frequency of first-person pronouns (even though, as Wanner (2009) points out, style manuals advise to use them); a high frequency of inanimate subjects, many of them the result of passivization or nominalization; and a high density of nouns, of noun modification, and of subordinate structures. However, ini­ tially (i.e. in the seventeenth century), scientific articles looked very different. They had the function of giving an account of a concrete event observed by the writer, which lin­ guistically translated into a more narrative pattern, with past tense, first person, and tem­ poral markers. Many early articles published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Roy­ al Society in the seventeenth century were purely descriptive, framed as letters to the ed­ itor (with formulaic salutation form and closing), with no discussion or conclusion whatso­ ever. They are so different from modern research articles that it is unclear if one should still call them both the same genre. From a form-based perspective, an article written in the seventeenth century does not have much in common with an article that appears in Science today. From a functional perspective, however, both articles belong to the same genre, because they have the same function of integrating knowledge into the scientific community (Gotti 2010). A more recent development in written language is the emergence of computer-mediated communication (CMC), a type of discourse that has brought about many new genres (e.g., e-mail, blogs, chatrooms, text messages, multimedial posts on social media platforms) with their own linguistic conventions. As different as these genres (p. 665) may be with re­ gard to audience, purpose, and production circumstances, there are some characteristic linguistic features across the board: • a preference for constructions normally associated with spoken language, such as noun phrases without modifiers and ‘a clausal style similar to conversation’ (Biber and Conrad 2009: 182), as illustrated in section 30.3.1 • the use of non-standard forms, including simplified spellings (2nite) and incomplete sentences (U busy?), which Herring (2001) analyses as a deliberate choice to minimize typing effort • the mimicking of the shared context of face-to-face conversation, for example through the use of inflectives (*shudder*; see Schlobinski 2001) and pictorial elements (emoji) • the encoding of ‘textual aboutness’ (Kehoe and Gee 2011) through searchable topic identifiers, such as the symbol ‘#’ (hashtag/hash), which have acquired the additional function of providing meta-commentary or expressing an attitude, similar to evaluative adverbials (e.g., ‘#madashell’ expressing annoyance in a post about a delayed flight; see also Zappavigna 2015). Hashtags have spread well beyond the context of digital media. They are used in print and TV marketing campaigns (e.g., #BeExtraordinary, a hashtag created by the cosmetic

Page 12 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation firm L’Oréal) as well as in spoken discourse, if often humorously.4 In this way, they are a prime example of linguistic innovation resulting from (medially) written language.

30.4 Key grammatical issues in genre variation This section will discuss three areas of grammatical variation that result from the differ­ ences between spoken and written genres. On the one hand, written language tends to be more integrated, which shapes grammatical complexity at various levels of sentence structure (section 30.4.1). On the other hand, written language tends to focus more on content, calling on a variety of external sources. In doing so it often suppresses refer­ ences to the immediate context, including reference to the author as ‘representing consciousness’ (Chafe 1994: 44–5). We will discuss in section 30.4.2 how this affects the grammatical category of voice and brings about alternative constructions. Finally, we will discuss word order phenomena that also vary by genre (section 30.4.3). (p. 666)

30.4.1 Grammatical complexity

Grammatical complexity in the sense of sentence complexity is a classic research issue of genre variation. It is an almost stereotypical view (Biber and Gray 2010) that writing shows ‘longer and more complex clauses with embedded phrases and clauses’. The gram­ mar of speech, by contrast, is typically thought of as tending towards simple clauses with little embedding and a ‘high incidence of co-ordinated clauses’ (Hughes 1996: 33–4). Coordination varies indeed with speech and writing. Clause- (or turn-) initial coordina­ tors, notably and, establish a non-constructional relationship, i.e. one which already comes about by the mere sequence. In written texts, which possess a material continuity, overt sentence coordination is much less common (Biber et al. 1999: 83–4) and it is gen­ erally associated with less complex and less mature styles (Crystal 1995: 215). The de­ cline of additive coordination, by contrast, reflects a professionalization and ‘de-narra­ tivization’ of genres over time (Dorgeloh 2004). Interestingly, however, research on subordination across genres shows that, counter to the stereotypical view, most types of dependent clause are ‘considerably more common in speech than in writing’ (Biber and Gray 2010: 3). For example, a short spoken utterance such as (7) is a sentence with two embedded clauses, while the much longer written sen­ tence in (8) is technically just a simple main clause. (7)

(8)

Page 13 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation This suggests that clausal embedding, depending on the type of embedding we look at, can well turn out to be more typical of speech than of writing. Only nominal, phrasal em­ bedding is clearly a grammatical characteristic of the written mode, leading to a form of sentence complexity that has been described as ‘compressed’, rather than ‘elaborated’ (Biber and Gray 2010: 6–11). Complexity within the noun phrase is the locus of ‘one of the most dramatic areas of his­ torical change in English over the past three centuries’ (Biber and Conrad 2009: 167). While conversations are characterized by a high density of one-word noun phrases, writ­ ten genres depend much more on nouns in combination with modifiers to identify the ref­ erents of noun phrases, as discussed already in section 30.3.2. The most prevalent pat­ terns of modifying nouns in scholarly writing, for example (according to Atkinson 1999), are N–N compounding (system perspective), prenominal adjectives (new systemic mecha­ nisms), postnominal PPs (levels of complexity), all from example (8) above, as well as (participial or full) relative clauses (an argument [made by Chomsky]). Similar patterns, however, have also been noted for some spoken subgenres: the analysis of different types of spoken monologue discourse, for example, ‘shows that if a text is “scripted” this entails that there will be fewer simple NPs’ (Aarts and Wallis 2014: 508). Biber and Conrad (2009: 167–8) further show that the development towards more complex noun phrases is a genre-specific phenomenon in the history of written English. (p. 667)

For example, fiction and medical prose texts did not differ all that much with regard to noun modification in the eighteenth century. The most frequent modifier was the post­ nominal PP, followed by the prenominal adjective, N–N sequences, and relative clauses (which occur more frequently in fiction texts than in medical prose). Three hundred years later, the use of attributive adjectives and N–N sequences has remained stable in fiction, but has almost doubled for medical prose. The use of PPs has increased markedly for medical prose (from an already high level) and has decreased for fiction. Biber and Gray (2011: 234) argue that such an increase in complexity can only happen in writing—writ­ ers take as much time as they want to wordsmith their texts and the final text is likely to have undergone many revisions. A grammatical phenomenon related to noun phrase complexity is noun phrase ellipsis, i.e. the nominal use of adjectival modifiers. According to Payne and Huddleston (2002: 417), a construction such as Lucie likes big dogs, but I prefer small occurs predominantly with modifiers denoting ‘basic physical properties’. Recent work on this construction (Günther 2011) discusses other semantic types of headless NPs, such as tell a good lie from a bad. These occur both in speech and in writing, as the following examples from the BNC illus­ trate: (9)

(10)

Page 14 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation

Günther (2011: 297) notes that different conditions for elliptical NPs are at work under the conditions of speech versus writing. She finds that in speech adjectives referring to physical properties are in fact the dominant type whereas the limitation in the written mode is to adjectives belonging to a taxonomy or binary pair (such as good and bad; Gün­ ther 2011: 299). The explanation she provides is that under the more decontextualized conditions of written text, an evoked opposition or taxonomy makes a referent sufficiently salient to be retrievable, which is why a head noun is less needed. As example (10) from spoken discourse shows, such retrievability does ultimately not depend on physical mode alone. Complexity also varies within individual genres. Pérez-Guerra and Martìnez-Insua (2010) compare phrasal complexity in two written genres: news and personal letters. Their find­ ings—a higher degree of complexity in news writing than in letters—confirm an effect of the genre, but one that is less pronounced for subjects and adverbials than for objects (Pérez-Guerra and Martìnez-Insua 2010: 134). This confirms that genres have different ef­ fects on different forms of complexity, varying, for instance, by argument positions. In other measures of complexity, such as depth of embedding, the same genres nonetheless turn out to be more alike. (p. 668)

30.4.2 The representation of agentivity

Genre conventions often affect the way in which events are encoded in syntax. The un­ marked case in English is that agents are realized as subjects and patients are realized as objects, but there are genres in which other concerns take precedence over the need to spell out most clearly who did what to whom. Scientific discourse in particular is a regis­ ter in which the expression of agenthood is often minimized (Biber 1988, Atkinson 1992, Orasan 2001, Wanner 2009), which leads to a high presence of constructions with no visi­ ble agent, such as the following, taken from the academic portion of COCA. (11)

Page 15 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation

The data in (11) illustrate the use of a number of constructions that either have subjects that are not animate agents or have no visible subject at all: • nominalizations (Neoliberal institutionalism attempts…) • textual subjects (This paper argues…) • passive voice (infants were seated comfortably) • gerunds (by showing that information…is adding information…). The passive voice, in particular, has ‘a long and venerable tradition’ (Penrose and Katz 1998: 45) in scientific writing in putting more emphasis on facts than on those who un­ cover them. In much of scientific writing the agent of the sentence is identical with the writer (the writer being the person who makes and tests claims, collects and interprets data) and choosing the passive voice is a strategy to avoid the use of first person refer­ ence (It will be argued … versus I will argue …). It does not come as a surprise, then, that the frequency of the passive (in terms of occurrences per one million words) is more than twice as high in the academic prose sub-corpus of LGSWE as in general fiction and is low­ est in conversation (Biber et al. 1999: 938), even though conversation is the sub-register with the highest density of verbs. Additionally, as pointed out by Dorgeloh and Wanner (2003) and Wanner (2009), even in sentences (p. 669) with active voice the subject is often an inanimate entity in academic prose. This does not just hold for the methods and re­ sults sections of experiment-based papers in the sciences. In our study of 120 abstracts from different disciplines, we found that for so-called ‘reporting’ verbs (suggest, conclude, propose, argue, reject, contradict, etc.), i.e. verbs for which one would normally expect a first-person subject, many writers resort to combining active voice with inanimate sub­ jects. We observed a preference for textual subjects, such as this article or this paper, in the humanities and social sciences, illustrated in (12a), and for data-based subjects, such as these numbers or these results, in the sciences, illustrated in (12b). (12)

Page 16 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation

The patterns illustrated by the data in (12) are the result of a rhetorical change in scien­ tific discourse that began in the first half of the twentieth century, especially in American English. Today, style guides such as the publication manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) strongly favour the use of the active voice—it is considered more ‘vigor­ ous’ and more ‘transparent’ in recounting who did what to which effect. By contrast, the passive voice has become associated with the ‘negative practice of conscious deception by deliberately hiding the doer of the action’ (Baron 1989: 19).5 With this background, it does not come as a surprise that the percentage of passive con­ structions in academic prose has declined considerably, especially in American English. Seoane (2006) reports a decrease in be-passives from 67 per cent (LOB corpus, 1961) of all transitive verb constructions to 56.7 per cent (FLOB corpus, 1991) in British English and from 65.9 per cent to 41.9 per cent in American English (BROWN and FROWN corpo­ ra, 1961 and 1992, respectively). Potential reasons for this shift include a preference for a more involved style (Taavitsainen 1994), marked by the use of the first person, and a gen­ eral trend towards the use of colloquial and traditionally oral forms, such as subject–aux­ iliary contraction, in written English (Mair and Leech 2006). A tendency towards inanimate subjects in verb constructions that used to take primarily agents as subjects has also been noted for the English progressive. Hundt (2004: 66), for example, identifies the ‘weakening of the semantic constraint’ as ‘one of the conditioning factors’ for the increased usage of the progressive in the nineteenth century. Her corpus data reveal that early medical and scientific texts regularly use inanimate subjects with progressive aspect (an abscess was gathering, the water is (p. 670) constantly changing; see Hundt 2004: 62). She therefore concludes that the observed overall spread of the pro­ gressive in the English verbal system results from genre variation and the spread of genre conventions, rather than system-internal grammaticalization (Hundt 2004: 66).

30.4.3 Word order variation Narratives occur both in speech and in writing and affect the usage of grammar in sever­ al systematic respects. Since storytelling involves the reconstruction of events and of a storyworld (Georgakopoulou and Goutsos 2000), one area of grammar relevant for this mode is constructions with a presentational focus (Rochemont and Culicover 1990), such as ‘existential’ (there-) constructions and inversion constructions where the subject swaps position with a canonically postverbal constituent such as a locative expression (see also Chapter 22, this volume). While the presentative meaning is one of mere existence in ‘ex­ istential’ presentationals (Drubig 1988: 84–5), as in (13a), it is one of ‘appearance’ on the scene in the case of an inversion, as in (13b) below. The two constructions differ in that Page 17 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation there-insertion is preferred in sentences ‘which fail to convey visual impact’ (Breivik 1981: 12). (13)

Due to this visual impact, inversion adds to the vividness of storytelling in that presenting scenes and events from another location and time in non-canonical word order, which is structurally similar to the (underlying or fictive) experience, produces a ‘displaced immediacy’ (Chafe 1994: 198–226). In (13b), but not in (13a), the viewing of the fields with vines is represented like a distant, but nonetheless an immediate experience (Dorgeloh 1997: 165–74). This ‘immediate observer effect’ (Kreyer 2006) is more widely used in narration (and embedded description) because it helps to focus, not only on a dif­ ferent discourse world, but also on the ‘experiencing consciousness’ (Chafe 1994: 198). Accordingly, we find it more in narrative than in non-narrative texts (Dorgeloh 2006), though not only in fiction, but also, as (14) illustrates, in non-fiction texts when an imme­ diate, visual experience is reproduced: (14)

There are other constructions with a characteristic usage in narrative discourse, in par­ ticular at the left clause periphery. Narratives typically possess a chronological structure, which is often supported by sentence-initial adverbial placement. These (p. 671) adver­ bials can be strategy markers: they serve as ‘reference-points’ in the story, which ‘in num­ ber, size and/or information status signal the size of the boundary that they mark’ (Virtanen 2004: 85–6). For example, in (15) the three adverbials mark a relatively major shift in the storyline, compared to the more local shifts, combined with ‘narrative syntax’ (Labov 1972), in the oral narrative in (16): (15)

(16)

Page 18 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation The use of narration in both speech and writing also tells us that this is a discourse mode, embedded in many contexts and hence hosted by various genres (Georgakopoulou and Goutsos 2000: 68). The same therefore applies to the word order phenomena discussed here, which can also be put to further uses in many other genres.

30.5 Conclusion In this chapter, we have looked at how spoken and written genres affect the usage of grammar. While there are strong correlations between specific discourse situations and the occurrence (or absence) of certain linguistic constructions, most constructions are multi-functional—they may be pervasive in a given genre, but they also occur elsewhere. For example, spoken discourse favours the use of pronouns, but complex noun phrases are not completely out of place, while pronouns are also characteristic of specific written genres, such as diary entries. Therefore, most grammatical categories and constructions tend to be features, rather than markers, of a given genre. Ellipsis, for instance, is fre­ quent in informal talk, but it also occurs in personal ads, diary entries, and online writing. It constitutes a grammatical phenomenon typical both of spoken and written genres; only the motivation for using it varies. It is in this sense that genres are ‘multi-dimensional constructs’ (Biber 1988: 162–3). Nonetheless genres tend to regularize and conventionalize grammar and thereby in­ crease ‘the likelihood of successful, forceful communication’ (Bazerman 1988: 23; see al­ so Dorgeloh and Wanner 2009). On a theoretical level, this touches upon the question of whether the distinction between knowledge of grammar (competence) and language use (performance) holds altogether. Formalist and functionalist linguists disagree on the question whether or not patterns of grammar usage affect the representation of gram­ matical knowledge (Schmid 2013: 76; also Newmeyer 2003, Boye and Engberg-Pedersen 2010). Formalists concede the usefulness of frequency information for the study of ‘lan­ guage variation, use, and change’, but doubt that one can come to (p. 672) ‘conclusions about the grammar of an individual from usage facts about communities’ (Newmeyer 2003: 695). By contrast, functionalist work in probabilistic syntax (Gahl and Garnsey 2006; Bresnan 2007) presents evidence that language users have a ‘collectively conven­ tionalized knowledge of linguistic structures’ (Schmid 2013: 113). They tend to select phrases and sentences ‘that have accompanied past actions’ (Hopper 2011: 33), which brings about patterns of variation in the sense of both what is acceptable and preferred. For example, the passive construction and nominalizations were originally ‘adaptive fea­ tures of literary grammar’ (Pawley and Syder 1983: 570). While the grammar of un­ planned speech documents usage of grammatical features, such as dysfluency or ellipsis, that are not regularly present in most kinds of writing, more recent developments in writ­ ing show that new contexts push grammar usage beyond old boundaries and develop new modes of expression, which then feed back into the language system.

Page 19 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation

Acknowledgements Support for this research was provided by the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison with funding from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.

Reference Aarts, Bas, and Sean Wallis (2014). ‘Noun phrase simplicity in spoken English’, in Ludmi­ la Veselovská and Markéta Janebová (eds), Complex Visibles Out There (Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure). Olo­ mouc: Palacký University, 501–11. Atkinson, Dwight (1992). ‘The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: The case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal.’ Applied Linguistics 13: 337–74. Atkinson, Dwight (1999). Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Baron, Dennis (1989). Declining Grammar. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Bazerman, Charles (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Ex­ perimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Bazerman, Charles (1997). ‘The life of genre, the life in the classroom’, in Wendy Bishop and Hans Ostrom (eds), Genre and Writing: Issues, Arguments, Alternatives. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann, 19–26. Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Biber, Douglas (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas (2012). ‘Register as a predictor of linguistic variation.’ Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 9–37. Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray (2010). ‘Challenging stereotypes about academic writ­ ing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 2– 20. Biber, Douglas, and Susan Conrad (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Bieswanger, Markus (2016). ‘Aviation English: Two distinct specialized registers?, in Christoph Schubert and Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (eds), Variational Text Linguis­

Page 20 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation tics: Revisiting Register in English. (Topics in English Linguistics 90.) Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 67–86. Boye, Kasper, and Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds) (2010). Language Usage and Lan­ guage Structure. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Bresnan, Joan (2007). ‘Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation.’ Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base (Studies in Genera­ tive Grammar 96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 75–96. Crystal, David (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David, and Derek Davy (1969). Investigating English Style. London: Longman. Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2004). ‘Conjunction in sentence and discourse: Sentence initial and and Discourse Structure.’ Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1761–79. Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2006). ‘Inversion in descriptive and narrative discourse: A text-typo­ logical account following functional principles.’ Cahiers de Recherche 9: 101–14. Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2014). ‘“If it didn’t work the first time, we can try it again”: Condi­ tionals as a grounding device in a genre of illness discourse.’ Communication and Medi­ cine 11: 55–68. Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2016). ‘The interrelationship of register and genre in medical dis­ course’, in Christoph Schubert and Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (eds), Variational Text Linguistics: Revisiting Register in English. (Topics in English Linguistics 90.) Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 43–65. Dorgeloh, Heidrun, and Anja Wanner (2003). ‘Too abstract for agents? The syntax and se­ mantics of agentivity in abstracts of English research articles’, in Holden Härtl and Heike Tappe (eds), Mediating between Concepts and Language-Processing Structures. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 152.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 433– 56. Dorgeloh, Heidrun, and Anja Wanner (2009). ‘Formulaic argumentation in scientific dis­ course’, in Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouli, and Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), Formulaic Language. Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Func­ tional Explanations. (Typological Studies in Language 83.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 523–44. Dorgeloh, Heidrun, and Anja Wanner (eds) (2010). Syntactic Variation and Genre. (Topics in English Linguistics 70.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Page 21 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation Drubig, Hans Bernhard (1988). ‘On the discourse function of subject verb inversion.’ Studies in Descriptive Linguistics 18: 83–95. Dürscheid, Christa (2003). Medienkommunikation im Kontinuum von Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit: Theoretische und Empirische Probleme. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Ehrlich, Susan (1990). Point of View: A Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style. London: Routledge. Ferguson, Charles A. (1994). ‘Dialect, Register, and Genre: Working Assumptions about Conventionalization’, in Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan (eds), Sociolinguistic Per­ spectives on Register, New York: Oxford University Press, 5–30. Fleischman, Suzanne (2001). ‘Language and medicine’, in Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 470–502. Gahl, Susanne, and Susan Marie Garnsey (2006). ‘Knowledge of grammar includes knowl­ edge of syntactic probabilities.’ Language 82: 405–10. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra, and Dionysis Goutsos (2000). ‘Revisiting discourse bound­ aries: The narrative and non-narrative modes.’ Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 20: 63–82. Gotti, Maurizio (2010). ‘A new genre for a specialized community: The rise of the experi­ mental essay’, in Heidrun Dorgeloh and Anja Wanner (eds), Syntactic Variation and Genre. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 85–110. Grafmiller, Jason (2014). ‘Variation in English genitives across modality and genres.’ Eng­ lish Language and Linguistics 18: 471–96. Haegeman, Liliane, and Tabea Ihsane (1999). ‘Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English.’ Journal of English Language and Linguistics 3: 117–45. Herring, Susan C. (2001). ‘Computer-mediated discourse’, in Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Black­ well, 612–34. Hiltunen, Ristu (2012). ‘The grammar and structure of legal texts’, in Lawrence M. Solan and Peter M. Tiersma (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–51. Hopper, Paul (2011). ‘Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics’, in Peter Auer and Stephan Pfänder (eds), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin/ New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 22–44. Hughes, Rebecca (1996). English in Speech and Writing. London: Routledge.

Page 22 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation Hundt, Marianne (2004). ‘Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the Progressive in mod­ ern English.’ English Language and Linguistics 8: 47–69. Hundt, Marianne, and Christian Mair (1999). ‘“Agile” and “Uptight” genres: The corpusbased approach to language change in progress.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguis­ tics 4: 221–42. Hundt, Marianne, and Geoffrey Leech (2012). ‘Small is beautiful: On the value of stan­ dard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change’, in Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press, 175–88. Jeffries, Lesley (2006). ‘Poetry: Stylistic aspects’, in Keith Brown (ed), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. Waltham, MA: Elsevier, 645–51. Kehoe, Andrew, and Matt Gee (2011). ‘Social tagging: A new perspective on textual “aboutness”’, in Paul Rayson, Sebastian Hoffmann, and Geoffrey Leech (eds), Method­ ological and Historical Dimensions of Corpus Linguistics. (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 6.) Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts, and Change in English. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/06/kehoe_gee/, last ac­ cessed 6 April 2019. Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher (1985). ‘Sprache der Nähe–Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte.’ Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43. Labov, William (1972b). Language in the Inner City: Studies in Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mair, Christian (2003). ‘Gerundial complements after begin and start: Grammatical and sociolinguistic factors, and how they work against each other’, in Günther Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf (eds), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (Topics in English Linguistics, 34). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 329–45. Mair, Christian, and Geoffrey Leech (2006). ‘Current changes in English Syntax’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 318–42. Miller, Carolyn (1984). ‘Genre as social action.’ Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151–67. Mondorf, Britta (2010). ‘Genre effects in the replacement of reflexives by particles’, in Heidrun Dorgeloh and Anja Wanner (eds), Syntactic Variation and Genre. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 219–45. Mukherjee, Joybrato (2006). ‘Corpus linguistics and English reference grammars.’ Lan­ guage and Computers 55: 337–54.

Page 23 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation Newmeyer, Frederick J. (2003). ‘Grammar is grammar and usage is usage.’ Language 79: 682–707. Orasan, Constantin (2001). ‘Patterns in scientific abstracts’, in Proceedings of Corpus Lin­ guistics 2001. Lancaster: Lancaster University, 433–43. Paltridge, Brian, and Sue Starfield (eds) (2013). The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell. Pawley, Andrew, and Frances Hodgetts Syder (1983). ‘Natural selection in syntax: Notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar.’ Journal of Prag­ matics 7: 551–79. Penrose, Ann, and Steven Katz (1998). Writing in the Sciences: Exploring Conventions of Scientific Discourse. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Pérez-Guerra, Javier, and Ana E. Martınez-Insua (2010). ‘Do some genres or text types be­ come more complex than others?’, in Heidrun Dorgeloh and Anja Wanner (eds), Syntactic Variation and Genre. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 111–40. Schlobinski, Peter (2001). ‘*knuddel --zurueckknuddel -- dichganzdollknuddel*. Inflektive und Inflektivkonstruktionen im Deutschen.’ Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 29: 192–218. Schmid, Hans-Jörg (2013). ‘Is usage more than usage after all? The case of English not that.’ Linguistics 51: 75–116. Seoane, Elena (2006). ‘Changing styles: On the recent evolution of scientific British and American English’, in Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Dieter Kastovsky, Nikolaus Ritt, and Her­ bert Schendel (eds), Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, 191–211. Swales, John (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Taavitsainen, Irma (1994). ‘Subjectivity as a text-type marker in historical stylistics.’ Lan­ guage and Literature 3: 197–212. Tannen, Deborah (1982). ‘Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy.’ Language 58: 1–21. Virtanen, Tuija (2004). ‘Point of departure: Cognitive aspects of sentence-initial adver­ bials’, in Tuija Virtanen (ed), Approaches to Cognition Through Text and Discourse. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 79–98. Wanner, Anja (2009). Deconstructing the English Passive. (Topics in English Linguistics, 41.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Page 24 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation Weir, Andrew (2012). ‘Left-edge deletion in English and subject omission in diaries.’ Eng­ lish Language and Linguistics 16: 105–29. Wiechmann, Daniel, and Elma Kerz. (2013). ‘The positioning of concessive adverbial clauses in English: Assessing the importance of discourse-pragmatic and processingbased constraints.’ English Language and Linguistics 17: 1–23. Zappavigna, Michele (2015). ‘Searchable talk: The linguistic functions of hashtags.’ Social Semiotics 15: 274–91.

Notes: (1) Obviously, their classification does not easily accommodate sign languages. (2) http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/W/2/, last accessed 14 March 2019. (3) For example, the guidelines for submitting an article to the Journal of Moral Philoso­ phy (Brill) state that contractions (haven’t, can’t) are to be avoided; https://brill.com/file­ asset/downloads_products/Author_Instructions/JMP.pdf, last accessed 19 March 2019. (4) A video clip of American talk show host Jimmy Fallon and guest Justin Timberlake showing a parody of a conversation interspersed with comments introduced by the word hashtag has garnered over thirty million views: see https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=57dzaMaouXA, last accessed 14 March 2019. (5) However, see Wanner (2009) for an argument that even the short passive (a passive construction without a by-phrase) is not an agentless construction—rather, it is a con­ struction with an ‘implicit’ agent.

Heidrun Dorgeloh

Heidrun Dorgeloh is Senior Lecturer in English Linguistics at the Heinrich-HeineUniversity Düsseldorf with a specialization in syntax, discourse analysis, and profes­ sional varieties of English. She wrote her dissertation on English word order, notably subject–verb inversion as it is used in different genres, followed by a series of re­ search on the function and meaning of grammatical constructions in professional contexts. Her research interests include the interrelationship of non-canonical syntax and discourse, the evolution of genres, and registers and genres of various profes­ sions, such as science, medicine, and law. Anja Wanner

Anja Wanner is Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Wisconsin-Madi­ son, where she teaches syntax and grammar in use and directs the ‘Grammar Bad­ gers’ outreach project. Trained as a generative linguist, she became interested in syntactic variation and genre after studying the representation of implicit agents and changing attitudes towards the use of the passive voice in scientific writing. Addition­ ally, she has published on the relationship between verb meaning and syntactic be­ Page 25 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Genre Variation haviour, the role of prescriptive grammar in language change, and the grammar of persons diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Page 26 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation

Literary Variation   Lesley Jeffries The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics, Languages by Region Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.013.17

Abstract and Keywords This chapter investigates grammatical variation in literary texts. It introduces key con­ cepts in stylistics and discusses topics that stylisticians have been concerned with at the interface between literature and grammar, such as the use in literary texts of non-stan­ dard forms of the language and the iconic use of grammar to produce literary meaning and effects. Stylistics is now very much more than the application of linguistic description to the language of literature and has developed theories and models of its own. But at the core of the discipline remains text (both spoken and written) and the notion that text pro­ ducers have choices as to how they put language into texts. This chapter explains the grammatical aspects of such choices and the literary effects they can have. Keywords: stylistics, foregrounding, deviation, parallelism, syntactic iconicity, literary style, non-standard varieties

31.1 Introduction IN this chapter I will investigate grammatical variation in literary texts. As a full survey of this field would be a book in itself, I have instead chosen some topics that stylisticians have been concerned with at the interface between literature and grammar. These in­ clude the use in literary texts of non-standard forms of the language, either by writing in regional or social varieties or by the stretching of ‘rules’ (section 31.3), and the direct use of grammar to produce literary meaning through the exploitation of its iconic potential (section 31.4). Stylistics is now very much more than the application of linguistic descrip­ tion to the language of literature and has developed theories and models of its own. But at the core of the discipline remains text (both spoken and written) and the notion that text producers have choices as to how they put language into texts. Section 31.2 will in­ troduce some of the background to stylistic discussion of literary texts. Literature is one creative use of language (others include political speeches and advertis­ ing) which provides an opportunity to test the models arising from different grammatical theories. This opportunity arises because literary texts often stretch the norms of every­ day usage. Interpreting divergent grammar relies on understanding what is ‘normal’ and Page 1 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation can thereby reflect the systematic aspects of grammar. The strategies readers use to un­ derstand divergent grammar need explaining just as much as the stages that learners go through in acquiring a language or the loss of grammatical ability in aphasia. As John Sin­ clair puts it: no systematic apparatus can claim to describe a language if it does not embrace the literature also; and not as a freakish development, but as a natural specializa­ tion of categories which are required in other parts of the descriptive system. (Sinclair 2004: 51)

(p. 674)

31.2 Stylistics: concepts and approaches

In this section I will introduce some of the fundamental ideas and terminology used in stylistics (see Leech and Short 2007 and Jeffries and McIntyre 2010 for further reading). Section 31.2.1 considers whether there is such a thing as ‘literary style’; section 31.2.2 introduces fundamental concepts in stylistics; section 31.2.3 summarizes the development of cognitive approaches to style; and section 31.2.4 discusses the influence of corpus methods on stylistic analysis of literary grammar.

31.2.1 Is literary language different from everyday language? It is often popularly assumed that the language of literature has its own set of fundamen­ tally different language features, and in some periods of history and some cultures today, there is indeed an expectation that the language of literature will be regarded as ‘elevat­ ed’ or special in some way. However, if there ever was an identifiably separate literary ‘register’ in English, it would be difficult to pin down to more than a handful of lexical items, most of which were regular words which fell out of fashion in everyday language and lingered on mostly in poetry (e.g., yonder and behold). In fact, although early stylistics, based on Russian formalism (Ehrlich 1965), spent a great deal of time and effort trying to define what was different about literary language, the discipline ultimately came to the view that if there is anything special about literary lan­ guage, it is nevertheless drawing on exactly the same basic linguistic resources as the language in general. Thus, the idea that one might be able to list or catalogue the formal linguistic features in ‘literary’ as opposed to ‘non-literary’ language was eventually shown to be mistaken and recognition of the overlap between literary and other genres has now reached the point where stylistics tends to see ‘literariness’ as a point on a cline (Carter and Nash 1990: 34) rather than as an absolute. Features that might be seen as more liter­ ary (though not limited to literature) would include many of the traditional figures of speech and other literary tropes, such as metaphor, irony, metonymy, and so on, though in stylistics these would be defined more closely by their linguistic nature. Thus personifica­ tion, for example, would now be shown as the result of a lexico-grammatical choice, such

Page 2 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation as the decision to combine an inanimate subject with a verb requiring an animate Actor: e.g., the moon yawned. Scholars of literary language conclude that what makes some literary works unique and/ or aesthetically pleasing is the way in which they combine, frame, or contextualize the otherwise ordinary bits of language they are using. This may imply a relatively unusual concentration of one kind of feature (e.g., continuous forms of the verb such as traipsing, trudging, limping) or unusual juxtapositions of otherwise different styles of language (e.g. a mixture of formal and informal language or a mixture of different dialects). (p. 675) An­ other feature often thought to be literary, though not unusual in other text-types, is paral­ lelism of structure, or even exact repetition (see section 31.2.2). Though such features may indicate literary style, judgements about literary value are, in the end, not uniquely linguistic and are at least partly culturally determined as well as changeable (Cook 1994).

31.2.2 Stylistic concepts: foregrounding, deviation, and parallelism Stylistics began in the early twentieth century, drawing on ideas of defamiliarization from Russian formalism, which considered that works of art were aiming to make the familiar seem new. Stylistics captured this interest from a linguistic perspective by developing the related concepts of foregrounding and deviation. Foregrounding refers to the process by which individual features of text stand out from their surroundings, while deviation refers to one of the means by which this foregrounding is achieved (Douthwaite 2000, Leech 2008: 30). Two kinds of deviation, external and internal, are distinguished. External devi­ ation refers to features that are different in some way to the norms of the language gen­ erally. Internal deviation refers to features that differ from the norms of the text in which they appear. Studies of the psychological reality of foregrounding have demonstrated that what schol­ ars are noticing matches the reader’s experience. Van Peer (1986), for example, used ex­ perimental methods to ascertain which features readers were paying special attention to and found that these matched the features identified in stylistic analysis. Miall and Kuiken (1994) found further support for the psychological reality of foregrounding and al­ so produced evidence that the foregrounded features can provoke an emotional response. There are many potential candidates for prototypically literary features, but none of them would be found uniquely in literature and most derive their power, including their literary effect, by reference to the norms of everyday language or the norms of the text they ap­ pear in. We will see some further examples of this phenomenon in section 31.4 on iconici­ ty in grammar, but a straightforward illustration of foregrounding is the use of paral­ lelism in the structuring of literary (and other) texts, as seen in the opening stanza of the classic children’s poem by Alfred Noyes, ‘The Highwayman’ (1906: 244–7):1 The wind was a torrent of darkness among the gusty trees, The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas, The road was a ribbon of moonlight over the purple moor, And the highwayman came riding – Page 3 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation Riding – riding – The highwayman came riding, up to the old inn-door.

There is nothing grammatically unusual about the structure of each of the first three lines of this stanza, which have a Subject–Verb–Complement–Adverbial pattern.2 It (p. 676)

is rather the three repetitions of the same structure that both set the musical framework for the poem, and allow the emergence of the highwayman from the distance to be fore­ grounded, since he arrives at the point where the grammatical pattern set up in the first three lines is disrupted for the first time. There is also a change of pattern from descrip­ tive sentences of the pattern ‘X was Y’, where the copular verb (be) sets up a metaphori­ cal equivalence between the subject and the complement of the sentence. The new pat­ tern from line four by contrast has a human Agent in subject position (the highwayman), followed by an active verb phrase (came riding). This change in pattern foregrounds the highwayman from the surrounding moorland-plus-sky scene, emphasizing that he is the only sentient—and active—being for miles around. This kind of patterning is not unique to literary genres. The form and function of paral­ lelism in political speech-making, for example, is similar to that in literature, making the language memorable and creating both musicality and foregrounding. An example is the following passage from the famous wartime speech by UK prime minister Winston Churchill, calling the British people to fight:3 we we we we we

shall shall shall shall shall

fight on the beaches, fight on the landing grounds, fight in the fields and in the streets, fight in the hills; never surrender

Advertising also uses parallel structures and in everyday life we sometimes use paral­ lelism to foreground something in the stories we tell each other. Parallelism (Leech 2008: 22–3) can occur at any level of structure, from phonological to syntactic, and can be internally deviant (i.e. the remainder of the text does not consist of parallel structures) as well as being externally deviant (i.e. we do not normally speak or write using continually repeated structures). Parallelism can also become backgrounded where it is ubiquitous and therefore normalized. All of these effects are seen in ‘The Highwayman’, where the stanza patterns are the same each time, so that although there is a disruption (internal deviation) at line four, this is itself a regularity causing the reader to expect the same pattern in each stanza after the foregrounding of the disruption in verse one. As this example of parallelism shows, foregrounding depends upon the background, which is also stylistically patterned. Anyone who has ever described an utterance as (p. 677) ‘Pinteresque’, referring to the idiosyncratically sparse style of playwright Harold Pinter, is instinctively responding to these background features of the text. The rise of

Page 4 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation corpus stylistics (see section 31.2.4 below) has enabled scholars to examine these less stark patterns of style empirically for the first time.

31.2.3 Text and context: author, narrator, character, and reader The task of describing the style of literary texts combines an understanding of the norms of the language whilst recognizing unusual and abnormal usage for literary effect. In ad­ dition to the increased accuracy of description enabled by linguistic analysis, stylistics has developed a range of theories and models to address questions of textual meaning and where it resides. These theories need to recognize the special communicative circumstances of literary works. Though readers may believe the author is directly addressing them, there is often a layering of participants in the discourse situation reflected in a distance between au­ thors, readers, narrators, and characters invoked in reading a text. The discourse struc­ ture model, proposed by Leech and Short (2007: 206–18), envisages a number of levels of participation, including implied author and implied reader, which are the idealized form of these participants as envisaged by each other. There may also be one or more layers of narration as, for example, in the Joseph Conrad novel Heart of Darkness. The opening of this novel is in the voice of a first person narrator telling a tale about himself and three friends on a yacht with the ‘Director of Companies’ as their captain and host. Very soon, this I-narrative gives way to another first person narrative, when one of the friends, Mar­ low, starts to tell a tale about his adventures in Africa. The remainder of the novel, with the exception of the last short paragraph, is in Marlow’s voice, though it is being chan­ nelled through the voice of the first (unnamed) narrator. Within Marlow’s story, there is also a great deal of quotation of others’ speech, mostly between other characters, but al­ so often with Marlow himself as speaker or addressee, as in the following extract (Conrad 1993: 96): “‘His end,’ said I, with dull anger stirring in me, ‘was in every way worthy of his life.’ “‘And I was not with him,’ she murmured. My anger subsided before a feeling of infinite pity. “‘Everything that could be done—’ I mumbled. Marlow is quoting (to his friends) his conversation with the fiancée of Kurtz, the subject of the novel, and the original narrator quotes him quoting this conversation. The original narrator also implies the existence of an interlocutor (his addressee). In addition, the au­ thor (Conrad) is telling the reader this whole narrative and there is therefore an implied (idealized) author and reader as well as the actual author and reader. Thus there are at least five levels at which some kind of communication is taking place. Such complexity of structure clearly has knock-on effects in the grammar (for ex­ ample, the patterning of tenses) of the text. Remarkably, perhaps, the average reader (p. 678)

Page 5 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation seems to find it relatively easy to navigate the different layers of narration, possibly by letting only the most relevant layer take precedence at any one time. Recent develop­ ments in stylistics have attempted to explain the reader’s negotiation of such complexity, drawing on cognitive linguistic and psychological theories to explain readers’ construc­ tion of textual meaning. Among these, Emmott’s (1997) contextual frame theory, Werth’s (1999) Text World Theory, and Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) conceptual metaphor theory have influenced our understanding of the reading process. Emmott, for example, propos­ es a framework where the reader constructs contextual frames as they read, with episod­ ic and non-episodic information being attached to the frames as the text is processed. This information is kept in mind by the reader through two processes, which Emmott la­ bels ‘binding’ and ‘priming’. The features of any scene in the text at any one point will be bound to that scene and may be primed (i.e. brought to the forefront of the reader’s at­ tention) if the scene is the current focus in the text being read. Once the reader moves on to a new passage, the features of that scene become ‘unprimed’ but remain bound into the scene in the reader’s memory. Thus, the reader of Heart of Darkness will at some lev­ el be aware of the initial scene on the yacht where Marlow, the original narrator and three other men are sitting, throughout. However, as this scene is not referred to again for a very long period, it is unprimed for most of the main narrative and starts to fade from the reader’s attention. The return of this scene for one final paragraph is both a jolt to the reader’s memory as they recall the features that were bound to the scene early on, and also a renewal of the many narrative layers in the novel, which could perhaps pro­ duce some scepticism for the reader as to the accuracy of the story they have just been told. Another cognitive theory, deictic shift theory (McIntyre 2006), helps to explain how the reader perceives the unfolding action through linguistically determined and changing points-of-view. Each of these cognitive theories envisages how some aspect of the text’s meaning is likely to be produced in the reader’s mind on the basis of features of the text. The grammatical aspects considered by these theories tend to be at levels higher than the sentence, such as textual cohesion (Halliday and Hasan 1976), verb tense sequences, nar­ ration types (first, second, third person, etc.) and other textual features such as transitivi­ ty or modality patterning that produce particular effects in constructing text worlds (see Werth 1999 and Gavins 2007). As we shall see below, there are some aspects of grammatical variation in literature where the potential effect on the reader appears to be based on a combination of what we might consider their ‘normal’ experience of the language and the foregrounded and de­ viant structures they encounter. This extends the cognitive trend in stylistics to include grammatical structure itself and as a result, increasingly stylistics scholars are using cog­ nitive grammar to analyse literary texts (Harrison et al. 2014; see also Taylor, this vol­ ume).

Page 6 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation (p. 679)

31.2.4 Corpus stylistics

The advent of powerful computer technology and software to process large corpora of lin­ guistic data has impacted practically and theoretically on the field of stylistics. The pro­ cessing of literary texts using corpus software can not only tell us something about the style of a particular author4 but also show how authors produce characterization through stylistic choices (e.g., Culpeper 2009). Corpus analysis reveals other broader patterns, not necessarily consciously noticed by readers, detailing the background style of texts and genres, against which internally deviant features are foregrounded. Important early work in this field includes Burrows (1987) who took computational analysis of literature to a new level by demonstrating that the behaviour of certain word classes (e.g., the modal verbs) could be shown to differentiate Austen’s characters, her speech and narra­ tion and different parts of her oeuvre. Generic tools available through most corpus linguistic software can be used to identify regular collocational patterns, which involve words that tend to occur together (e.g., boundless energy), and are largely semantic in nature; and also to identify n-grams (see Stubbs 2005), significantly frequent multiword sequences (e.g., it seemed to me), used to discover expressions typical of an author, character or genre. Corpus stylistics of this kind depends on an electronic version of the text in which word forms can be identified. One good example is Ho (2012) who demonstrates the production and testing of hypothe­ ses about the style of John Fowles. A step up from using word-form recognition software is to use a part-of-speech tagged corpus as in Mahlberg (2013), who, amongst other things, examines the repetition of lexi­ cal clusters in the work of Dickens. These consist of repeated sequences of words with lexical gaps as in ‘(with) his/her ___ prep det ____’ (where ‘prep’ and ‘det’ match words tagged as prepositions and determiners, respectively): examples of this pattern include ‘with his eyes on the ground’ or ‘his hand upon his shoulder’. Such clusters demonstrate a link with more lexically-based approaches to communication (Hoey 2005) and develop­ ments in grammatical theory such as construction grammar which emphasizes the impor­ tance of semi-prefabricated utterances (Croft 2001 and see also Hilpert, this volume, for more on constructional approaches to grammar). Whilst construction grammar attempts to describe the facility with which speakers produce apparently new structures in general language use, however, Mahlberg’s clusters are identified as having what she terms a ‘lo­ cal textual function’ indicating important features of the plot or character. Progress towards a reliable automated word class tagging tool has been made (Garside 1987, Fligelstone et al. 1996, Fligelstone et al. 1997, Garside and Smith 1997), but cor­ rectly identifying the word class of even high percentages (96–7 per cent) of words is not the same as producing a full grammatical analysis. Very few attempts have been made to study literature with a fully-parsed corpus of data, though Moss (2014) is (p. 680) an ex­ ception in creating and analysing a parsed corpus of the work of Henry James. (See also Wallis, this volume for more on corpus approaches to grammatical research.) Automatic parsing (structural analysis) has a much higher error rate than automatic part-of-speech Page 7 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation tagging, and the process of manual correction is labour-intensive. Consequently, there are only a small number of fully parsed and corrected corpora, such as ICE-GB (https:// www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/projects/ice-gb/) based at the Survey of English Usage (Uni­ versity College London) (see Wallis, this volume). Though some attempts have been made to semi-automate the tagging of corpora for discourse presentation (see, for example, Mahlberg’s CliC software5), there remain many difficulties with identifying the different functions of some formal structures, such as modal verbs, whose function (e.g., epistemic or deontic) can only be discerned by a human analyst (see Ziegeler, this volume, for dis­ cussion of modality). The other huge advance in corpus methods is the chance to use very large corpora (e.g., the British National Corpus: www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/) as a baseline against which smaller corpora or individual texts or features can be compared. Although there remain problems in defining what constitutes any particular norm, the growing number of both general and specific corpora has enabled researchers to establish what might be considered a background style.

31.3 Using non-standard forms in literature Most recent developments in literary language have tended towards democratization. The use of social and regional dialect forms in literature has challenged the dominance of va­ rieties connected with education, wealth and power (section 31.3.1), and many writers have challenged not only the supremacy of one variety of English, but also the dominance of the written over the spoken mode (section 31.3.2). In addition, there have been at­ tempts by writers to represent thought rather than language itself, and this is seen in the relative ‘ungrammaticality’ of some literary work (section 31.3.3).

31.3.1 Representing regional and social varieties in literature Perhaps the most obvious question to ask about the grammar of literary works is whether they use a standard form of the language. Authors can be constrained by social (p. 681) and cultural pressures to use a standard form but increasingly in literatures written in English there is a sense that anything goes. Literary fashions at times dictated which va­ riety of a language was acceptable for literary works, but this kind of linguistic snobbery is no longer the norm and geographical, social, and ethnic varieties are increasingly in use in mainstream as well as niche forms of literature. Much contemporary literature at­ tempts to replicate dialect forms in the written language, in the dialogue and sometimes also in the narration, particularly where the narrator is a character in the story. Examples of different dialect use include the novels of James Kelman (e.g., The Busconductor Hines and How Late it Was, How Late), which are written in a Glaswegian dialect; the No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency novels by Alexander McCall Smith who represents Botswanan English in his characters’ speech; Roddy Doyle whose novels (e.g., Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha; The Commitments) conjure up Irish dialects of English and Cormac McCarthy (e.g., Blood Meridian) whose characters and narration reflect the language of North America’s Page 8 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation Southwest. There are many others, of course, and the increasing informality of literary prose means that the boundary between dialect and informal language is increasingly in­ visible (see Hodson 2014 on the use of dialect in film and literature). Since the early twentieth century, writers have found themselves increasingly able to ex­ ercise choice of variety, yet sometimes these decisions can be politically charged. Writers who operated entirely in their native dialect in the more distant past were perhaps less conscious of making a decision than those using their dialect to contest oppressive regimes or to give voice to people with less access to prestigious forms of the language. The relationship between dialect literature and oppression, however, is not always straightforward. Whilst some writers (e.g., Irvine Welsh, who used code-switching be­ tween idiomatic Scots and Standard English in both the dialogue and narration of his nov­ el Trainspotting) might wish to assert their right to write in a non-standard dialect (or a minority language), others have been advised to do so by the powerful elites of dominant culture: Howells suggests that in order to assure both critical acclaim and commercial suc­ cess, the poet should dedicate himself to writing verses only in “black” dialect (Jarrett 2010: 178). Here, we see Jarrett’s representation of the advice from a benevolent, if patronising, liter­ ary reviewer and publisher, William Howells, to the poet and fiction writer Paul Laurence Dunbar (1872–1906), who was ‘torn between, on the one hand, demonstrating his com­ mitment to black political progress and, on the other, representing blacks as slaves and their language as dialect, which are what prominent literary critics and publishers ex­ pected of him and black writers in general’ (Jarrett 2010: 177). The representation of variation in language use has been a significant part of characteri­ zation at least since Chaucer’s time, when, as Phillips (2011: 40) says, ‘Chaucer’s fictional language lessons run counter to much conventional wisdom about late medieval multilin­ gual practice, as he celebrates enterprising poseurs instead of diligent scholars or elo­ quent courtiers’. Whilst Chaucer’s pilgrims were found code-switching repeatedly be­ tween English, French, and Latin, Shakespeare’s characters were more prone to (p. 682) being caricatured by isolated and repeated dialect forms such as ‘look you’ for the Welsh characters (e.g., Fluellen in Henry V or Evans in Merry Wives of Windsor) or incorrect Early Modern English grammar, such as ‘this is lunatics’ (Crystal 2008a: 222).

31.3.2 Representation of spoken/informal language in literature There are many ways in which grammatical variation is used to invoke the spoken lan­ guage in literary works, often to produce realism, but also to produce foregrounding by internally deviant uses of non-standard spoken forms contrasting with surrounding stan­ dard forms. The literary effects of this are wide-ranging, but include the kind of pathos we find in Yorkshire poet Tony Harrison’s poems about his (dead) parents, where the sounds and structures of his father’s voice, for example, are blended with the poet’s own Page 9 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation educated standard English style. Thus, we find the opening line of ‘Long Distance II’ in­ cludes ‘my mother was already two years dead’ (Harrison 1985: 133), where a standard version would change was dead to had been dead. Apart from advantages for the scansion and rhyme-scheme, this hints at the humble ori­ gins of the poet whose life has taken such a different path to those of his parents. Harrison’s evocation of his father in ‘Long Distance I’ includes non-standard demonstra­ tives preceding nouns such as ‘them sweets’ (instead of those sweets) which evoke the old man whose dialect the poet used to share. Much of Harrison’s early poetry relates his experience of becoming differentiated from his family background by his education and he mostly writes in Standard English where his ‘own’ voice is being represented. To find occasional hints of his earlier dialect in amongst the standard forms, then, directly refer­ ences his bifurcated identity and is a kind of iconic use of dialect forms to reflect the meaning of the poem directly. As well as including regional dialect forms, writers have increasingly adopted informal modes of expression, even in novels. Some writers adopt an almost entirely consistent spoken dialect (e.g., Irvine Welsh in Trainspotting) but others represent spoken language only in the reported speech of novels or the script of plays. Modern grammatical descrip­ tion based on spoken corpora of language has developed ways of identifying patterns in this informal usage of speakers (Carter and McCarthy 2006) which show that it is also highly structured. Examples include utterances that are grammatically indeterminate (e.g., Wow); phrases that function communicatively in context without clause structure (e.g., Oh that); aborted or incomplete structures (e.g., A bit) and back-channelling (e.g., Mm or Yeah) where speakers support each other (examples from Carter 2003; see also Dorgeloh and Wanner, this volume). The direct quoting of spoken language is a staple of narrative fiction and there are also clear grammatical regularities in any indirect quotation, so that present tense verbs take on a past form when quoted indirectly, first person becomes third person and (p. 683) any proximal deixis becomes distal. Thus I am coming home next Tuesday turns into He said he was going home the following Tuesday. These clear categories of direct and indirect speech, however, have been shown by stylistics to be more complex in practice, as there are other categories of speech presentation, including perhaps the most versatile and in­ teresting category, ‘free indirect speech’ (Leech and Short 2007: 260–70). With free indi­ rect speech, some of the lexis and grammatical form of the quoted speaker is included, al­ though some changes in form (i.e. tense, person, and deixis) match those for indirect speech. Thus, we might see He was coming home next Tuesday as a kind of blend of the two examples above, presenting the reader with both a narrated version of the speech and also something of the flavour of the original utterance, with the tense and person changed, but the deixis left intact. More or fewer of the features of indirect speech may be included, resulting in an apparently more or less faithful version of the original utter­ ance. However, context is crucial for understanding whose words are being represented, as the loss of quotation marks and reporting clause can make the utterance appear to be­ long to the narrator or implied author instead. Whilst not unique to literary texts, free in­ Page 10 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation direct speech is particularly useful to fiction-writers for blending the point-of-view of their characters with that of the narrator and/or implied author.

31.3.3 Representing cognitive patterns through ‘ungrammaticality’ One consequence of increasing variation in literary language is the experimentation with non-dialectal ‘ungrammaticality’ which has featured in many movements including mod­ ernist writing (e.g., Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, Virginia Woolf), L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry (e.g., Leslie Scalapino, Stephen Rodefer, Bruce Andrews) and feminist poetry (e.g., Fleur Adcock, U. A. Fanthorpe, Carol Rumens). The twentieth century in particular was a time when structuralist views of how human language worked induced in some writers the conviction that the language they spoke and used on a daily basis was inappropriate to their needs as artists, as it was likely to reproduce and rein­ force social attitudes and inequalities embedded in the community from which it arose. This view arose from popular versions of the ‘Whorfian hypothesis’ (or ‘Sapir–Whorf hy­ pothesis’; see Aarts et al. 2014) which, in its strong form, claimed that human beings were limited to thinking along lines laid out by the language they spoke. Feminists re­ sponded strongly to this theory as helping to explain some aspects of their oppression in a patriarchal society (see, for example, Spender 1980). Creative responses to this hypoth­ esis, now accepted in a much weaker form (that language influences thought rather than determining it), went beyond the more basic reaction against the (standard) language of a recognized oppressor, with the result that writers tried to reflect mental and emotional states directly through a fragmentary and ‘new’ form of the language. Here is an example from ‘Droplets’ by Carol Rumens, who, like other contempo­ rary poets, has responded to the freedom of challenging grammatical ‘correctness’ in her poems: (p. 684)

Tiniest somersaulter through unroofed centuries, puzzling your hooped knees as you helter-skelter, dreamy, careless,

Carol Rumens, ‘Droplets’ (Hex, Bloodaxe Books, 2002, p. 15)6 Not only does Rumens play with the morphology here, creating nouns from verbs (‘somer­ saulter’) and verbs from nouns (‘helter-skelter’) as well as possibly nonce-derived forms such as ‘unroofed’, she also fails to resolve the syntax by not introducing any main clause verbs until so late that they seem to have no real connection to the long series of images conjured up by multiple noun phrases and subordinate clauses. Her explanation for this (private communication) is that it is an ‘apostrophe’, a poetic form in which the speaker in a poem addresses someone or something not present. This may have influenced the

Page 11 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation long sequence of address forms, but it does not alter the fact that the syntax, by everyday standards, is stretched to the limit. These literary responses to language as a kind of socio-cultural straightjacket originally resulted in writing that was deemed ‘too difficult’ by the reading public, though in some cases, such as the poetry of T. S. Eliot, critics celebrated the innovations. Over time, how­ ever, writers reverted to exploiting in less extreme ways some of the flexibilities built into the ‘system’ of the language, bending the rules without completely abandoning them and relying on more subtle forms of foregrounding to communicate their meaning. In addi­ tion, poetry readers became more accustomed to seeing the grammar stretched in new ways and were better able to process the results. In a number of cases, such examples of gentle, but often repetitive grammatical abnor­ mality—or spoken forms—have been used to produce a particular kind of characterization to identify the neuro-atypicality of characters and indicate their unusual ways of seeing the world. This technique is labelled ‘mind-style’ in stylistics (Fowler 1977) and, unlike the modernist and other writers expressing their own angst in relation to the world, mind-style is a use of ungrammaticality to express—and to try to understand—the world view of people we may otherwise not comprehend. There are a few famous and well-studied novels that feature the language of a character whose cognitive processes differ from those of the majority population. These include, for example, characters with learning difficulties such as Benjy in Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury and characters who appear to lack the normal cognitive abilities of Homo sapi­ ens such as the Neanderthal, Lok, in Golding’s The Inheritors (Leech and Short 2007). Other studies have focussed on characters showing (p. 685) symptoms of high-functioning autism such as Christopher in Haddon’s The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime (Semino 2014). In the case of Benjy and Lok, from totally different worlds, but sharing a lack of under­ standing about causation, we find, for example, that transitive verbs are used without their objects, since the connections between the action and its effect are missing (Leech and Short 2007: 25–9 and 162–6 respectively). Here, for example, Benjy is describing a game of golf: ‘Through the fence, between the curling flower spaces, I could see them hit­ ting’. Possibly because of the distance (he is looking through the fence) or because he doesn’t understand the purpose of golf, Benjy just describes the actions of the golfers and leaves the normally transitive verb without its goal. The reader has to work out what is going on from this and similar sentences. In the case of Christopher, the linguistic correlates of his cognitive style include his lack of use of pro-forms, resulting in repetitive parallel structures (e.g., ‘I do not like proper novels. In proper novels people say…’) and his over-use of coordinated structures rather than subordinated structures (e.g., ‘I said that I wanted to write about something real and I knew people who had died but I did not know any people who had been killed, except Edward’s father from school, Mr Paulson, and that was a gliding accident, not murder, and I didn’t really know him’) (Semino 2014). In all these cases, the grammatical oddness Page 12 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation provides clues as to the character’s cognitive state, rather than an attempt to literally re­ produce the likely language of such a character. Similarly, where a short-term rather than a chronic cognitive impairment is depicted by textual means, the apparent breakdown of language may symbolically represent the men­ tal distress of the character, rather than directly representing their language use. An ex­ ample is the William Golding novel Pincher Martin, whose protagonist is drowning and where the stylistic choices reflect his mental state as his body parts appear to take on a life of their own: ‘His hand let the knife go’. A fuller analysis of this phenomenon in the novel can be found in Simpson (1993: 111–12) who shows that as Pincher Martin gets closer to death, the role of Actor in relation to material action clauses is increasingly tak­ en by either body parts or by inanimate entities such as ‘the lumps of hard water’ or ‘sea water’. Pincher Martin stops having agency and is reduced to an observer of his own demise.

31.4 Iconic grammar, creativity, and the reader The discussion of grammatical variation in literature in this section will compare literary style with general or statistical norms of grammatical behaviour in English. In consider­ ing grammatical aspects of literary style, there are interesting effects that poets can achieve by the subtlest of manipulations of the ‘normal’ grammatical resources of Eng­ lish. The effects examined below do, of course, occur in prose as well as poetry and in non-literary as well as literary texts, but they seem peculiarly concentrated in (p. 686) po­ ems as some of them are likely to have detrimental effects on comprehension in the more functional genres, which, unlike poetry, depend on conformity to norms of structure. Poet­ ic style depends a great deal on the local effects of individual stylistic choices made by the poet, which are therefore more often foregrounded effects, rather than cumulative background effects of a pattern of choices. However, some of these choices also build up over a text to produce a particular topographical effect which may provide the norm against which a later internally deviant feature could be contrasted. In this section I will use the semiotic concept of ‘iconicity’ to refer to the kind of direct meaning-making that emanates from certain grammatical choices made by poets. Whilst not as directly mimetic as the sound of a word (e.g., miaouw) representing the sound it refers to, this form of iconicity can be said to be mimetic insofar as it exploits the in­ evitable temporal processing of language (Jeffries 2010b). It is no surprise, then, to find that the speeding up and delaying of time in structural ways forms a large part of the iconicity to be found amongst grammatical choices in poetry.

31.4.1 Nominal versus verbal grammar and literary effect For convenience, we might argue that language use is largely made up of labelling/nam­ ing (Jeffries 2010a) and of the representation of processes and states. Roughly speaking, these divisions of meaning match nominal and verbal structures. The remainder of the language is largely subsumed into these divisions (e.g., adjectives often occur within Page 13 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation noun phrases; many adverbs are attached to verbs) and what is not accounted for in this way—mostly adverbials and a few adjectival complements—forms a tiny part of the whole. Whereas grammatical description is mainly concerned with the structures present in lin­ guistic data, stylisticians have an additional perspective based on their awareness that producers of text repeatedly make choices between different options. One of the most fre­ quent decisions that writers make, albeit subconsciously, is whether to put information in­ to the nominal or the verbal (or sometimes the adverbial) parts of the structure. It may seem surprising that such choices are available on a regular basis, but if we consider the option to nominalize processes, the existence of denominal verbs and the presence of processes within the modification of noun phrases, there is less of a clear division be­ tween nominal and verbal information than might seem to be the case at first sight. So, for example, the choice of a denominal verb in the opening of Sansom’s poem ‘Pota­ toes’ focuses more on the whole action than would the more standard me, putting them in a bucket: The soil turns neatly as he brings them to light; And me, bucketing them.

Peter Sansom, ‘Potatoes’ (Point of Sale, Carcanet, 2000, p. 45)7 This kind of inventiveness, using recognizable derivational processes, is standard fare for poets, but it demonstrates an important feature of grammatical variation in litera­ ture. In order to be able to understand creative uses of language, the reader must be able to refer to some systematic core of the language. In this case, we may be subconsciously aware of all sorts of container-to-action zero derivations of this kind in the standard vo­ cabulary (as in bottle the wine or box the eggs) which give us the pattern for the usage in this line. Note that we are unlikely to link it to an existing verbal meaning as in the rain was bucketing down unless it fits the context. (p. 687)

As with morphology, in syntax there are many examples where the decision to put infor­ mation either nominally or verbally has a literary effect. One of the reasons that Newlyn’s poem ‘Comfortable box’, about her childhood in Yorkshire, has the impact of a photo­ graph capturing a fleeting moment is because it is almost entirely made up of noun phras­ es, lacking a main-clause tensed verb, so there is no link to time, present or past: Nothing so cheerfully compact as the full fat cardboard box delivered Fridays, proudly stacked by our man from Groocock’s.

Lucy Newlyn, ‘Comfortable box’ (Ginnel, Carcanet, 2005, p. 43)8

Page 14 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation One could argue that there is an ellipted ‘dummy’ clause here (There is nothing so cheer­ fully compact…) but the effect would surely be different if one were to add the ‘missing’ elements, as the present tense seems at odds with what is clearly a memory while the past tense (There was nothing so cheerfully compact…) lacks the vividness of the origi­ nal. The choice made by the poet is not to follow the usual clause structure, thus avoiding what is normally expected in main clauses: that it will be located in some kind of time frame, rather than a photo frame. Noun phrases with no predicate are a common grammatical occurrence in casual conver­ sation, as for example in the answer to a question (Who stole the bike?—The man next door). However, these are normally interpreted in relation to some prior language, in this case the question. By contrast, the use of noun phrases with no further clause structure and no prior language is a staple of poetic language and common too in other literary forms. The reason for this is the variability of effect that can be achieved by naming things and people, with as much description as the author desires, but without fixing them into a time-limited, verbally mediated relationship with the context.

31.4.2 Verbal delay and other clausal variation If the lack of a main-clause tensed verb can produce in the reader the effect of timeless­ ness that the poem is trying to communicate, this is just one of the ways in (p. 688) which syntax can be iconic. Jeffries (2010b) argues that certain syntactic adjustments which di­ verge from the norms of English could be said to have a more or less directly iconic effect on the reader: Through the juxtaposition of subordinate clauses and main clauses, the poet may cause the reader not just to perceive but to actually experience some of the same feelings of frustration and resignation that are being described. (Jeffries 2010b: 113) In this case, the Fanthorpe poem ‘The Unprofessionals’ was under scrutiny. In this poem the feelings of someone being visited after something terrible (a bereavement?) had hap­ pened are reflected in the syntax as well as the semantics of the poem. Here the mainclause tensed verb together with its subject (‘They come’) arrives only after three lines of adverbial delay beginning ‘When the worst thing happens…’. This has the effect of a structural hiatus representing directly the feeling of disorientation after the ‘worst thing’ and before the relief of friends and neighbours starts to arrive with ‘They come’. The re­ mainder of the poem lacks further main-clause verbs (except a repeat of ‘they come’). The effect is to somewhat undermine the effect of relief since there is a very long list of non-fi­ nite verbs (holding, talking, sitting, doing etc.) which imply busyness, possibly without purpose or result. This effect is confirmed by informal discussions with readers of the po­ em who often vary between seeing the ‘unprofessionals’ as good people (i.e. informal re­ lief from the situation) or as bad people (i.e. busybodies who don’t know when to leave).

Page 15 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation There are very many similar examples, and not just in poetry, but here is a simple one from a poem by Helen Dunmore: The queue’s essentially docile surges get us very slowly somewhere.

Helen Dunmore, ‘The Queue’s Essentially’ (The Malarkey, Bloodaxe Books, 2012, p. 53) As argued elsewhere (e.g., Jeffries 2010b: 109), the English reader is keen to arrive at a main-clause verb in a sentence. One of the effects of the long noun phrases discussed in the last section is that the reader will be wondering when the verb is coming. In cases like the Newlyn extract discussed there, it never does and the reader has to learn to live outside time. In this short example from Dunmore, the verb does eventually arrive, but is still quite late after a relatively long subject (up to and including ‘surges’). The topic of the stanza, which observes how queues work, slowly but surely, is reflected in this initial wait (for the verb). Once the verbal element is arrived at, it is then followed immediately not by the obligatory locative complement (‘somewhere’) which the verb requires, but by an optional, and therefore potentially frustrating, adverbial of manner whose own struc­ ture includes a structurally unnecessary intensifier (‘very’) which also adds to the impres­ sion of waiting too long for syntactic closure. There are a number of ways of making the reader (of English at least) wait for the main clause verb of the sentence, including the use of a long subject, as we saw above, (p. 689)

and also the inclusion of a long optional adverbial or a string of adverbials as we see in the opening of Davidson’s poem ‘Margaret in the Garden’: With your new strappy sandals and summer top and sat in the one garden chair against the fence, with the light breeze lifting the hem of your skirt and the corners of your Saturday newspaper, you remind me of one of those domestic landscapes from between the wars, now so laden with foreboding that we feel worried when we look at them.

Jonathan Davidson, ‘Margaret in the Garden’ (Early Train, smith|doorstop, 2011, p. 16)9 The structure of this sentence is marked, because there is almost an excess of detail in the first four lines which act both informationally and grammatically as the preface to the main proposition (‘you remind me…’). This produces an effect like the opening frames of a film where the shot pans out from the detail of the clothing to show the garden chair, the fence, and then the wind’s minor effects on an otherwise static scene. There are a number of potential effects of waiting for the subject and main verb to arrive. Like the noun phrases with no clause structure, the scene remains somehow timeless, until the Page 16 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation verb is arrived at. In this particular case, the verb does not break the spell since it de­ scribes a relatively static process (‘remind’), which is then linked to a visual image (‘do­ mestic landscape’), confirming the snapshot or filmic effect of the first four lines. As we have seen in this section, the effect of playing with what grammarians might call ‘information structure’ (see Kaltenböck, this volume) can be to produce direct experi­ ences for readers responding to abnormal or exaggerated structural effects.

31.5 Conclusion This chapter has attempted to discuss the wide range of what can be said about grammat­ ical variation in literary texts and also illustrate in a little more detail some of the devel­ opments in stylistics to show how grammatical concerns are taken up in relation to liter­ ary texts. Literature has been shown to reflect everything from the reality of spoken vari­ ation through geographical or social dialects to the individual characteristics of fictional characters or the author’s attempt to convey something of the mental state of the narra­ tor or characters in their work. In addition, studies of the language of (p. 690) literature have tried to demonstrate how it may directly induce certain cognitive states in the read­ er through the manipulation of the norms of grammatical structure. Though stylistics has been often portrayed as a kind of applied version of linguistics prop­ er, there are many ways in which what it shows about textual meaning is central to the endeavours of linguistics in understanding and describing human language in all its forms (Jeffries 2015). Having developed a range of theories and models of textual mean­ ing, many of which focus on the reader’s perspective, stylistics has some questions to ask about grammatical structure and meaning which may be testing for theories of grammar. I have tried to show in this chapter that although there have been some specific literary registers in the past, and these may still exist in some languages, for much of literature, the resources on which it draws are identical to those for any other language use. The lit­ erary and aesthetic issues that arise are a kind of secondary effect derived from the nor­ mal effects of the same linguistic (including grammatical) features. These secondary ef­ fects arise in various ways, such as: • using non-standard varieties of language in unexpected contexts, genres, or manners • using ungrammaticality for particular literary effect (e.g., to represent breakdown of characters) • deviating from grammatical norms (e.g., length of subject) for iconic effect on reader • interpreting grammar in the light of the genre of the text. Grammatically deviant language can occur in a range of text types and genres, including advertising, and unlike the grammatical deviance of, for example, learners or those with speech and language pathologies, this deviation is deliberate (though not always self-con­ scious) and used for particular meaningful effect. As readers, we rely on our knowledge Page 17 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation of some kind of core grammatical system in order to interpret the new structures, and these same techniques are used to interpret unusual or accidental language encountered in non-literary situations. The next stage in understanding the grammar of literary works may well be to expand the range of grammatical and other theories that are used to ex­ plore literary meaning, in order to explain the interpretation of more or less deviant lan­ guage. This has already begun in cognitive stylistics (see, for example, Stockwell 2002) but there is more to be done. At the beginning of this chapter, we saw Sinclair’s claim that linguistic description need­ ed to ‘embrace’ literary usage as a natural part of human language and I have tried to demonstrate in the discussion above how literary style both depends on, and differs from, ordinary everyday language. If we are to explain how readers decode and interpret liter­ ary texts, we either have to posit a huge range of different abilities which are tuned to re­ spond to texts which look a bit like ‘normal’ language, but are different in kind, or we have to assume that the process of decoding and interpreting literary language a) is based on exactly the same skills and abilities as understanding (p. 691) everyday language and b) relies on this ‘normal’ experience to interpret those aspects of literary texts that diverge from the norm. Of course, I am arguing for the latter, and this brings with it a significant conclusion: that language users possess some kind of mentally stored core grammar on which they rely for understanding both regular and deviant texts. This is not to argue that these internal grammars of speakers are in existence from birth and it does not mean that they are im­ mutable. One possible view of grammatical understanding would be to accept that we de­ velop internal grammars through experience, that these grammars become relatively sta­ ble over time, but not completely unchanging—and that nevertheless they are stable enough to use as a baseline against which to judge and interpret new experiences, whether produced accidentally (as in the grammar of learners or impaired speakers) or deliberately (as in literary texts).

Reference Aarts, Bas, Sylvia Chalker, and Edmund Weiner (2014). The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burrows, John (1987). Computation into Criticism: A Study of Jane Austen’s Novels and an Experiment in Method. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Carter, Ron (2003). ‘The grammar of talk: Spoken English, grammar and the classroom’, in Qualifications and Currriculum Authority (ed), New Perspectives on English in the Classroom. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 5–13. Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English: A Com­ prehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 18 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation Carter, Ronald, and Walter Nash (1990). Seeing Through Language: A Guide to Styles of English Writing. Oxford: Blackwell. Conrad, Joseph (1993). Heart of Darkness. New York: Random House. Cook, Guy (1994). Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press. Crystal, David (2008a). Think on My Words: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, Jonathan (2009). ‘Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(1): 29–59. Douthwaite, John (2000). Towards a Linguistic Theory of Foregrounding. Alessandria: Edi­ zioni dell’Orso. Ehrlich, Victor (1965) [1955]. Russian Formalism: History and Doctrine. The Hague: Mou­ ton. Emmott, Catherine (1997). Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fligelstone, Steven, Mike Pacey, and Paul Rayson (1997). ‘How to generalize the task of annotation’, in Roger Garside, Geoff Leech, and Anthony McEnery (eds), Corpus Annota­ tion: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London: Longman, 122–36. Fligelstone, Steven, Paul Rayson, and Nicholas Smith (1996). ‘Template analysis: Bridg­ ing the gap between grammar and the lexicon’, in Jenny Thomas and Mick Short (eds), Using Corpora for Language Research. London: Longman, 181–207. Fowler, Roger (1977). Linguistics and the Novel. London: Methuen. Garside, Roger (1987). ‘The CLAWS word-tagging system’, in Roger Garside, Geoff Leech, and Geoff Sampson (eds), The Computational Analysis of English: A Corpus-based Ap­ proach. London: Longman. Garside, Roger, and Nicholas Smith (1997). ‘A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4,’ in Roger Garside, Geoff Leech, and Anthony McEnery (eds), Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London: Longman, 102–21. Gavins, Joanna (2007). Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univer­ sity Press. Harrison, Tony (1985). Selected Poems. London: Penguin Books. Ho, Yufang (2012). Corpus Stylistics in Principles and Practice: A Stylistic Exploration of John Fowles’ The Magus. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Page 19 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation Hodson, Jane (2014). Dialect in Film and Literature. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hoey, Michael (2005). Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge. Jarrett, Gene Andrew (2010). Companion to African American Literature. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Jeffries, Lesley (2010a). Critical Stylistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Jeffries, Lesley (2010b). ‘“The Unprofessionals”: Syntactic iconicity and reader interpreta­ tion in contemporary poems’, in Dan McIntyre and Beatrix Busse (eds), Language and Style. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 95–115. Jeffries, Lesley (2015). ‘Textual meaning and its place in a theory of language.’ Topics in Linguistics. 15(1), 1–10. Jeffries, Lesley, and Dan McIntyre (2010). Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kahan, Jeffrey (2015). ‘“I tell you what mine author says”: A Brief History of Stylomet­ rics.’ ELH: English Literary History 82(3): 815–44. Leech, Geoffrey N. (2008). Language in Literature: Style and Foregrounding. London: Pearson Education. Leech, Geoffrey N., and Mick Short (2007). Style in Fiction. London: Longman. Mahlberg, Michaela (2013). Corpus Stylistics and Dickens’s Fiction. New York/London: Routledge. Mahlberg, Michaela, Peter Stockwell, Johan de Joode, Catherine Smith, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell (2016). ‘CLiC Dickens: Novel uses of concordances for the integration of corpus.’ stylistics and cognitive poetics.’ Corpora 11(3): 433–63. McIntyre, Dan (2006). Point of View in Plays: A Cognitive Stylistic Approach to Viewpoint in Drama and Other Text-types. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Miall, David, and Don Kuiken (1994). ‘Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Re­ sponse to literary stories.’ Poetics 22: 389–407. Moss, L. (2014). Corpus Stylistics and Henry James’ Syntax. Unpublished PhD thesis. Lon­ don: University College London. Noyes, Alfred (1906). ‘The Highwayman.’ Blackwood’s Magazine vol. CLXXX: 244–7. Edin­ burgh: William Blackwood and Sons. Phillips, Susan (2011). ‘Chaucer’s language lessons’. The Chaucer Review 46(1 and 2): 39–59. Page 20 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation Rumens, Carol (2002). Hex. Hexham, Northumberland: Bloodaxe Books. Semino, Elena (2014). ‘Language, mind and autism in Mark Haddon’s The Curious Inci­ dent of the Dog in the Night-Time’, in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob (eds), Linguis­ tics and Literary Studies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 279–303. Simpson, Paul (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge. Sinclair, John (2004). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Rout­ ledge. Spender, Dale (1980). Man Made Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Stockwell, Peter (2002). Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Stubbs, Michael (2005) ‘Conrad in the computer: Examples of quantitative stylistic meth­ ods.’ Language and Literature 14(1): 5–24. Van Peer, Willie (1986). Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations of Foregrounding. Lon­ don: Croom Helm. Werth, Paul (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.

Notes: (1) With thanks to The Society of Authors as the Literary Representative of the Estate of Alfred Noyes for permission to use this extract. (2) Arguably, the Adverbials could instead be analysed as postmodifiers within the Com­ plement noun phrases. (3) See https://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1940-the-finest-hour for the full text and audio of this and other speeches by Churchill. Last accessed 14 March 2019. (4) Note, however, that identifying typical features of an author’s style is not the same as establishing beyond doubt who actually wrote a text. See Kahan (2015) for a sceptical his­ tory of stylometrics. (5) Started at the University of Nottingham, and now a collaboration with the University of Birmingham, this software was first developed to investigate the language of Dickens, but is now being developed for wider application to literary language. One of its features is the ability to locate direct speech in suspended quotations (where the reporting clause interrupts the quoted speech). See Mahlberg et al. (2016) for more information. (6) With thanks to Carol Rumens for permission to use this extract. (7) Extract used by permission of Carcanet Press Limited; © Carcanet Press Limited, Manchester, UK. Page 21 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Literary Variation (8) Extract used by permission of Carcanet Press Limited; © Carcanet Press Limited, Manchester, UK. (9) Extract used with permission of The Poetry Business, Sheffield, UK.

Lesley Jeffries

Lesley Jeffries is Professor of Linguistics and English Language at the University of Huddersfield, UK, where she has worked for most of her career. She is the co-author of Stylistics (2010, CUP) and Keywords in the Press (2017, Bloomsbury) and author of a number of books and articles on aspects of textual meaning including Opposition in Discourse (2010, Bloomsbury), Critical Stylistics (2010, Palgrave) and Textual Con­ struction of the Female Body (2007, Palgrave). She is particularly interested in the interface between grammar and (textual) meaning and is currently working on a new book investigating the meaning of contemporary poetry.

Page 22 of 22

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References

References   The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics Online Publication Date: Mar 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755104.004.0033

(p. 692)

(p. 693)

References

Aarts, Bas (1998). ‘English binominal noun phrases.’ Transactions of the Philological Soci­ ety 96(1): 117–58. Aarts, Bas (2001). ‘Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and Fuzzy Tree Fragments’, in Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt (eds), Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 5–13. Aarts, Bas (2005). ‘Subordination’, in Keith Brown (ed), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. (vol. 12). Oxford: Elsevier, 248–55. Aarts, Bas (2007a). Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press. Aarts, Bas (2007b). ‘In defence of distributional analysis, pace Croft.’ Studies in Language. 31: 431–43. Aarts, Bas (2011). Oxford Modern English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aarts, Bas (2012). ‘The subjunctive conundrum in English.’ Folia Linguistica 46(1): 1–20. Aarts, Bas (2018). English Syntax and Argumentation, 5th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Aarts, Bas, and Liliane Haegeman (2006). ‘English word classes and phrases’, in Bas Aarts and April MacMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 117–45. Aarts, Bas, and Sean Wallis (2014). ‘Noun phrase simplicity in spoken English’, in Ludmi­ la Veselovská and Markéta Janebová (eds), Complex Visibles Out There (Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure). Olo­ mouc: Palacký University, 501–11. Aarts, Bas, Sylvia Chalker, and Edmund Weiner (2014). The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page 1 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Aarts, Bas, Joanne Close, and Sean Wallis (2013). ‘Choices over time: Methodological is­ sues in current change’, in Bas Aarts, Joanne Close, Geoffrey Leech, and Sean Wallis (eds), The Verb Phrase in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14–45. Aarts, Bas, David Denison, Evelien Keizer, and Gergana Popova (eds) (2004). Fuzzy Gram­ mar: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aarts, Flor, and Jan Aarts (1988). English Syntactic Structures. New York/Leiden: Prentice Hall and Martinus Nijhoff (First published in 1982 by Pergamon Press). Abney, Steven P. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. thesis.Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Aboh, Enoch (2004). ‘Topic and Focus within D’, in Linguistics in the Netherlands 21. Am­ sterdam: John Benjamins, 1–12. Abraham, Werner (1998). ‘The aspectual source of the epistemic-root distinction of modal verbs’, in Winfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner, and Wolfgang Wild­ gen (eds), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In Memoriam Johannes Becher [Band 2: Beiträge zur Empirischen Sprachwissenschaft]. Tübingen: G. Narr, 231–49. Abraham, Werner, and Elisabeth Leiss (eds) (2008). Modality-Aspect Interfaces: Implica­ tions and Typological Solutions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Achard, Michel (2001). ‘The syntax of French raising verbs’, in Alan Cienki, Bar­ bara J. Luka, and Michael B. Smith (eds), Conceptual and Discourse Factors in Linguistic (p. 694)

Structure. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1–26. Achard, Michel (2007). ‘Complementation’, in Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 782–802. Ackema, Peter, and Maaike Schoorlemmer (1994). ‘The middle construction and the syn­ tax-semantics interface.’ Lingua, 93: 59–90. Ackerman, Farrell, Gregory T. Stump, and Gert Webelhuth (2011). ‘Lexicalism, periphra­ sis, and implicative morphology’, in Robert D. Borsley and Kersti Börjars (eds), Nontrans­ formational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 325–58. Acquaviva, Paolo, and Phoevos Panagiotidis (2012). ‘Lexical decomposition meets concep­ tual atomism.’ Lingue e Linguaggio 11: 105–20. Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos (1996). The Puzzle of Apposition: On So-called Appositive Structures in English. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos (2009). ‘Aspects of the grammar of close apposition and the structure of the noun phrase.’ English Language and Linguistics 13(3): 453–81.

Page 2 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Ades, Anthony E., and Mark Steedman (1982). ‘On the order of words.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 4(4): 517–58. Adger, David (2003). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adger, David (2013). A Syntax of Substance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Åfarli, Tor A. (2007). ‘Do verbs have argument structure?’, in Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhat­ tacharya, and Giorgos Spathas (eds), Argument Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–16. Ágel, Vilmos (2000). Valenztheorie. Tübingen: Narr. Ágel, Vilmos, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds) (2003). Dependenz und Valenz: Ein Internationales Handbuch Der Zeitgenössischen Forschung. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 1. Halbband/Volume 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Ágel, Vilmos, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds) (2006). Dependenz und Valenz: Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 2. Halbband/Volume 2. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2010). Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., and R. M. W. Dixon (eds) (2006). Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ainsworth-Darnell, Kim, Harvey G. Shulman, and Julie E. Boland (1998). ‘Dissociating brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies: Evidence from event-related poten­ tials.’ Journal of Memory and Language 38: 112–30. Aitchison, Jean (1991). Language Change: Progress or Decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz (1935). ‘Die syntaktische Konnexität.’ Studia Philosophica 1: 1–27. Translated as Ajdukiewicz (1967). Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz (1967). ‘Syntactic connexion’, in McCall Storrs (ed), Polish Logic, 1920–1939. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 207–231. Translation of Ajdukiewicz (1935). Akmajian, Adrian, and Adrienne Lehrer (1976). ‘NP-like quantifiers and the prob­ lem of determining the head of an NP.’ Linguistic Analysis 2(4): 395–413. (p. 695)

Page 3 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Alexiadou, Artemis (2010a). ‘Nominalizations: A probe into the architecture of grammar. Part I: the nominalization puzzle.’ Language and Linguistics Compass, 4: 496–511. Alexiadou, Artemis (2010b). ‘Nominalizations: A probe into the architecture of grammar. Part II: the aspectual properties of nominalizations, and the lexicon vs. syntax debate.’ Language and Linguistics Compass, 4: 512–23. Alexiadou, Artemis (2015). ‘Syntax and the lexicon’, in Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Handbücher zur Sprachund Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Verlag, 1089–1127. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer (2015). External Argu­ ments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman, and Melita Stavrou (2007). Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Alexiadou, Artemis, Monika Rathert, and Arnim von Stechow (eds) (2003). Perfect Explo­ rations. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Allan, Keith (2001). Natural Language Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. Allan, Keith, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds) (2015). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allen, Margaret Rees (1978). Morphological Investigations. Ph.D. thesis. Storrs, CT: Uni­ versity of Connecticut. Allerton, D. J. (1978). ‘The notion of “givenness” and its relation to presupposition and to theme.’ Lingua 44: 133–68. Allerton, D. J. (1982). Valency and the English Verb. London/New York: Academic Press. Allott, Stephen (1991). Lindley Murray 1745–1826. York: Sessions Book Trust. Allwood, Jens, Lars-Gunnar Andersson, and Östen Dahl (1977). Logic in Linguistics. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Al-Mutairi, Fahad Rashed (2014). The Minimalist Program: The Nature and Plausibility of Chomsky’s Biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aloni, Maria, and Paul Dekker (eds) (2016). The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Seman­ tics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alston, R. C. (1965). A Bibliography of the English Language from the Invention of Print­ ing to the Year 1800. Vol. 1. English Grammars Written in English. Leeds: E. J. Arnold. Alston, William (2000). Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca: Cornell Univer­ sity Press. Page 4 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Anderson, John. M. (2006). ‘Structural analogy and universal grammar.’ Lingua, 116: 601– 33. Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi­ ty Press. Anderson, Stephen R. (2015). ‘The morpheme: Its nature and use’, in Matthew Baerman (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Inflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–34. Anderwald, Lieselotte (2002). Negation in Non-Standard British English: Gaps, Regular­ izations and Asymmetries. London: Routledge. Anderwald, Lieselotte (2004). ‘The varieties of English spoken in the Southeast of Eng­ land: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 175–95. Anderwald, Lieselotte (2012). ‘Negation in Varieties of English’, in Raymond Hickey (ed), Areal Features of the Anglophone World. Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter, 299–328. Anderwald, Lieselotte, and Bernd Kortmann (2013). ‘Typological methods in di­ alectology’, in Manfred Krug and Julia Schlüter (eds), Research Methods in Language (p. 696)

Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 313–33. Andreou, Marios, and Angela Ralli (2012). ‘Revisiting exocentricity in compounding’, in Ferenc Kiefer, Mária Ladányi, and Péter Siptár (eds), Current Issues in Morphological Theory: (Ir)regularity, Analogy and Frequency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 65– 82. Andrews, Avery D. (1988). ‘Lexical structure’, in Frederick J. Newmeyer (ed), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 60–88. Andrews, Avery D. (2010). ‘Propositional glue and the architecture of LFG.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 33(3): 141–70. Anonymous (1785). The Art of Teaching in Sport. London: John Marshall. Anthony, Laurence (2005). ‘AntConc: Design and development of a freeware corpus analy­ sis toolkit for the technical writing classroom’, in: Proceedings of IPCC 2005, 729–37. Anttila, Arto, and Young-mee Yu Cho (1998). ‘Variation and change in optimality theory.’ Lingua, 104, 31–56. Arbini, Ronald (1969). ‘Tag-questions and tag-imperatives in English.’ Journal of Linguis­ tics 5: 205–14. Ariel, Mira (2009). ‘Discourse, grammar, discourse.’ Discourse Studies 11(1): 5–36. Arnauld, Antoine, and Claude Lancelot (1660). Grammaire Générale et Raisonnée. Paris: Pierre le Petit. Page 5 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Arnold, Doug, and Andrew Spencer (2015). ‘A constructional analysis for the skeptical’, in Stefan Müller (ed), Proceedings of the HPSG22 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publica­ tions, 41–60. Arnold, Jennifer E., Anthony Losongco, Thomas Wasow, and Ryan Ginstrom (2000). ‘Heav­ iness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on con­ stituent ordering.’ Language 76: 28–55. Aronoff, Mark (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronoff, Mark (1994). Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronoff, Mark, and Mark Lindsay (2014). ‘Productivity, blocking, and lexicalization’, in Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphol­ ogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67–83. Asudeh, Ash (2004). Resumption as Resource Management. Ph.D. thesis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Asudeh, Ash (2005a). ‘Control and semantic resource sensitivity.’ Journal of Linguistics 41: 465–511. Asudeh, Ash (2005b). ‘Relational nouns, pronouns, and resumption.’ Linguistics and Phi­ losophy 28(4): 375–446. Asudeh, Ash (2006). ‘Direct compositionality and the architecture of LFG’, in Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple, and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on Themes by Ronald M. Kaplan. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 363–87. Asudeh, Ash (2012). The Logic of Pronominal Resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Asudeh, Ash, and Gianluca Giorgolo (2012). ‘Flexible composition for optional and de­ rived arguments’, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 64–84. Asudeh, Ash, and Ida Toivonen (2014). ‘With lexical integrity.’ Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 175–86. Asudeh, Ash, Mary Dalrymple, and Ida Toivonen (2013). ‘Constructions with lexi­ cal integrity.’ Journal of Language Modelling 1(1): 1–54. (p. 697)

Asudeh, Ash, Gianluca Giorgolo, and Ida Toivonen (2014). ‘Meaning and valency’, in Miri­ am Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Page 6 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Costas Canakis, and Bert Cornillie (eds) (2006). Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Atkinson, Dwight (1992). ‘The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: The case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal.’ Applied Linguistics 13: 337–74. Atkinson, Dwight (1999). Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Atlas, Jay David (2004). ‘Presupposition’, in Horn and Ward (2004), 29–52. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bach, Emmon (1976). ‘An extension of classical transformational grammar’, in Problems of Linguistic Metatheory, 183–224. Michigan State University. Proceedings of the 1976 Conference. Bach, Kent (1994). ‘Conversational impliciture.’ Mind and Language 9(2): 124–62. Bach, Kent (2000). ‘Quantification, qualification and context: A reply to Stanley and Sz­ abó.’ Mind and Language 15(2–3): 262–83. Bach, Kent (2010). ‘Impliciture vs. explicature: What’s the difference?’, in Belén Soria and Esther Romero (eds), Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 126–37. Bach, Kent, and Robert M. Harnish (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett (2005). The Syntax-Morphol­ ogy Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baeskow, Heike (2015). ‘Semantic restrictions on word-formation: The English sufffix -ee’, in Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen and Franz Rainer (eds), Word-Forma­ tion: An International Handbook of the Languages of the World, vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 932–44. Baker, Mark C. (2003). Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Paul, and Erez Levon (2015). ‘Picking the right cherries? A comparison of corpusbased and qualitative analyses of news articles about masculinity.’ Discourse and Commu­ nication 9(2): 221–36. Baker, Robert G., and Philip T. Smith (1976). ‘A psycholinguistic study of English stress as­ signment rules.’ Language and Speech, 19: 9–27.

Page 7 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Barber, Charles (1993). The English Language: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bard, Ellen Gurman, Dan Robertson, and Antonella Sorace (1996). ‘Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability.’ Language 72: 32–68. Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (1953). ‘A quasi-arithmetical notation for syntactic description.’ Lan­ guage 29(1): 47–58. Barker, Chris (1992). ‘The dynamics of vagueness.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 25(1): 1– 36. Barker, Chris (1998). ‘Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on a new word formation.’ Language, 74: 695–727. Barker, Chris, and Pauline Jacobson (eds) (2007). Direct Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (p. 698)

Baron, Dennis (1989). Declining Grammar. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Barsky, Robert F. (1997). Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bartels, Christine (1999). The Intonation of English Statements and Questions: A Compo­ sitional Interpretation. New York: Garland. Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (2002). ‘On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization?’, in Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 345– 61. Bary, Corien, and Dag Haug (2011). ‘Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 4(8): 1–56. Bastiaansen, Marcel, Ali Mazaheri, and Ole Jensen (2011). ‘Beyond ERPs: Oscillatory neu­ ronal dynamics’, in Emily S. Kappenman and Steven J. Luck (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31–49. Bates, Elizabeth, and Brian MacWhinney (1987). ‘Competition, variation, and language learning’, in Brian MacWhinney (ed), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum, 157–94. Bauer, Laurie (1978). The Grammar of Nominal Compounding. Odense: Odense Universi­ ty Press. Bauer, Laurie (1983). English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie (1990). ‘Be-heading the word.’ Journal of Linguistics, 26: 1–31.

Page 8 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Bauer, Laurie (1997). ‘Derivational paradigms’, in Booij, Geert, and van Marle, Jaap (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 243–56. Bauer, Laurie (1998). ‘Is there a class of neoclassical compounds and is it productive?’ Linguistics, 36: 403–22. Bauer, Laurie (2000). ‘Word’, in Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan (eds), Morphology: An International Handbook of Inflection and Word-Formation. Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter, 247–57. Bauer, Laurie (2001a). Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie (2001b). ‘Compounds’, in Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, andWolfgang Raible (eds), Language Universals and Language Typology. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 695–707. Bauer, Laurie (2003). Introducing Linguistic Morphology. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edin­ burgh University Press. Bauer, Laurie (2016a). ‘Classical morphemics: Assumptions, extensions and alternatives’, in Andrew Hippisley and Gregory Stump (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 331–55. Bauer, Laurie (2016b). ‘Re-evaluating exocentricity in word-formation’, in Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley (eds), Morphological Metatheory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 461–77. Bauer, Laurie, and Rodney Huddleston (2002). ‘Lexical word-formation’, in Rodney Hud­ dleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1621–721. Bauer, Laurie, and Antoinette Renouf (2001). ‘A corpus-based study of compounding in English.’ Journal of English Linguistics 29: 101–23. Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber, and Ingo Plag (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to Eng­ lish Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baumgärtner, Klaus (1970). ‘Konstituenz und Dependenz’, in Hugo Steger (ed), Vorschläge für eine Strukturale Grammatik des Deutschen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 57−77. (p. 699)

Bazerman, Charles (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Ex­ perimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Bazerman, Charles (1997). ‘The life of genre, the life in the classroom’, in Wendy Bishop and Hans Ostrom (eds), Genre and Writing: Issues, Arguments, Alternatives. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann, 19–26. Page 9 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Beal, Joan (1993). ‘The grammar of Tyneside and Northumbrian English’, in James Milroy and Lesley Milroy (eds), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. London: Longman, 187–213. Beal, Joan (2004). ‘English dialects in the North of England: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar W. Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 114–41. Beal, Joan (2009). ‘300 years of prescriptivism (and counting)’. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Wim van der Wurff (eds) (2009) Current Issues in Late Modern English. Berlin: Peter Lang, 35–55. Beard, Robert (1988). ‘On the separation of derivation from affixation: Toward a lexeme/ morpheme based morphology’. Quaderni di semantica, 9: 3–59. Beard, Robert (1995). Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Stony Brook, NY: SUNY Press. Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de, and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. Beaver, David I. (1997). ‘Presupposition’, in van Benthem and ter Meulen (1997), 939– 1008. Beaver, David I., and Bart Geurts (2014). ‘Presupposition’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford Univer­ sity, Winter 2014 edn. Bell, Melanie J. (2012). ‘The English noun-noun construct: A morphological and syntactic object’, in Angela Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise, and Athanasios Karasimos (eds), Mor­ phology and the Architecture of Grammar, 59–91. https:// geertbooij.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/mmm8_proceedings.pdf (last accessed 5 April 2019). Bell, Melanie J., and Ingo Plag (2012). ‘Informativeness is a determinant of compound stress in English.’ Journal of Linguistics 48: 485–520. Bemis, Douglas K., and Liina Pylkkänen (2011). ‘Simple composition: A magnetoen­ cephalography investigation into the comprehension of minimal linguistic phrases.’ Jour­ nal of Neuroscience 31: 2801–14. Benczes, Réka (2006). Creative Compounding in English: The Semantics of Metaphorical and Metonymical Noun-Noun Combinations. Amsterdam/Philadephia: Benjamins. Bender, Emily M., and Ivan A. Sag (2000). ‘Incorporating contracted auxiliaries in Eng­ lish’. In Ronnie Cann, Claire Grover and Philip H. Miller (eds), Grammatical Interfaces in

Page 10 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References HPSG, number 8 in Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism, 17–32. Stanford: CSLI Publi­ cations. Ben-Shachar, Michal, Dafna Palti, and Yosef Grodzinsky (2004). ‘Neural correlates of syn­ tactic movement: Converging evidence from two fMRI experiments.’ Neuroimage 21: 1320–36. Ben-Shachar, Michal, Talma Hendler, Itamar Kahn, Dafna Ben-Bashat, and Yosef Grodzin­ sky (2003). ‘The neural reality of syntactic transformations: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging.’ Psychological Science 14: 433–440. Berg, Thomas (2000). ‘The position of adjectives on the noun–verb continuum.’ English Language and Linguistics, 4, 269–93. (p. 700)

Berko, Jean (1958). ‘The child’s learning of English morphology.’ Word 14: 150–77.

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2008). Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, and Kersti Borjars (2006). ‘Markedness in phonology and in syntax: The problem of grounding.’ Lingua, 116: 710–56. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, and Patrick Honeybone (2006). ‘Phonology and syntax: A shift­ ing relationship.’ Lingua, 116: 543–61. Berwick, Robert C., Paul Pietroski, Beracah Yankama, and Noam Chomsky (2011). ‘Pover­ ty of the stimulus revisited.’ Cognitive Science 35: 1207–42. Bianchi, Valentina (2000). ‘The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley.’ Lin­ guistic Inquiry 31: 123–40. Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Biber, Douglas (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas (2004). ‘Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5(1): 107–36. Biber, Douglas (2006a). ‘Stance in spoken and written university registers.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2): 97–116. Biber, Douglas (2006b). University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Writ­ ten Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Biber, Douglas (2012). ‘Register as a predictor of linguistic variation.’ Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 9–37.

Page 11 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Biber, Douglas, and Susan Conrad (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray (2010). ‘Challenging stereotypes about academic writ­ ing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 2– 20. Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray (2011). ‘Grammar emerging in the noun phrase: The in­ fluence of written language use.’ English Language and Linguistics 15: 223–50. Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray (2016). Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas, and Randy Reppen (eds) (2015). The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman. Bieswanger, Markus (2016). ‘Aviation English: Two distinct specialized registers?, in Christoph Schubert and Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (eds), Variational Text Linguis­ tics: Revisiting Register in English. (Topics in English Linguistics 90.) Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 67–86. Billig, Michael (2008). ‘The language of critical discourse analysis: the case of nominaliza­ tion.’ Discourse and Society, 19(6): 783–800. Binnick, Robert (1991). Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Binnick, Robert (2005). ‘The markers of habitual aspect in English.’ Journal of English Linguistics 33: 339–69. Binnick, Robert (2006). ‘Used to and habitual aspect in English.’ Style, 40: 33–45. Binnick, Robert (ed) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Birner, Betty J. (1994). ‘Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion.’ Language 70(2): 233–59. (p. 701)

Birner, Betty J. (1996). ‘Form and function in English by-phrase passives.’ Chicago Lin­ guistic Society 32: 23–31. Birner, Betty J. (2006). ‘Inferential relations and noncanonical word order’, in Betty J. Birner and Gregory Ward (eds), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Stud­ ies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 31–51. Page 12 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Birner, Betty J. (2013). Introduction to Pragmatics. Malden, MA.: Wiley-Blackwell. Birner, Betty J., and Gregory Ward (1998). Information Status and Noncanonical Word Or­ der in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Birner, Betty J., and Gregory Ward (2006). ‘Information structure’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 291–317. Blevins, James P. (2016). Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blevins, James P., and Ivan A. Sag (2013). ‘Phrase structure grammar’, in Marcel den Dikken (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 202–25. Bloch, B. (1947). ‘English verb inflection.’ Language, 23: 399–418. Bloomfield, Leonard (1933). Language. New York: Holt. Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice (2012). Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. Berlin: De Gruyter. BNC = The British National Corpus. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Ser­ vices on behalf of the BNC Consortium. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ (last accessed 6 June 2019). Also available through other interfaces, e.g. Davies (2004?). Boas, Hans C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publica­ tions. Boas, Hans C. (2011). ‘Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen’, in Stefan En­ gelberg, Anke Holler, and Kristel Proost (eds), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 37–69. Boas, Hans C. (2013). ‘Cognitive construction grammar’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 233–52. Boas, Hans C. (2014). ‘Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin.’ Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 89–112. Bobaljik, Jonathan David (2012). Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Su­ perlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bobaljik, Jonathan David (2015). ‘Distributed Morphology’, MS accessed at: http:// bobaljik.uconn.edu/papers/DM_ORE.pdf on 5 April, 2019. Bodomo, Adams (2005). ‘Joan Bresnan’, in Philipp Strazny (ed), Encyclopedia of Linguis­ tics. New York: Fitzroy Dearborn, 153–5.

Page 13 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Boeckx, Cedric (2006). Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein, and Jairo Nunes (2010). Control as Movement. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Boehm, Barry (1986). ‘A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement’. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 11:4, 14–24. Boersma, Paul, and. D. Weenink (1992–2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Ver­ sion 6.0.40) [http://www.praat.org]. Bolinger, Dwight (1972). ‘Accent is predictable (if you’re a mind-reader).’ Language, 48: 633–44. Bolinger, Dwight (1977). Meaning and Form. London: Longman. Bolinger, Dwight (1978a). ‘Intonation across languages’, in Joseph H. Greenberg (ed), Universals of Human Language. Volume 2: Phonology. Stanford: Stanford University Press. (p. 702)

Bolinger, Dwight (1978b). ‘A semantic view of syntax: Some verbs that govern infinitives’, in Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Edgar C. Polomé, and Werner Winter (eds), Linguistic and Lit­ erary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill. The Hague: Mouton, 9–19. Bonami, Olivier, and Gilles Boyé (2003). ‘Supplétion et classes flexionnelles dans la conju­ gaison du français.’ Langages, 152: 102–26. Bonami, Olivier, and Gregory Stump (2016). ‘Paradigm function morphology’, in Andrew Hippisley and Gregory Stump (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 449–481. Booij, Geert (2007). The Grammar of Words. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert (2011). ‘Morpheme structure constraints’, in Marc Van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume and Keren Rice (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Ox­ ford: Blackwell. Booij, Geert (2013). ‘Morphology in construction grammar’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Ox­ ford University Press, 255–73. Borer, Hagit (1994). ‘The projection of arguments’, in Elena Benedicto and Jeffrey Runner (eds), Functional Projections, vol. 17 of University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, 19–47. Borer, Hagit (2005a). In Name Only, vol. 1 of Structuring Sense. Oxford: Oxford Universi­ ty Press. Page 14 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Borer, Hagit (2005b). The Normal Course of Events, vol. 2 of Structuring Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, Hagit (2013). Taking Form, vol. 3 of Structuring Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borge, Steffen (2013). ‘Questions’, in Marina Sbisà and Ken Turner (eds), Pragmatics of Speech Actions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 411–43. Borik, Olga (2006). Aspect and Reference Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bornkessel, Ina, and Matthias Schlesewsky (2006). ‘The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages.’ Psycho­ logical Review 113: 787–821. Bornkessel, Ina, Stefan Zysset, Angela D. Friederici, D. Yves von Cramon, and Matthias Schlesewsky (2005). ‘Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension.’ Neuroimage 26: 221–33. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, and Matthias Schlesewsky (2008). ‘An alternative perspec­ tive on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension.’ Brain Research Reviews 59: 55–73. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Matthias Schlesewsky, and D. Yves von Cramon (2009). ‘Word order and Broca’s region: Evidence for a supra-syntactic perspective.’ Brain and Language 111: 125–39. Borsley, Robert D. (1997). ‘Relative clauses and the theory of phrase structure.’ Linguistic Inquiry 28: 629–47. Borsley, Robert D. (2005). ‘Against ConjP.’ Lingua 115: 461–82. Borsley, Robert D. (2011). ‘Constructions, functional heads and comparative correlatives’, in Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Se­ mantics 8, 7–26. Borsley, Robert D. (2012). ‘Don’t move!’ IBERIA 4: 110–39. Bošković, Željko (2011). ‘Last resort with move and agree in derivations and rep­ resentations’, in Cedric Boeckx (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press, 327–53. (p. 703)

Bouma, Gosse, Robert Malouf, and Ivan A. Sag (2001). ‘Satisfying constraints on extrac­ tion and adjunction.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 1–65. Bowerman, Sean (2004). ‘White South African English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 948–61. Page 15 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Bowers, John (1993). ‘The syntax of predication.’ Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656. Bowie, Jill, and Bas Aarts (2016). ‘Clause fragments in English dialogue’, in María José López-Couso, Belén Méndez-Naya, Paloma Núñez-Pertejo, and Ignacio M. PalaciosMartínez (eds), Corpus Linguistics on the Move: Exploring and Understanding English Through Corpora (Language and Computers: Studies in Digital Linguistics, 79). Leiden/ Boston: Brill Rodopi, 259–88. Bowie, Jill, and Sean Wallis (2016). ‘The to-infinitival perfect: A study of decline’, in Valentin Werner, Elena Seoane, and Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds), Re-assessing the Present Perfect. Topics in English Linguistics (TiEL) 91. Berlin: De Gruyter, 43–94. Bowie, Jill, Sean Wallis, and Bas Aarts (2013). ‘Contemporary change in modal usage in spoken British English: Mapping the impact of “genre”’, in Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita, and Johan van der Auwera (eds), English Modality: Core, Pe­ riphery and Evidentiality. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 57–94. Boyé, Gilles, and Gauvain Schalchli (2016). ‘The status of paradigms’, in Andrew Hippis­ ley and Gregory Stump (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press, 206–34. Boye, Kasper, and Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds) (2010). Language Usage and Lan­ guage Structure. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Boye, Kasper, and Peter Harder (2014). ‘(Inter)subjectification in a functional theory of grammaticalization.’ Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 46: 7–24. Brazil, David (1995). A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Breban, Tine, and Caroline Gentens (2016). ‘Multiple pathways: New views on pathways and mechanisms of grammaticalization in the English noun phrase.’ Functions of Lan­ guage 23(1): 62–81. Breivik, Leiv Egil (1981). ‘On the interpretation of existential there.’ Language 57(1): 1– 25. Brekle, Herbert E. (1970). Generative Satzsemantik und Transformationelle Syntax im System der Englischen Nominalkomposition. Munich: Fink. Brems, Lieselotte (2011). Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brems, Lieselotte, and Kristin Davidse (2010). ‘The grammaticalisation of nominal type noun constructions with kind/sort of: Chronology and paths of change.’ English Studies 91: 180–202. Brennan, Jonathan, and Liina Pylkkänen (2017). ‘MEG evidence for incremental sentence composition in the anterior temporal lobe.’ Cognitive Science 41(S6): 1515–31. Page 16 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Brennan, Jonathan, Yuval Nir, Uri Hasson, Rafael Malach, David J. Heeger, and Liina Pylkkänen (2010). ‘Syntactic structure building in the anterior temporal lobe during nat­ ural story listening.’ Brain and Language 120: 163–73. Brentari, Diane (2011). ‘Sign language phonology’, in John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan C. L. Yu (eds), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 691–721. (p. 704)

Bresnan, Joan (1976). ‘Nonarguments for raising.’ Linguistic Inquiry 7: 485–501.

Bresnan, Joan (1978). ‘A realistic transformational grammar’, in Morris Halle, Joan Bres­ nan, and George A. Miller (eds), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–59. Bresnan, Joan (ed) (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cam­ bridge, MA: MIT Press. Bresnan, Joan (2001). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Bresnan, Joan (2007). ‘Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation.’ Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base (Studies in Genera­ tive Grammar 96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 75–96. Bresnan, Joan, and J. Grimshaw (1978). ‘The syntax of free relatives in English.’ Linguistic Inquiry 9: 331–91. Bresnan, Joan, and Jennifer Hay (2008). ‘Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English.’ Lingua 118(2): 245–59. Bresnan, Joan, and Ronald M. Kaplan (1982). ‘Introduction: Grammars as mental repre­ sentations of language’, in Joan Bresnan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, xvii–lii. Bresnan, Joan W., Ash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen, and Stephen Wechsler (2016). Lexical-Func­ tional Syntax. Second edition. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Bresnan, Joan W., Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and R. Harald Baayen (2007). ‘Predicting the dative alternation’, in Gerlof Bourne, Irene Kraemer, and Joost Zwarts (eds), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 69– 94. Brezina, Vaclav, and Miriam Meyerhoff (2014). ‘Significant or random?: A critical review of sociolinguistic generalisations based on large corpora.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(1): 1–28. Brinton, Laurel J. (1996). Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Page 17 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Brisard, Frank (2002). ‘Introduction: The epistemic basis of deixis and reference’, in Frank Brisard (ed), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, xi–xxxiv. Briscoe, Ted (1997). ‘Robust Parsing’, in Ronald Cole, Joseph Mariani, Hans Uszkoreit, Annie Zaenen, and Victor Zue (eds), Survey of the State of the Art in Human Language Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 121–2. Broccias, Cristiano (2012). ‘The syntax-lexicon continuum’, in Terttu Nevalainen and Eliz­ abeth Closs Traugott (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press, 735–47. Broccias, Cristiano, and Willem B. Hollmann (2007). ‘Do we need summary and sequen­ tial scanning in (Cognitive) grammar?’ Cognitive Linguistics 18: 487–522. Bromberger, Sylvain, and Morris Halle (1989). ‘Why phonology is different.’ Linguistic In­ quiry, 20: 51–70. Brown, Dunstan, and Andrew Hippisley (2012). Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Gillian, and George Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Brown, Goold (1851). The Grammar of English Grammars. New York: Samuel S. and William Wood. Brown, Roger (1957). ‘Linguistic determinism and the part of speech.’ The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55: 1. (p. 705)

Bruening, Benjamin (2018). ‘The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous.’ Lan­ guage 94(1): 1–42. Bullokar, William (1586). William Bullokar’s Pamphlet for Grammar. London: Edmund Bol­ lifant. Büring, Daniel (1997). The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge. Büring, Daniel (2005). Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Büring, Daniel (2016). ‘(Contrastive) Topic’, in Caroline Féry and Shin Ishihara (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burridge, Kate (2004). ‘Synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in the Pacific and Australasia’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 1116–31.

Page 18 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Burridge, Kate (2014). ‘Cos – a new discourse marker for Australian English?’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(4): 524–48. Burrows, John (1987). Computation into Criticism: A Study of Jane Austen’s Novels and an Experiment in Method. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Burton-Roberts, Noel (1975). ‘Nominal apposition.’ Foundations of Language 13: 391– 419. Burton-Roberts, Noel, and Geoffrey Poole (2006). ‘Syntax vs. phonology: A representa­ tional approach to stylistic fronting and verb-second in Icelandic.’ Lingua, 116: 562–600. Butler, Charles (1634). English Grammar. Oxford: Turner. Butler, Christopher S. (2003). Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major StructuralFunctional Theories. 2 volumes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Butler, Christopher S., and Francisco Gonzálvez-García (2014). Exploring Functional-Cog­ nitive Space. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L. (1988). ‘The diachronic dimension in explanation’, in John A. Hawkins (ed), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 350–79. Bybee, Joan L. (1998). ‘A Functionalist approach to grammar and its evolution.’ Evolution of Communication 2(2): 249–78. Bybee, Joan L. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, Joan L. (2003). ‘Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequen­ cy’, in Brian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguis­ tics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bybee, Joan L. (2006). ‘From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition.’ Lan­ guage 82(4): 711–33. Bybee, Joan L. (2007). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press. Bybee, Joan L. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi­ ty Press. Bybee, Joan L. (2013). ‘Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of construc­ tions’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Con­ struction Grammar. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 49–69.

Page 19 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Bybee, Joan L., and Suzanne Fleischman (eds) (1995). Modality in Grammar and Dis­ course. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L., and Paul J. Hopper (2001). ‘Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure’, in Joan Bybee L. and Paul J. Hopper (eds), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1– 24. (p. 706)

Bybee, Joan L., and Paul J. Hopper (eds) (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguis­ tic Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L., and William Pagliuca (1985). ‘Cross-linguistic comparison and the devel­ opment of grammatical meaning’, in Jacek Fisiak (ed), Historical Semantics and Historical Word-Formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 59–83. Bybee, Joan L., and William Pagliuca (1987). ‘The evolution of future meaning’, in Anna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba, and Giuliano Bernini (eds), Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins, 109–22. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca (1991). ‘Back to the future’, in Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17–58. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca (1994). The Evolution of Gram­ mar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Campbell, Lyle (2006). ‘Areal linguistics’, in Keith Brown (ed), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, Vol. I, 454–60. Oxford: Elsevier. Cann, Ronnie, Ruth Kempson, and Lutz Marten (2005). The Dynamics of Language: An In­ troduction (Syntax and Semantics, 35). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Caplan, David, Nathaniel Alpert, and Gloria Waters (1999). ‘PET studies of syntactic pro­ cessing with auditory sentence presentation.’ Neuroimage 9: 343–51. Cappelle, Bert, and Ilse Depraetere (2016). ‘Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons.’ Constructions and Frames, 8(1): 7–39. Cardinaletti, Anna (2004). ‘Toward a cartography of subject positions’, in Luigi Rizzi (ed), The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 115–65. Carnap, Rudolf (1947). Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Page 20 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Carnie, Andrew (2013). Syntax: A Generative Introduction, 3rd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Black­ well. Carpenter, Bob (1997). Type-Logical Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carr, Philip, and Patrick Honeybone (2007). ‘English phonology and linguistic theory: An introduction to issues, and to “Issues in English Phonology”.’ Language Sciences, 29: 117–53. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (2002). An Introduction to English Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Carston, Robyn (1988). ‘Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics’, in Ruth M. Kempson (ed), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–81. Carston, Robyn (2000). ‘Explicature and Semantics’, in UCL Working Papers in Linguis­ tics. London: University College London, 1–44. Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communica­ tion. Oxford: Blackwell. Carston, Robyn (2004). ‘Explicature and Semantics’, in Davis and Gillon (2004), 817–45. Revision of Carston (2000). Carter, Ron (2003). ‘The grammar of talk: Spoken English, grammar and the classroom’, in Qualifications and Currriculum Authority (ed), New Perspectives on Eng­ (p. 707)

lish in the Classroom. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 5–13. Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English: A Com­ prehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, Ronald, and Walter Nash (1990). Seeing Through Language: A Guide to Styles of English Writing. Oxford: Blackwell. Cassidy, Kimberley Wright, and Michael H. Kelly (1991). ‘Phonological information for grammatical category assignments.’ Journal of Memory and Language, 30: 348–69. Cassidy, Kimberley Wright, and Michael H. Kelly (2001). ‘Children’s use of phonology to infer grammatical class in vocabulary learning.’ Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 8: 519– 23. Cattell, Ray (1973). ‘Negative transportation and tag questions.’ Language 49: 612–39. Cauthen, John V. (2012). Chasing the Wind. Exlibris (ebook), 29. Chafe, Wallace L. (1976). ‘Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view’, in Charles N. Li (ed), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 22–55.

Page 21 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Chafe, Wallace L. (1987). ‘Cognitive constraints on information flow’, in Russell S. Tomlin (ed), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21–51. Chafe, Wallace L. (1991). ‘Grammatical subjects in speaking and writing.’ Text 11: 45–72. Chafe, Wallace L. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displace­ ment of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chafe, Wallace L. (2002). ‘Searching for meaning in language: A memoir.’ Historiographia Linguistica 29: 245–61. Chapin, Paul (1972). Review of Integration of Transformational Theories of English Syn­ tax. Language 48: 645–67. Chapman, Siobhan (2011). Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chaves, Russell S. (2008). ‘Linearization-based word-part ellipsis.’ Linguistics and Philos­ ophy 31: 261–307. Chemla, Emmanuel (2009). ‘Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 2(2): 1–33. Chemla, Emmanuel, and Benjamin Spector (2011). ‘Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures.’ Journal of Semantics 28(3): 359–400. Chen, Danqi, and Christopher D. Manning (2014). ‘A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks’, in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Doha, Qatar: ACL, 740–50. Available at: https:// cs.stanford.edu/~danqi/papers/emnlp2014.pdf. Chen, Evan, W. Caroline West, Gloria Waters, and David Caplan (2006). ‘Determinants of BOLD signal correlates of processing object-extracted relative clauses.’ Cortex 42: 591– 604. Chen, Rong (2003). English Inversion: A Ground-Before-Figure Construction. Berlin: Mou­ ton de Gruyter. Cheshire, Jenny, Viv Edwards, and Pamela Whittle (1993). ‘Non-standard English and di­ alect levelling’, in James Milroy and Lesley Milroy (eds), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. London/New York: Longman, 53–96. Cheshire, Jenny, Paul Kerswill, Sue Fox, and Eivind Torgersen (2011). ‘Contact, the fea­ ture pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English.’ Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15: 151–96.

Page 22 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Chierchia, Gennaro (2004). ‘Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface’, in Adriana Belletti (ed), Structures and Beyond, vol. 3 of The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–103. (p. 708)

Chierchia, Gennaro (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chierchia, Gennaro, and Sally McConnell-Ginet (2000). Meaning and Grammar: An Intro­ duction to Semantics, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector (2012). ‘The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics’, in Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds) (2012), 2297–332. Chilton, Paul (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Rout­ ledge. Chilton, Paul (2005). ‘Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct’, in Ruth Wodak and Paul Chilton (eds), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins, 19–52. Chomsky, Noam (1955/1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago: Uni­ versity of Chicago Press. Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam (1964a). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam (1964b). ‘Formal discussion’, in Ursula Bellugi and Roger Brown (eds), The Acquisition of Language. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press, 35–9. Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1970). ‘Remarks on nominalization’, in Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, 184–221. Chomsky, Noam (1971). ‘Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation’, in Danny Steinberg and Leon Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183– 216. Chomsky, Noam (1973). ‘Conditions on transformations’, in Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky (eds), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 232–86. Chomsky, Noam (1974). The Amherst lectures. Unpublished lecture notes distributed by Documents Linguistiques. Paris: University of Paris VII. Page 23 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Chomsky, Noam (1977). ‘On wh-movement’, in Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adri­ an Akmajian (eds), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 71–132. Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publica­ tions. Chomsky, Noam (1982). The Generative Enterprise: A Discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Chomsky, Noam (1986a). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1986b). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam (1993). ‘A minimalist program for linguistic theory’, in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Syl­ vain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52. Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (2002). On Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam (2004). ‘Beyond explanatory adequacy’, in Adriana Belletti (ed), Struc­ tures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–31. (p. 709)

Chomsky, Noam (2013). ‘Problems of projection.’ Lingua 130: 33–49.

Chomsky, Noam (2015). ‘Problems of projection: Extensions’, in Elisa Di Domenico, Cor­ nelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini (eds), Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–16. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harp­ er and Row. Christian, Donna (1991). ‘The personal dative in Appalachian speech’, in Peter Trudgill and Jack K. Chambers (eds), Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation. Lon­ don: Longman, 11–17. Chung, Sandra (2013). ‘Syntactic identity in sluicing: How much and why.’ Linguistic In­ quiry 44: 1–44. Church, Kenneth (2000). ‘Empirical estimates of adaptation: The chance of two Noriega’s is closer to p/2 than p2.’ Proceedings of COLING 2000, 173–9. Cinque, Guglielmo (1993). ‘A null theory of phrase and compound stress.’ Linguistic In­ quiry, 24: 239–97.

Page 24 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Cinque, Guglielmo (1994). ‘Evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP’, in Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds), Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard Kayne. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 85–110. Cinque, Gugliemo, and Luigi Rizzi (2008). ‘The cartography of syntactic structures.’ Stud­ ies in Linguistics, University of Siena CISCL Working Papers, 2: 42–58. Clark, Herbert H., and Susan E. Haviland (1977). ‘Comprehension and the given-new con­ tract’, in Roy O. Freedle (ed), Discourse Production and Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1–40. Clarke, Sandra (2004). ‘Newfoundland English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kort­ mann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 303–18. Close, Joanne, and Bas Aarts (2010). ‘Current change in the modal system of English. A case study of must, have to and have got to’, in Ursula Lenker, Judith Huber, and Robert Mailhammer (eds), The History of English Verbal and Nominal Constructions. Volume 1 of English Historical Linguistics 2008: Selected papers from the fifteenth International Con­ ference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 15), Munich, 24–30 August 2008. Ams­ terdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 165–82. Coates, Jennifer (1983). The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croon Helm. Coates, Jennifer (1995). ‘The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English’, in Bybee and Fleischman (eds) (1995), 55–66. COCA = Mark Davies (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990–present. Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/ coca/ (last accessed 25 May 2019). Coene, Martina, and Yves D’hulst (2003). ‘Theoretical background’, in Martina Coene and Yves D’hulst (eds), From NP to DP. Vol. 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. Am­ sterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–33. Coffin, Caroline, Theresa Lillis and Kieran O’Halloran (2010). Applied Linguistics Meth­ ods: A Reader: Systemic Functional Linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis and Ethnogra­ phy. London/Milton Keynes: Routledge and The Open University. Cohen, Mike X. (2014). Analyzing Neural Time Series Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Collins, Chris (2005). ‘A smuggling approach to the passive in English.’ Syntax 8: 81–120. Collins, Peter (1991). Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English. London/New York: Routledge. (p. 710)

Collins, Peter (1994). ‘Extraposition in English.’ Functions of Language 1(1): 7–24.

Page 25 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Collins, Peter (1995). ‘The indirect object construction in English: An informational ap­ proach.’ Linguistics 33(1): 35–49. Collins, Peter (2009). Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Collins, Peter, and Pam Peters (2004). ‘Australian English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds), (2004), 593–610. Collins COBUILD English Grammar (1990). Editor-in-chief John Sinclair. London/Glasgow: Collins. Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (1987). Editor-in-chief John Sinclair. Lon­ don/Glasgow: Collins. Comrie, Bernard (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard (1989). ‘On identifying future tenses’, in Werner Abraham and Theo Janssen (eds), Tempus-Aspekt-Modus. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 51–63. Condoravdi, Cleo, and Stefan Kaufmann (eds) (2005). Special issue on Modality and Tem­ porality. Journal of Semantics 22. 2. Conrad, Joseph (1993). Heart of Darkness. New York: Random House. Cook, Guy (1994). Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press. Cook, Walter A. (1969). Introduction to Tagmemic Analysis. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Copestake, Ann, Dan Flickinger, Carl Pollard, and Ivan A. Sag (2005). ‘Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction.’ Research on Language and Computation 3(4): 281–332. Corbett, Greville G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. (2010). ‘Canonical derivational morphology.’ Word Structure, 2: 141– 55. Corver, Norbert (1998). ‘Predicate movement in pseudopartitives constructions’, in Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder (eds), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 215–58. Coseriu, Eugene (1977). ‘Inhaltliche Wortbildungslehre (am Beispiel des Typs Coupe-papi­ er)’, in Herbert E. Brekle and Dieter Kastovsky (eds), Perspektiven der Wortbildungs­ forschung. Bonn: Grundmann, 46–61. Page 26 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Coulson, Seana, and Todd Oakley (2005). ‘Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figu­ rative meaning in cognitive semantics.’ Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1510–36. Coulson, Seana, Jonathan W. King, and Marta Kutas (1998). ‘Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 13: 21–58. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2011). ‘Grammaticalization and conversation’, in Narrog and Heine (2011), 424–37. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono (2007). ‘Incrementing in conversation: A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese.’ Pragmatics 17(4): 513–52. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting (2018). Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cowart, Wayne (1997). Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van, and Jason Merchant (2013). ‘Ellipsis phenomena’, in Marcel den Dikken (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1427–520. (p. 711)

Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van, and Tanja Temmerman (eds) (2018). The Oxford

Handbook of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crain, Stephen, and Janet Dean Fodor (1985). ‘How can grammars help parsers?’, in David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen, and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), Natural Language Parsing: Psycholinguistic, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 94–128. Cristofaro, Sonia (2003). Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crnič, Luka, Emmanuel Chemla, and Danny Fox (2015). ‘Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunction.’ Natural Language Semantics 23(4): 271–305. Croft, William (1990). ‘A conceptual framework for grammatical categories (or: a taxono­ my of propositional acts).’ Journal of Semantics 7: 245–79. Croft, William (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Or­ ganization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Croft, William (2000). ‘Parts of speech as typological universals and as language particu­ lar categories’, in Petra Maria Vogel and Bernard Comrie (eds), Approaches to the Typolo­ gy of Word Classes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 65–102. Croft, William (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page 27 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Croft, William (2002). Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press. Croft, William (2003). ‘Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy’, in Hubert Cuy­ ckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 49–68. Croft, William (2004). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, William (2007a). ‘Construction grammar’, in Hubert Cuyckens and Dirk Geeraerts (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 463–508. Croft, William (2007b). ‘The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience.’ Cogni­ tive Linguistics 18: 339–82. Croft, William (2012). Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press. Croft, William (2014). Morphosyntax. MS. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. Croft, William (2015). ‘Grammar: Functional approaches’, in James D. Wright (ed), Inter­ national Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn, vol. 9. Oxford: El­ sevier, 470–5. Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruttenden, Alan (1979). Language in Infancy and Childhood. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Cruttenden, Alan (2001). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruttenden, Alan (2006). ‘The de-accenting of given information: a cognitive universal?’, in Bernini, Giuliano and Schwartz, Marcia L. (eds), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 311–56. Crystal, David (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David (1997). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 4th edn. Oxford: Black­ well. Crystal, David (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 28 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Crystal, David (2008a). Think on My Words: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (p. 712)

Crystal, David (2008b). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 5th edn. Oxford: Black­ well. Crystal, David (2009). Just a Phrase I’m Going Through. London: Routledge. Crystal, David, and Derek Davy (1969). Investigating English Style. London: Longman. Culicover, Peter W. (1999). Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Culicover, Peter W. (2009). Natural Language Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray S. Jackendoff (1999). ‘The view from the periphery: The Eng­ lish comparative correlative.’ Linguistic Inquiry 30: 543–71. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Culicover, Peter W., and Michael S. Rochemont (1983). ‘Stress and focus in English.’ Lan­ guage 59: 123–65. Culpeper, Jonathan (2009). ‘Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(1): 29–59. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Merja Kytö (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues. Spoken In­ teraction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cumming, Susanna, Tsuyoshi Ono, and Ritva Lauri (2006). ‘Discourse, grammar and in­ teraction’, in Van Dijk, Teun A. (ed), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, vol. 1, 2nd edn. London: SAGE, 8–36. Curme, George O. (1947). English Grammar: The Principles and Practice of English Gram­ mar Applied to Present-Day Usage. College Outline Series. New York: Barnes and Noble. Published online by HathiTrust Digital Library: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp. 39015042004724. Curzan, Anne (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cutler, Anne, and Dennis Norris (1988). ‘The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14: 113–21. Dąbrowska, Ewa (2008). ‘Questions with long-distance dependencies: A usage-based per­ spective.’ Cognitive Linguistics 19(3): 391–425. Page 29 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Dąbrowska, Ewa, and Dagmar Divjak (eds) (2015). The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dahl, Östen (1975). ‘On generics’, in Edward L. Keenan (ed), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99–111. Dahl, Östen (1980). ‘Some arguments for higher nodes in syntax: A reply to Hudson’s “Constituency and dependency”.’ Linguistics 18: 485–8. Dahl, Östen (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Dahl, Östen (ed) (2000). Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. (Empirical ap­ proaches to language typology 20–6.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dahl, Östen, and Viveka Velupillai (2013). ‘The perfect’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/68. Dalrymple, Mary (ed) (1999). Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dalrymple, Mary (2001). Lexical Functional Grammar. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Dalrymple, Mary (2015). ‘Morphology in the LFG architecture’, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference. Stanford: CSLI (p. 713)

Publications (http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/). Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, and Tracy Holloway King (2004). ‘Linguistic general­ izations over descriptions’, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 199–208. Dalrymple, Mary, John Lamping, and Vijay Saraswat (1993). ‘LFG Semantics via Con­ straints’, in Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the European ACL, 97–105. European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, University of Utrecht. Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, John T. Maxwell III, and Annie Zaenen (eds) (1995). Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Daneš, Frantisek (1966). ‘A three-level approach to syntax’, Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1: 225–40. Davidse, Kristin (2000). ‘A constructional approach to clefts.’ Linguistics 38(6): 1101–31. Davidse, Kristin, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds) (2010). Subjectifica­ tion, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Davidsen-Nielsen, Niels (1990). Tense and Mood in English: A Comparison with Danish. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Page 30 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Davidson, Jonathan (2011). Early Train. Sheffield, Yorks.: smith|doorstop. Davies, Eirlys (1986). The English Imperative. Beckenham: Croom Helm. Davies, Mark (2004–). British National Corpus (from Oxford University Press). Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/ (last accessed 25 May 2019). Davies, Mark (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 Mil­ lion Words, 1990–Present. Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ (last accessed 25 May 2019). Davies, Mark (2016?). Corpus of Online Registers of English (CORE). Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/core/ (last accessed 25 May 2019). Davis, S. M., and M. H. Kelly (1997). ‘Knowledge of the English noun–verb stress differ­ ence by native and nonnative speakers.’ Journal of Memory and Language, 36: 445–60. Davis, Steven (ed) (1991). Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, Steven, and Brendan S. Gillon (eds) (2004). Semantics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davydova, Julia (2013). ‘Detecting historical continuity in a linguistically diverse urban area: The present perfect in modern Singapore English’, in Joana Duarte and Ingrid Gogolin (eds), Linguistic Superdiversity in Urban Areas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Davydova, Julia, Michaela Hilbert, Lukas Pietsch, and Peter Siemund (2011). ‘Comparing varieties of English: Problems and perspectives’, in Peter Siemund (ed), Linguistic Univer­ sals and Language Variation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 291–323. Déchaine, Rose-Marie (1993). Predicates across Categories. Ph.D. thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko (2003). ‘On pro-nouns and other “pro­ nouns”’, in Martine Coene and Yves D’hulst (eds), From NP to DP, Vol 1: The Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 71–98. Declerck, Renaat (1988). Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Declerck, Renaat (1991). Tense in English. Its Structure and Use in Discourse. London: Routledge. Declerck, Renaat, and Susan Reed (2001). Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empiri­ cal Analysis. (Topics in English Linguistics 37.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (p. 714)

Page 31 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Declerck, Renaat, in collaboration with Susan Reed, and Bert Cappelle (2006). The Gram­ mar of the English Verb Phrase. Volume 1. The Grammar of the English Tense System. (Topics in English Linguistics, 60–1.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Degand, Liesbeth, and Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul (2015). ‘Grammaticalization or pragmat­ icalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1): 59–85. Degand, Liesbeth, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds) (2011). ‘Grammaticaliza­ tion, pragmaticalization, and (inter)subjectification: Methodological issues in the study of discourse markers.’ Special issue of Linguistics, 49: 2. Dehé, Nicole (2014). Parentheticals in Spoken English: The Syntax–Prosody Relation (Studies in English Language.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dehé, Nicole, and Yordanka Kavalova (eds) (2007). Parentheticals. Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins, 25–52. Delahunty, Gerald P. (1982). Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of English Cleft-Sen­ tences. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth, Brechtje Post, Mathieu Avanzi, Carolin Buthke, Albert Di Cristo, Ingo Feldhausen, Sun-Ah Jun, Philippe Martin, T. Meisenburg, Annie Rialland Raféu Sichel-Bazin and Hi-Yon Yoo (2015). ‘Intonational Phonology of French: Developing a ToBI system for French’, in Pilar Prieto and Sonia Frota (eds), Intonation in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, and Christopher D. Manning (2008). ‘The Stanford typed dependencies representation’, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain Parser Evaluation, 1–8. http://nlp.stanford.edu/~manning/papers/de­ pendencies-coling08.pdf. Den Dikken, Marcel (2006). Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate In­ version, and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Denison, David (1990). ‘Auxiliary + impersonal in Old English.’ Folia Linguistica Historica 9: 139–66. Denison, David (1993). English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London: Long­ man. Denison, David, and Alison Cort (2010). ‘Better as a verb’, in Kristin Davidse, Lieven Van­ delanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Gram­ maticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 349–83. Depraetere, Ilse (1995). ‘On the necessity of distinguishing (un)boundedness and (a)telicity.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 1–19.

Page 32 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Depraetere, Ilse, and Chad Langford (2012). Advanced English Grammar: A Linguistic Ap­ proach. London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Depraetere, Ilse, and Susan Reed (2011). ‘Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root pos­ sibility in English.’ English Language and Linguistics 15(1): 1–29. Depraetere Ilse, and An Verhulst (2008). ‘Source of modality: A reassessment.’ English Language and Linguistics 12(1): 1–25. De Smet, Hendrik (2014). ‘Constrained confusion: The gerund/participle distinction in Late Modern English’, in Marianne Hundt (ed) (2014), Late Modern English Syntax. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 224–38. Diessel, Holger (2013). ‘Construction grammar and first language acquisition’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 365–78. (p. 715)

Dik, Simon C. (1989). The Theory of Functional Grammar: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Dik, Simon C. (1991). ‘Functional grammar’, in Flip G. Droste, and John E. Joseph (eds), Linguistic Theory and Grammatical Description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins, 247–74. Dik, Simon C. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar. 2 volumes. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dikker, Suzanne, Hugh Rabagliati, and Liina Pylkkänen (2009). ‘Sensitivity to syntax in vi­ sual cortex.’ Cognition 110: 293–321. Dineen, David A. (ed). Presupposition, vol. 11 of Syntax and Semantics. New York: Acade­ mic Press, 1–56. Di Sciullo, A.-M., and Williams E. (1987). On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Divjak, Dagmar (2015). ‘Frequency and entrenchment’, in Ewa Dbrowska and Dagmar Di­ vjak (eds), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53–74. Dixon, R. M. W., and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (2002). ‘Word: a typological framework’, in Dixon R. M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), Word: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–40. Dixon, R. M. W., and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds) (2006). Complementation: A Cross-Lin­ guistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Don, Jan (2014). Morphological Theory and the Morphology of English. Edinburgh: Edin­ burgh University Press. Page 33 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Don, Jan, and Marian Erkelens (2008). ‘Possible phonological cues in categorial acquisi­ tion: Evidence from adult categorization.’ Studies in Language, 32: 670–82. Dons, Ute (2004). Descriptive Adequacy of Early Modern English Grammars. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dorgeloh, Heidrun (1997). Inversion in Modern English: Form and Function. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2004). ‘Conjunction in sentence and discourse: Sentence initial and and Discourse Structure.’ Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1761–79. Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2006). ‘Inversion in descriptive and narrative discourse: A text-typo­ logical account following functional principles.’ Cahiers de Recherche 9: 101–14. Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2014). ‘“If it didn’t work the first time, we can try it again”: Condi­ tionals as a grounding device in a genre of illness discourse.’ Communication and Medi­ cine 11: 55–68. Dorgeloh, Heidrun (2016). ‘The interrelationship of register and genre in medical dis­ course’, in Christoph Schubert and Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (eds), Variational Text Linguistics: Revisiting Register in English. (Topics in English Linguistics 90.) Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 43–65. Dorgeloh, Heidrun, and Anja Wanner (2003). ‘Too abstract for agents? The syntax and se­ mantics of agentivity in abstracts of English research articles’, in Holden Härtl and Heike Tappe (eds), Mediating between Concepts and Language-Processing Structures. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 152.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 433– 56. Dorgeloh, Heidrun, and Anja Wanner (2009). ‘Formulaic argumentation in scien­ tific discourse’, in Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouli, and Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), Formulaic Language. Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations. (Typological Studies in Language 83.) Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins, 523–44. (p. 716)

Dorgeloh, Heidrun, and Anja Wanner (eds) (2010). Syntactic Variation and Genre. (Topics in English Linguistics 70.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Douthwaite, John (2000). Towards a Linguistic Theory of Foregrounding. Alessandria: Edi­ zioni dell’Orso. Downing, Angela (1991). ‘An alternative approach to theme: A systemic-functional per­ spective.’ Word 42(2): 119–43. Downing, Angela (2015). English Grammar: A University Course, 3rd edn. London/New York: Routledge.

Page 34 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Dowty, David R. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Dowty, David R. (1986). ‘The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of dis­ course: Semantics or pragmatics?’ Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 37–61. Dowty, David R. (1991). ‘Thematic proto-roles and argument structure.’ Language 67(3): 547–619. Dowty, David R. (2003). ‘The dual analysis of adjuncts and complements in categorial grammar’, in Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds), Mod­ ifying Adjuncts. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 33–66. Dowty, David R., Robert E. Wall, and Stanley Peters (1981). Introduction to Montague Se­ mantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Dreschler, Gretha Anthonia (2015). Passives and the Loss of Verb Second: A Study of Syn­ tactic and Information-Structural Factors. Ph.D. thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University. Dronkers, Nina F., David P. Wilkins, Robert D. Van Valin Jr., Brenda B. Redfern, and Jeri J. Jaeger (2004). ‘Lesion analysis of the brain areas involved in language comprehension.’ Cognition 92: 145–77. Drubig, Hans Bernhard (1988). ‘On the discourse function of subject verb inversion.’ Studies in Descriptive Linguistics 18: 83–95. Dryer, Matthew S. (1996). ‘Focus, pragmatic presupposition, and activated propositions.’ Journal of Pragmatics 26: 475–523. Dryer, Matthew S. (1997). ‘Are grammatical relations universal?’, in Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 115–43. Dryer, Matthew S. (2005). ‘Order of subject, object, and verb’, in Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 330–3. Du Bois, John W. (1987). ‘The discourse basis of ergativity.’ Language 63(4): 805–55. Du Bois, John W. (2003). ‘Discourse and grammar’, in Michael Tomasello (ed), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 47–87. Du Bois, John W. (2014). ‘Towards a dialogic syntax.’ Cognitive Linguistics 25: 359–410. Duffley, Patrick J. (1992). The English Infinitive. London: Longman. Duffley, Patrick J. (2006). The English Gerund-participle: A Comparison with the Infinitive. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. (p. 717)

Page 35 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Duffley, Patrick J. (2014). Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dunmore, Helen (2012). The Malarkey. Newcastle: Bloodaxe Durieux, Gert, and Steven Gillis (2001). ‘Predicting grammatical classes from phonologi­ cal cues: An empirical test’, in J. Weissenborn and B. Höhle (eds), Approaches to Boot­ strapping: Phonological, Lexical, Syntactic, and Neurophysiological Aspects of Early Lan­ guage Acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dürscheid, Christa (2003). Medienkommunikation im Kontinuum von Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit: Theoretische und Empirische Probleme. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Edelman, Shimon, and Morton H. Christiansen (2003). ‘How seriously should we take Minimalist syntax?’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 60–1. Edwards, Viv (1993). ‘The grammar of southern British English’, in James Milroy and Les­ ley Milroy (eds), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. Lon­ don: Longman, 214–42. Egan, Thomas (2008). Non-finite Complementation: A Usage-based Study of Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Ehrlich, Susan (1990). Point of View: A Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style. London: Routledge. Ehrlich, Victor (1965) [1955]. Russian Formalism: History and Doctrine. The Hague: Mou­ ton. Einstein, Albert (1954). Ideas and Opinions. New York: Crown Publishers. Elbourne, Paul D. (2005). Situations and Individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Elbourne, Paul D. (2011). Meaning: A Slim Guide to Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elbourne, Paul D. (2016). ‘Incomplete descriptions and indistinguishable participants.’ Natural Language Semantics 24(1): 1–43. Ellis, Nick C. (2013). ‘Construction grammar and second language acquisition’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 347–64. Elsness, Johan (1997). The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Elsness, Johan (2009). ‘The present perfect and the preterite’, in Günter Rohdenburg and Julia Schlüter (eds), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 228–45. Page 36 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Embick, David (2015). The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction. Berlin/New York: Mou­ ton de Gruyter. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer (2007). ‘Distributed morphology and the syntax–morpholo­ gy interface’, in Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Lin­ guistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 239–88. Emmott, Catherine (1997). Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Emonds, Joseph E. (1972). ‘Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-pre­ serving rule.’ Foundations of Language 8: 546–61. Emonds, Joseph (1976). A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Acad­ emic Press. Emonds, Joseph (1985). A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. (p. 718)

Emons, Rudolf (1974). Valenzen Englischer Prädikatsverben. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Emons, Rudolf (1978). Valenzgrammatik für das Englische. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Engel, Ulrich (1972). ‘Bemerkungen zur Dependenzgrammatik.’ Sprache der Gegenwart. Jahrbuch des Instituts für deutsche Sprache, 111–151. Engel, Ulrich (1977). Syntax der Deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin: Schmidt. Engel, Ulrich (1983). ‘Dependenz ohne Konstituenz: Zur Dogmenbildung in der Linguis­ tik.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 84(1): 8–14. Engel, Ulrich, and Helmut Schumacher (1976). Kleines Valenzlexikon deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Narr. Engelberg, Stefan, Svenja König, Kristel Proost, and Edeltraut Winkler (2011). ‘Argu­ mentstrukturmuster als Konstruktionen? Identität – Verwandtschaft – Idiosynkrasien’, in Stefan Engelberg, Anke Holler, and Kristel Proost (eds), Sprachliches Wissen Zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Englebretson, Robert (1997). ‘Genre and grammar: Predicative and attributive adjectives in spoken English’, in Matthew L. Juge and Jeri L. Moxley (eds), Proceedings of the Twen­ ty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguis­ tics Society. Epstein, Samuel David, Erich M. Groat, Ruriko Kawashima, and Hisatsugu Kitahara (1998). A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Page 37 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1979). ‘Discourse constraints on dative movement’, in Talmy Givón (ed), Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, 441–67. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (2007). Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press. Evans, Nicholas (2007). ‘Insubordination and its uses’, in Irina Nikolaeva (ed), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 366–431. Evans, Nicholas, and Stephen Levinson (2009). ‘The myth of language universals: Lan­ guage diversity and its importance for cognitive science.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–92. Evans, Vyvyan (2010). ‘From the spatial to the non-spatial: The “state” lexical concepts of in, on and at’, in Vyvyan Evans and Paul Chilton (eds), Language, Cognition and Space. London: Equinox, 215–48. Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edin­ burgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fabb, Nigel (1988). ‘English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 527–39. Fairclough, Norman (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Faltz, Leonard M. (1985). Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Gar­ land. Farmer, Thomas A., Morten H. Christiansen, and Padraic Monaghan (2006). ‘Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension.’ PNAS 103: 12203–8. Fauconnier, Gilles (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books. Fawcett, Robin P. (1988). ‘The English personal pronouns: An exercise in linguistic theo­ ry’, in James D. Benson, Michael J. Cummings, and William S. Greaves (eds), Linguistics in a Systemic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 185–220. Fawcett, Robin P. (2000). A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (p. 719)

Fawcett, Robin P. (2008). Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the Cardiff Grammar: An Extension and Simplification of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London/Oakville: Equinox.

Page 38 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Fawcett, Robin P. (2011). The Functional Syntax Handbook: Analyzing English at the Lev­ el of Form. London: Equinox. Featherston, Sam (2005). ‘The Decathlon Model of empirical syntax’, in Marga Reis and Stephan Kepser (eds), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 187–208. Featherston, Sam (2007). ‘Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot.’ Theo­ retical Linguistics 33: 269–318 Fellbaum, Christiane (ed) (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fens-de Zeeuw, Lyda (2011). Lindley Murray (1746–1826), Quaker and Grammarian. Utrecht: LOT. Ferguson, Charles A. (1994). ‘Dialect, register, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization’, in Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan (eds), Sociolinguistic Perspec­ tives on Register. New York: Oxford University Press, 5–30. Ferreira, Fernanda (2005). ‘Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science.’ The Linguistic Review 22: 365–80. Ferris, D. Connor (1993). The Meaning of Syntax: A Study in the Adjectives of English. London: Longman. Féry, Caroline, and Vieri Samek-Lodovici (2006). ‘Focus projection and prosodic promi­ nence in nested foci.’ Language, 82: 131–50. Fiebach, Christian J., Matthias Schlesewsky, and Angela D. Friederici (2002). ‘Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German wh-questions.’ Journal of Memory and Language 47: 250–72. Fiengo, Robert (2007). Asking Questions: Using Meaningful Structures to Imply Igno­ rance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May (1994). Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fillmore, Charles J. (1968). ‘The case for case’, in Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1–88. Fillmore, Charles J. (1976). ‘Frame semantics and the nature of language.’ Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280(1): 20–32. Fillmore, Charles J. (1988). ‘The mechanisms of “construction grammar”’, in Shelley Ax­ maker, Annie Jassier, and Helen Singmaster (eds), General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting. Berkeley, CA: Berke­ ley Linguistics Society, 35–55. Page 39 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Fillmore, Charles J. (1999). ‘Inversion and constructional inheritance’, in Gert Webelhuth, Jean-Pierre Koenig, and Andreas Kathol (eds), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Lin­ guistic Explanation (Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism). Stanford: CSLI Publications, 113–28. Fillmore, Charles J. (2014). ‘Frames, constructions and FrameNet’, in Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid, and Susen Faulhaber (eds), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 113–58. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor (1988). ‘Regularity and id­ iomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone.’ Language 64(3): 501–38. Filppula, Markku (1999). A Grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian Style. London: Routledge. (p. 720)

Filppula, Markku (2004). ‘Irish English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 73–101. Findlay, Jamie Yates (2014). The Prepositional Passive: A Lexical Functional Account. MA thesis. Oxford: University of Oxford. Findlay, Jamie Yates (2016). ‘Mapping Theory Without Argument Structure.’ Journal of Language Modelling 4(2): 293–338. Firbas, Jan (1992). Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communica­ tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Firth, John Rupert (1957). Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press. Fischer, Kerstin, and Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds) (2006). Konstruktionsgrammatik: Von der Anwendung zur Theorie. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Fischer, Olga (2004). ‘The development of the modals in English: Radical versus gradual changes’, in David Hart (ed), English Modality in Context: Diachronic Perspectives. Bern: Lang, 16–32. Fischer, Olga (2007). Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press. Fischer, Olga, and Wim van der Wurff (2006). ‘Syntax’, in Richard Hogg and David Deni­ son (eds), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–98. Fitting, Melvin (2015). ‘Intensional logic’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclo­ pedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford: CSLI, Summer 2015 edn. Fleischman, Suzanne (1982). The Future in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Page 40 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Fleischman, Suzanne (2001). ‘Language and medicine’, in Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 470–502. Fligelstone, Steven, Mike Pacey, and Paul Rayson (1997). ‘How to generalize the task of annotation’, in Roger Garside, Geoff Leech, and Anthony McEnery (eds), Corpus Annota­ tion: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London: Longman, 122–36. Fligelstone, Steven, Paul Rayson, and Nicholas Smith (1996). ‘Template analysis: Bridg­ ing the gap between grammar and the lexicon’, in Jenny Thomas and Mick Short (eds), Using Corpora for Language Research. London: Longman, 181–207. Fodor, Jerry A. (1975). The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Fodor, Jerry A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Foley, William A., and Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Folli, Raffaella, and Heidi Harley (2007). ‘Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v.’ Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197–238. Foolen, Ad (1992). Review of Sweetser (1990). Lingua 88: 76–86. Ford, Cecilia E. (1993). Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fowler, Roger (1977). Linguistics and the Novel. London: Methuen. Fowler, Roger (1991). Language in the News. London: Routledge. Fowler, Roger, Bob Hodge, Gunther Kress, and Tony Trew (1979). Language and Control. London: Routledge. Fox, Barbara A. (2007). ‘Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration.’ Dis­ course Studies 9(3): 299–318. Francis, Gill (1993). ‘A corpus-driven approach to grammar’, in Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), Text and Technology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 137–56. (p. 721)

Francis, W. Nelson (1989). ‘Otto Jespersen as grammarian’, in Arne Juul and Hans F. Nielsen (eds), Otto Jespersen: Facets of His Life and Work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 79–99. Franke, Michael (2011). ‘Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 4(1): 1–82.

Page 41 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Frawley, William (1992). Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Frawley, William (ed) (2006). The Expression of Modality. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Frazier, Lyn, and Giovanni B. Flores d’Arcais (1989). ‘Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch.’ Journal of Memory and Language 28: 331–44. Freed, Alice F. (1979). The Semantics of English Aspectual Complementation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Frege, Gottlob (1892). ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung.’ Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50. Translated as Frege (1952). Frege, Gottlob (1918–1919/1997). ‘Thought/Der Gedanke’: The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 325–45. Frege, Gottlob (1952). ‘On sense and reference’, in Peter T. Geach and Max Black (eds), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, 56–78. Translation of Frege (1892). Freidin, Robert (2007). Generative Grammar: Theory and its History. London: Routledge. Fried, Mirjam (2013). ‘Principles of constructional change’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 419–37. Fried, Mirjam (2015). ‘Construction grammar’, in Artemis Alexiadou and Tibor Kiss (eds), Handbook of Syntax, 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 974–1003. Friederici, Angela D. (2002). ‘Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: 78–84. Friederici, Angela D., and Stefan Frisch (2000). ‘Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information.’ Journal of Memory and Lan­ guage 43: 476–507. Friederici, Angela D., Anja Hahne, and Axel Mecklinger (1996). ‘Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related brain potential effects.’ Journal of Experi­ mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22: 1219–48. Friederici, Angela D., Martin Meyer, and D. Yves von Cramon (2000). ‘Auditory language comprehension: An event-related fMRI study on the processing of syntactic and lexical in­ formation.’ Brain and Language 74: 289–300. Friederici, Angela D., Erdmut Pfeifer, and Anja Hahne (1993). ‘Event-related brain poten­ tials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations.’ Cognitive Brain Research 1: 183–92. Page 42 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Friederici, Angela D., Jörg Bahlmann, Stefan Heim, Ricarda I. Schubotz, and Alfred An­ wander (2006). ‘The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional lo­ calization and structural connectivity.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103: 2458. Fries, Charles C. (1952). The Structure of English. New York: Harcourt Brace. Fries, Peter H. (1981). ‘On the status of theme in English: Arguments from dis­ course.’ Forum Linguisticum 6(1): 1–38. (p. 722)

Frisch, Stefan, Matthias Schlesewsky, Douglas Saddy, and Annegret Alpermann (2002). ‘The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity.’ Cognition 85: B83–B92. Fukui, Naoki, and Margaret Speas (1986). ‘Specifiers and projections.’ MIT Working Pa­ pers in Linguistics 8: 128–72. Gabelentz, Georg von der (1972). Die Sprachwissenschaft, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Polyfoto Dr. Vogt. Gabrielatos, Costas and Paul Baker (2008). ‘Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press 1996-2005.’ Journal of English Linguistics 36: 5–38. Gagné, Christina (2001). ‘Relational and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 27: 236–54. Gahl, Susanne, and Susan Marie Garnsey (2006). ‘Knowledge of grammar includes knowl­ edge of syntactic probabilities.’ Language 82: 405–10. Gamut, L. T. F. (1991a). Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar, vol. 2 of Logic, Lan­ guage, and Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gamut, L. T. F. (1991b). Introduction to Logic, vol. 1 of Logic, Language, and Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Garnsey, Susan M., Michael Tanenhaus, and Robert M. Chapman (1989). ‘Evoked poten­ tial and the study of sentence comprehension.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18: 51–60. Garside, Roger (1987). ‘The CLAWS word-tagging system’, in Roger Garside, Geoff Leech, and Geoff Sampson (eds), The Computational Analysis of English: A Corpus-based Ap­ proach. London: Longman. Garside, Roger, and Nicholas Smith (1997). ‘A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4,’ in Roger Garside, Geoff Leech, and Anthony McEnery (eds), Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London: Longman, 102–21.

Page 43 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Gast, Volker (2007). ‘I gave it him – on the motivation of the alternative double object con­ struction in varieties of British English’, in Anna Siewierska and Willem Hollmann (eds), Ditransitivity: Special Issue of Functions of Language 14(1): 31–56. Gavins, Joanna (2007). Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univer­ sity Press. Gazdar, Gerald (1981a). ‘Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure.’ Linguistic Inquiry 12: 155–84. Gazdar, Gerald (1981b). ‘Speech act assignment’, in Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie Webber, and Ivan A. Sag (eds), Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press. Gazdar, Gerald, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ivan A. Sag (1982). ‘Auxiliaries and related phe­ nomena in a restrictive theory of grammar.’ Language 58: 591–638. Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan H. Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ivan A. Sag (1985). Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell, and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Geach, Peter T. (1962). Reference and Generality: An Examination of Some Medieval and Modern Theories. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 3rd revised edn, 1980. Gee, James Paul (2018). Introducing Discourse Analysis: From Grammar to Society. Lon­ don/New York: Routledge. (p. 723)

Geeraerts, Dirk (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds) (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Geis, Michael (1970). Adverbial Subordinate Clauses in English. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Geluykens, Ronald (1992). From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left Dislocation in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Geluykens, Ronald (1994). The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English. Evidence from Conversational Repair. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Gensler, Orin (2003). ‘Object ordering in verbs marking two pronominal objects: Nonex­ planation and explanation.’ Linguistic Typology 7(2): 187–231. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra, and Dionysis Goutsos (2000). ‘Revisiting discourse bound­ aries: The narrative and non-narrative modes.’ Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 20: 63–82. Page 44 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Gerdes, Kim, Eva Hajičová, and Leo Wanner (eds) (2014a). Dependency Linguistics: Re­ cent Advances in Linguistic Theory Using Dependency Structures. Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins. Gerdes, Kim, Eva Hajičová, and Leo Wanner (2014b). ‘Foreword’, in Kim Gerdes, Eva Ha­ jičová, and Leo Wanner (eds), Dependency Linguistics: Recent Advances in Linguistic Theory Using Dependency Structures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gerken, L., P. W. Jusczyk, and D. R. Mandel (1994). ‘When prosody fails to cue syntactic structure: 9-month-olds’ sensitivity to phonological versus syntactic phrases.’ Cognition 51: 237–65. Gerwin, Johanna (2013). ‘Give it me!: Pronominal ditransitives in English dialects.’ Eng­ lish Language and Linguistics 17(3): 445–63. Geurts, Bart (2009). ‘Scalar implicatures and local pragmatics.’ Mind and Language 24(1): 51–79. Geurts, Bart, and Nausicaa Pouscoulous (2009). ‘Embedded implicatures?!?’ Semantics and Pragmatics 2(4): 1–34. Geurts, Bart, and Bob van Tiel (2013). ‘Embedded scalars.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 6(9): 1–37. Giannakidou, Anastasia (2014). ‘The prospective as nonveridical: Polarity items, speaker commitment and projected truth’, in Jack Hoeksema and Dicky Gilbers (eds), Black Book: A Festschrift for Frans Zwarts. Groningen: University of Groningen, 101–24. Gibson, Edward, and Evelina Fedorenko (2010). ‘Weak quantitative standards in linguis­ tics research.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14: 233–4. Gibson, Edward, and Evelina Fedorenko (2013). ‘The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 88–124. Giegerich, Heinz J. (1999). Lexical Strata in English: Morphological Causes, Phonological Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giegerich, Heinz J. (2004). ‘Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion.’ English Language and Linguistics 8: 1–24. Giegerich, Heinz J. (2005). ‘Associative adjectives in English and the lexicon-syntax inter­ face.’ Journal of Linguistics 41: 571–91. Giegerich, Heinz J. (2012). ‘The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of “adverbs” in English.’ English Language and Linguistics 16: 341–59. Ginzburg, Jonathan (2012). The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page 45 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Raquel Fernández (2010). ‘Computational models of dia­ logue’, in Alexander Clark, Chris Fox, and Shalom Lappin (eds), The Handbook of Compu­ tational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing. Oxford: Blackwell, 429–81. (p. 724)

Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Ivan A. Sag (2000). Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Pianesi (1997). Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Mor­ phosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Girard, Jean-Yves (1987). ‘Linear logic.’ Theoretical Computer Science 50(1): 1–102. Gisborne, Nikolas (2007). ‘Dynamic modality.’ SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4: 44–61. Gisborne, Nikolas (2008). ‘Dependencies are constructions’, in Graeme Trousdale and Nikolas Gisborne (eds), Constructional Approaches to English Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 219–55. Gisborne, Nikolas (2010). The Event Structure of Perception Verbs. Oxford/New York: Ox­ ford University Press. Givón, Talmy (1971). ‘Historical syntax and synchronic morphology.’ Chicago Linguistics Society 7: 394–415. Givón, Talmy (1979a). ‘From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy’, in Talmy Givón (ed), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12. Discourse and Syntax. New York: Acade­ mic Press, 81–112. Givón, Talmy (1979b). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press. Givón, Talmy (1980). ‘The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements.’ Studies in Language 4: 333–77. Givón, Talmy (1983). ‘Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction’, in Talmy Givón (ed), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–41. Givón, Talmy (1984a). Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy (1984b). Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy (1993). English Grammar. 2 volumes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins. Givón, Talmy (1994). ‘Irrealis and the subjunctive.’ Studies in Language 18: 265–337.

Page 46 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Givón, Talmy (2001a). Syntax: An Introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins. Givón, Talmy (2001b). Syntax: An Introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins. Givón, Talmy (2012). ‘The adaptive approach to grammar’, in Bernd Heine and Heiko Nar­ rog (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27–51. Givón, Talmy (2013). ‘The intellectual roots of functionalism in linguistics’, in Shannon Bischoff and Carmen Jany (eds), Functional Approaches to Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 9–30. Godfrey, Elizabeth, and Sali Tagliamonte (1999). ‘Another piece of the verbal -s story: Evi­ dence from Devon in Southwest England.’ Language Variation and Change 11(1): 87–121. Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argu­ ment Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Goldberg, Adele E. (1996). ‘Jackendoff and construction-based grammar.’ Cognitive Science 7: 3–19. (p. 725)

Goldberg, Adele E. (1998). ‘Patterns of experience in patterns of language’, in

Michael Tomasello (ed), The New Psychology of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 203– 19. Goldberg, Adele E. (2003). ‘Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–24. Goldberg, Adele (2006a). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Lan­ guage. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Goldberg, Adele E. (2006b). ‘The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction’, in Dirk Geeraerts (ed), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 401–437. Goldberg, Adele E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Pro­ ductivity of Constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Goldberg, Adele E., and Farrell Ackerman (2001). ‘The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts.’ Language 77: 798–814. Goldberg, Adele E., and Ray Jackendoff (2004). ‘The English resultative as a family of constructions.’ Language 80(3): 532–68. Gómez-González, María Ángeles (2001). The Theme–Topic Interface: Evidence from Eng­ lish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Page 47 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Goossens, Louis (2000). ‘Patterns of meaning extension, “parallel chaining”, subjectifica­ tion, and modal shifts’, in Antonio Barcelona (ed), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Cross­ roads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 149–69. Gotti, Maurizio (2010). ‘A new genre for a specialized community: The rise of the experi­ mental essay’, in Heidrun Dorgeloh and Anja Wanner (eds), Syntactic Variation and Genre. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 85–110. Grabe, Esther, Greg Kochanski, and John Coleman (2005). ‘The intonation of native ac­ cent varieties in the British Isles: Potential for miscommunication?’, in: Katarzyna Dzi­ ubalska-Kolaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka (eds), English Pronunciation Models: A Chang­ ing Scene. Oxford: Peter Lang. Grafmiller, Jason (2014). ‘Variation in English genitives across modality and genres.’ Eng­ lish Language and Linguistics 18: 471–96. Graustein, Gottfried, and Gerhard Leitner (eds) (1989). Reference Grammars and Modern Linguistic Theory. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber (2015). ‘Stance markers’, in Karin Aijmer and Christoph Rühlemann (eds), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 219–48. Greaves, Paul (1594). Grammatica Anglicana. Canterbury: Legatt. Greenbaum, Sidney, and Randolph Quirk (1970). Elicitation Experiments in English. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. Greenberg, Joseph (1966). Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hier­ archies. The Hague: Mouton. Gregory, Michelle L., and Laura A. Michaelis (2001). ‘Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited.’ Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1665–706. Grewe, Tanja, Ina Bornkessel, Stefan Zysset, Richard Wiese, D. Yves von Cramon, and Matthias Schlesewsky (2005). ‘The emergence of the unmarked: A new perspective on the language‐specific function of Broca’s area.’ Human Brain Mapping 26: 178–90. Grice, H. Paul (1975). ‘Logic and conversation’, in Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 183–98. Reprinted in Grice (1989: 22–40). Grice, H. Paul (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni­ versity Press. (p. 726)

Gries, Stefan Th. (2005). ‘Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach.’ Journal of Psy­ cholinguistic Research 34(4): 365–99.

Page 48 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Gries, Stefan Th. (2012). ‘Frequencies, probabilities, and association measures in usage-/ exemplar-based linguistics.’ Studies in Language 11(3): 477–510. Gries, Stefan Th. (2013). ‘50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next…’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1): 137–65. Gries, Stefan Th. (2015). ‘The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models.’ Corpora 10(1): 95–125. Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch (2004a). ‘Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch (2004b). ‘Covarying collexemes in the Into-causative’, in Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer (eds), Language, Culture, and Mind. Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications, Stanford, 225–46. Gries, Stefan Th., and Stefanie Wulff (2005). ‘Do foreign language learners also have con­ structions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora.’ Annual Review of Cognitive Lin­ guistics 3: 182–200. Grimshaw, Jane (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press. Grimshaw, Jane, and Sten Vikner (1993). ‘Obligatory adjuncts and the structure of events’, in Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham (eds), Knowledge and Language. Dor­ drecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 143–55. Grodzinsky, Yosef (1986). ‘Language deficits and the theory of syntax.’ Brain and Lan­ guage 27: 135–59. Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Andrea Santi (2008). ‘The battle for Broca’s region.’ Trends in Cog­ nitive Sciences 12: 474–80. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof (1991). ‘Dynamic predicate logic.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100. Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg, and Ronald Wilson (1989). ‘The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English.’ Language 65(2): 203–95. Groß, Thomas, and Timothy Osborne (2009). ‘Toward a Practical Dependency Grammar Theory of Discontinuities.’ SKY Journal of Linguistics 22: 43–90. Grossman, Eitan, and Stéphane Polis (2010). ‘On the pragmatics of subjectification: The grammaticalization of verbless allative futures (with a case study in Ancient Egyptian)’. Paper presented at Gramis 2010 (International Conference on Grammaticalization and (Inter)Subjectification. Royal Flemish Academy, Brussels, 11–13 November 2010.

Page 49 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Grosu, A. (2003), ‘A unified theory of “standard” and “transparent” free relatives.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 247–331. Gruber, Jeffrey S. (1965). Studies in Lexical Relations. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Guéron, Jacqueline (ed) (2015). Sentence and Discourse (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Guéron, Jacqueline, and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds) (2008). Time and Modality. Houten, NL: Springer Media BV. Guevara, Emiliano, and Sergio Scalise (2009). ‘Searching for universals in compounding’, in Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni, and Antonietta Bisetto (eds), Universals of Language Today. Berlin: Springer, 101–28. Guion, Susan G., J. J. Clark, Tetsuo Harada, and Ratree P. Wayland (2003). ‘Factors affecting stress placement for English nonwords include syllabic structure, lexical class, and stress patterns of phonologically similar words.’ Language and Speech, 46: 403–26. (p. 727)

Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gundel, Jeanette K. (1976). The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Bloom­ ington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Gundel, Jeanette K. (1985). ‘Shared knowledge and topicality.’ Journal of Pragmatics 9: 83–107. Gundel, Jeanette K. (1988). ‘Universals of topic-comment structure’, in Michael Ham­ mond, Edith Moravcsik, and Jessica Wirth (eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amster­ dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 209–39. Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski (1993). ‘Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse.’ Language 69(2): 274–307. Gunter, Thomas C., Laurie A. Stowe, and Gusbertus Mulder (1997). ‘When syntax meets semantics.’ Psychophysiology 34: 660–76. Günther, Christine (2011). ‘Noun ellipsis in English: Adjectival modifiers and the role of context.’ English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 279–301. Gussenhoven, Carlos (1983). On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dor­ drecht: Foris Publications. Gussenhoven, Carlos (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Gwynne, N. M. (2011). Gwynne’s Grammar: The Ultimate Introduction to Grammar and the Writing of Good English. London: Idler Books. Page 50 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Haas, W. (1973). Review of John Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Journal of Linguistics 9: 71–114. Haegeman, Liliane (1995). The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haegeman, Liliane (2006). Thinking Syntactically: A Guide to Argumentation and Analysis. (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 20.) Oxford: Blackwell. Haegeman, Liliane (2012). Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haegeman, Liliane, and Jacqueline Guéron (1999). English Grammar: A Generative Per­ spective. Oxford: Blackwell. Haegeman, Liliane, and Tabea Ihsane (1999). ‘Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English.’ Journal of English Language and Linguistics 3: 117–45. Hagège, Claude (2008). ‘Towards a typology of interrogative verbs.’ Linguistic Typology 12: 1–44. Hagoort, Peter (2008). ‘The fractionation of spoken language understanding by measur­ ing electrical and magnetic brain signals.’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363: 1055. Hagoort, Peter, Colin Brown, and Jolanda Groothusen (1993). ‘The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 439–83. Hagoort, Peter, Marlies Wassenaar, and Colin M. Brown (2003). ‘Syntax-related ERP-ef­ fects in Dutch.’ Cognitive Brain Research 16: 38–50. Hahne, Anja, and Angela D. Friederici (1999). ‘Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes.’ Journal of Cog­ nitive Neuroscience 11: 194–205. Hahne, Anja, and Angela D. Friederici (2002). ‘Differential task effects on seman­ tic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs.’ Cognitive Brain Research 13: 339–56. (p. 728)

Haig, Geoffrey, and Stefan Schnell (2016). ‘The discourse basis of ergativity revisited.’ Language 93(3): 591–618. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser (1993). ‘On argument structure and the lexical ex­ pression of syntactic relations’, in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53–109. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Page 51 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Hall, Alison (2008). ‘Free enrichment or hidden indexicals?’ Mind and Language 23(4): 426–56. Halle, Morris (1959). The Sound Pattern of Russian: A Linguistic and Acoustical Investiga­ tion. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz (1993). ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflec­ tion.’ in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–76. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz (1994). ‘Some key features of distributed morphology.’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 275–88. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud (1987). An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). ‘Categories of the theory of grammar.’ Word 17: 242–92. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967a). ‘Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2.’ Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967b). Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mou­ ton. Halliday, M. A. K. (1976a). ‘A brief sketch of systemic grammar’, in Gunther Kress (ed), Halliday: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press, 3–6. Halliday, M. A. K. (1976b). ‘The form of functional grammar’, in Gunther Kress (ed), Halli­ day: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press, 7–25. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1991). ‘Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar’, in Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg (eds), English Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman, 30–43. Halliday, M. A. K. (1992). ‘Language as system and language as instance: The corpus as a theoretical construct’, in Jan Svartvik (ed), Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Mono­ graphs. Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 61–77. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Ed­ ward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., (2004) 3rd edn, revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. An Introduc­ tion to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edn, revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. London: Routledge.

Page 52 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hamawand, Zeki (2002). Atemporal Complement Clauses in English: A Cognitive Gram­ mar Analysis. Munich: Lincom Europa. Hamblin, Charles L. (1987). Imperatives. London: Blackwell. Hamilton, William L., Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky (nd). ‘Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change.’ https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/pubs/ paper-hist_vec.pdf. Han, Chung-Hye (2011). ‘Imperatives’, in Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maien­ born, and Paul Portner (eds), Semantics 2. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 33(2). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1785–2004. (p. 729)

Harley, Heidi (2009). ‘The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP’, in Anasta­ sia Giannakidou and Monika Rathert (eds), Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominaliza­ tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 320–42. Harley, Heidi (2010). ‘A minimalist approach to argument structure’, in Cedric Boeckx (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 426–47. Harley, Heidi (2015). ‘The syntax/morphology interface,’ in Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexi­ adou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1128– 54. Harley, Heidi, and Rolf Noyer (1999). ‘Distributed morphology.’ Glot International, Vol. 4(4): 3–9. Harman, Gilbert H. (1963). ‘Generative grammars without transformation rules: A de­ fense of phrase structure.’ Language 39: 597–616. Harnish, Robert (1994). ‘Mood, meaning and speech acts’, in Savas Tsohatzidis (ed), Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge, 407–59. Harris, Randy Allen (1993). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harris, Zellig S. (1951). Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Harrison, Chloe, Louise Nuttall, Peter Stockwell, and Wenjuan Yuan (eds) (2014). Cogni­ tive Grammar in Literature. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Harrison, Tony (1985). Selected Poems. London: Penguin Books.

Page 53 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Hart, Christopher (2014). Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Hart, Christopher (2016). ‘Event-frames affect blame assignment and perception of ag­ gression in discourse on political protests: An experimental case study in critical dis­ course analysis.’ Applied Linguistics 39: 400–21. Harvey, Thomas W. (1868). A Practical Grammar of the English Language for the Use of Schools of Every Grade. New York/Cincinnati: Van Antwerp, Bragg and Co. (Revised edi­ tion 1878.) Hasan, Ruqaiya (1987). ‘The grammarian’s dream: Lexis as most delicate grammar’, in M. A. K. Halliday and Robin Fawcett (eds), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics 1: Theory and Description. London: Pinter, 184–211. Haspelmath, Martin (1999). ‘Optimality and diachronic adaptation.’ Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18: 180–205. Haspelmath, Martin (2001). ‘The European linguistic area: Standard Average European’, in Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wolfgang Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1492–510. Haspelmath, Martin (2002). Understanding Morphology. London: Edward Arnold. Haspelmath, Martin (2008). ‘Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymme­ tries.’ Cognitive Linguistics 19: 1–33. (p. 730)

Haspelmath, Martin (2010). ‘Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in

cross-linguistic studies.’ Language 86: 663–87. Haspelmath, Martin (2013a). ‘Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 115. Available online at http:// wals.info/chapter/115 (last accessed 6 April 2019). Haspelmath, Martin (2013b). ‘Ditransitive constructions: The verb “give”’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Mu­ nich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 105. Available online at http://wals.info/chap­ ter/105 (last accessed 6 April 2019). Hatcher, Anna Granville (1960). ‘An introduction to the analysis of English noun com­ pounds.’ Word 16: 356–73. Hawkins, John A. (1986). A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.

Page 54 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Hawkins, John A. (1992). ‘Syntactic weight versus information structure in word order variation.’ Linguistische Berichte 4: 196–219. Hawkins, John A. (1999). ‘Processing complexity and fill-gap dependencies across lan­ guages.’ Language 75: 244–85. Hawkins, John A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford Univer­ sity Press. Hay, Jennifer (2000). Causes and Consequences of Word Structure. Ph.D. thesis. Chicago: Northwestern University. Hay, Jennifer (2002). ‘From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited.’ Language, 78: 527–55. Hay, Jennifer, and Ingo Plag (2004). ‘What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology.’ Natur­ al Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 565–96. Hayes, Bruce, and Colin Wilson (2008). ‘A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning.’ Linguistic Inquiry 39: 379–440. Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar, and Kie Zuraw (2013). OTSoft 2.5, software package, http:// www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/. Hedberg, Nancy (2013). ‘Multiple focus and cleft sentences’, in Katharina Hartmann and Tonjes Veenstra (eds), Cleft Structures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hedberg, Nancy, and Lorna Fadden (2007). ‘The information structure of it-clefts, wh-clefts and reverse wh-clefts in English’, in Nancy Hedberg and Ron Zacharski (eds), The Grammar–Pragmatics Interface: Essays in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 49–76. Heger, Klaus (1976). Monem, Wort, Satz und Text. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Heim, Irene (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Heim, Irene (1983). ‘File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness’, in Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use and In­ terpretation of Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 164–90. Reprinted in Portner and Partee (2002: 223–48). Heim, Irene (1990). ‘E-Type pronouns and donkey anaphora.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2): 137–77. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Ox­ ford: Blackwell. (p. 731)

Page 55 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Heine, Bernd (1993). Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press. Heine, Bernd (1995). ‘Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality: Some observations on Ger­ man modals’, In Bybee and Fleischman (eds) (1995), 17–53. Heine, Bernd (2002). ‘On the role of context in grammaticalization’, in Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83–101. Heine, Bernd (2013). ‘On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else?’ Linguistics 51(6): 1205–47. Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva (2007). The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press. Heine, Bernd, and Heiko Narrog (eds) (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analy­ sis, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Helbig, Gerhard (1992). Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Helbig, Gerhard, and Wolfgang Schenkel (1973). Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben, 2nd edn. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut. [First edition: 1969.] Hengeveld, Kees (1989). ‘Layers and operators in Functional Grammar.’ Journal of Lin­ guistics 25: 127–57. Hengeveld, Kees (1992). Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hengeveld, Kees (2011). ‘The grammaticalization of tense and aspect’, in Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford Uni­ versity Press, 850–94. Hengeveld, Kees (2017). ‘A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization’, in Kees Hengeveld, Heiko Narrog, and Hella Olbertz (eds), The Grammaticalization of Tense, As­ pect, Modality, and Evidentiality: A Functional Perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 13–38. Hengeveld, Kees, and J. Lachlan Mackenzie (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A Ty­ pologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Page 56 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Herbst, Thomas (1983). Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nomi­ nalisierungen. Tübingen: Narr. Herbst, Thomas (1988). ‘A valency model for nouns in English.’ Journal of Linguistics 24: 265–301. Herbst, Thomas (2011). ‘The status of generalisations: Valency and argument structure constructions.’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4): 347–67. Herbst, Thomas (2014). ‘The valency approach to argument structure constructions’, in Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid, and Susen Faulhaber (eds), Constructions – Colloca­ tions – Patterns. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 167–216. Herbst, Thomas (2015). ‘Why construction grammar catches the worm and corpus data can drive you crazy: Accounting for idiomatic and non-idiomatic idiomaticity.’ Journal of Social Sciences 11(3): 91–110. Herbst, Thomas, and Susen Schüller (2008). Introduction to Syntactic Analysis: A Valency Approach. Tübingen: Narr. (p. 732)

Herbst, Thomas, and Peter Uhrig (2009–). Erlangen Valency Patternbank: A Corpus-based Research Tool for Work on Valency and Argument Structure Constructions. www.patternbank.fau.de (last accessed 3 June 2019). Herbst, Thomas, David Heath, and Hans-Martin Dederding (eds) (1980). Grimm’s Grand­ children: Current Topics in German Linguistics. Longman Linguistics Library 24. London: Longman. Herbst, Thomas, David Heath, Ian Roe, and Dieter Götz (eds) (2004). A Valency Dictio­ nary of English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Heringer, Hans Jürgen (1970). Theorie der deutschen Syntax. München: Hueber. [2nd edn 1973] Heringer, Hans Jürgen (1996). Deutsche Syntax Dependentiell. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Hermann, Johann Gottfried Jakob (1801). De Emendanda Ratione Graecae Grammaticae. Leipzig: Apvd Gerhard Fleischer. Herring, Susan C. (2001). ‘Computer-mediated discourse’, in Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Black­ well, 612–34. Herrmann, Tanja (2003). Relative Clauses in Dialects of English: A Typological Approach. PhD thesis. Freiburg: University of Freiburg. Hewitt, George (1979). Abkhaz. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Hewson, John (1972). Article and Noun in English. The Hague: Mouton. Page 57 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Hewson, John (1991a). ‘Determiners as heads.’ Cognitive Linguistics 2: 317–37. Hewson, John (1991b). ‘The roles of subject and verb in a dependency grammar’, in Wern­ er Bahner, Joachim Schildt, and Dieter Viehweger (eds), Proceedings of the Fourteenth In­ ternational Congress of Linguists, Vol. III. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2364–6. Hewson, John, and Vit Bubenik (1997). Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Heycock, Carolyn, and Anthony Kroch (2002). ‘Topic, focus and syntactic representa­ tions’, in Line Mikkelsen and Christopher Potts (eds), WCCFL 21: Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 141–65. Hickey, Raymond (ed) (2012a). Areal Features of the Anglophone World. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hickey, Raymond (ed) (2012b) Standards of English: Codified Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hill, Archibald A. (1961). ‘Grammaticality.’ Word 17: 1–10. Hilpert, Martin (2008). Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-based Approach to Lan­ guage Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hilpert, Martin (2012). ‘Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels.’ Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 42: 67–82. Hilpert, Martin (2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hilpert, Martin (2016). ‘Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collo­ cates of may.’ Constructions and Frames 8(1): 66–85. Hiltunen, Ristu (2012). ‘The grammar and structure of legal texts’, in Lawrence M. Solan and Peter M. Tiersma (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–51. Himmelmann, Nikolaus, and Eva Schultze-Berndt (2005). ‘Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: An introduction’, in Nikolaus Himmelmann and Eva Schultze-Berndt (eds), Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification: The Typology of Depictives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–67. (p. 733)

Hinojosa, José, Manuel Martín-Loeches, Pilar Casado, Francisco Muñoz, and Francisco Rubia (2003). ‘Similarities and differences between phrase structure and morphosyntac­ tic violations in Spanish: An event-related potentials study.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 18: 113–42.

Page 58 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Hinrichs, Lars, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, and Axel Bohmann (2015). ‘Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause.’ Language 91(4): 806–36. Hinzen, Wolfram, Edouard Machery, and Markus Werning (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hirschberg, Julia (1985). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. Ph.D. thesis. Pennsylvania, PA: University of Pennsylvania. Hirtle, Walter H. (2007a). Language in the Mind: An Introduction to Guillaume’s Theory. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Hirtle, Walter H. (2007b). Lessons on the English Verb. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Univer­ sity Press. Hjelsmlev, Louis (1961). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Translated by Francis J. Whitfield. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Ho, Yufang (2012). Corpus Stylistics in Principles and Practice: A Stylistic Exploration of John Fowles’ The Magus. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Hockett, Charles F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillian. Hodson, Jane (2014). Dialect in Film and Literature. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hoey, Michael (2005). Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge. Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale (eds) (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Con­ struction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hofmeister, Philip, and Ivan A. Sag (2010). ‘Cognitive constraints and island effects.’ Lan­ guage 86: 366–415. Hogg, Richard M. (1992). ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Norman Blake (ed), The Cam­ bridge History of the English Language, Vol. II 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 67–167. Hogg, Richard M., and R. D. Fulk (2011). A Grammar of Old English, Volume 2: Morpholo­ gy. Oxford: Blackwell. Höhle, Barbara, Jürgen Weissenborn, Dorothea Kiefer, Antje Schulz, and Michaela Sch­ mitz (2004). ‘Functional elements in infants’ speech processing: The role of determiners in the syntactic categorization of lexical elements.’ Infancy 5: 341–53. Hollmann, Willem B. (2010). ‘Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex events’, in Hans C. Boas (ed), Contrastive Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins, 201–36.

Page 59 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Hollmann, Willem B. (2012). ‘Word classes: Towards a more comprehensive usage-based account.’ Studies in Language, 36: 671–98. [Reprinted in Nikolas Gisborne and Willem B. Hollmann (eds), Theory and Data in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211–37.] Hollmann, Willem B. (2013). ‘Nouns and verbs in Cognitive Grammar: Where is the “sound” evidence?’ Cognitive Linguistics 24: 275–308. Hollmann, Willem B. (2014). ‘What do adjectives sound like?’ Papers from the 14th National Conference of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association 14: 749–54. (p. 734)

Hommerberg, Charlotte, and Gunnel Tottie (2007). ‘Try to or try and? Verb complementa­ tion in British and American English.’ ICAME Journal 31: 45–64. Hopper, Paul J. (1979). ‘Aspect and foregrounding in discourse’, in Talmy Givón (ed), Dis­ course and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 213–41. Hopper, Paul J. (1987). ‘Emergent grammar.’ Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–57. Hopper, Paul (2011). ‘Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics’, in Peter Auer and Stephan Pfänder (eds), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin/ New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 22–44. Hopper, Paul J. (2012). ‘Emergent grammar’, in James Gee and Michael Handford (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. New York: Routledge, 301–12. Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra Thompson (1984). ‘The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar.’ Language 60: 703–52. Hopper, Paul J., and Elisabeth C. Traugott (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Horn, Laurence R. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Ph.D. thesis. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles. Horn, Laurence R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Horn, Laurence R., and Gregory Ward (eds) (2004). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. Hornstein, Norbert (1990). As Time Goes By: Tense in Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hoye, Leo Francis (2005). ‘“You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!” Modality studies: Contemporary research and future directions’, Part II. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1481–1506.

Page 60 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Huang, C.-T. James (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Huang, C.-T. James (1993). ‘Reconstruction and the nature of vP: Some theoretical conse­ quences.’ Linguistic Inquiry 24: 103–38. Huang, Yan (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huddleston, Rodney (1970). ‘Two approaches to the analysis of tags.’ Journal of Linguis­ tics 6: 215–22. Huddleston, Rodney (1971). The Sentence in Written English: A Syntactic Study Based on the Analysis of Scientific Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huddleston, Rodney (1976). ‘Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb.’ Lingua 40: 331–83. Huddleston, Rodney (1984). Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Huddleston, Rodney (1988). Review of Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik (1985). Language 64: 345–54. Huddleston, Rodney (1991). ‘Further remarks on Halliday’s Functional Grammar: A reply to Matthiessen and Martin.’ Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 5: 75–129. Huddleston, Rodney (1992). ‘On Halliday’s Functional Grammar: A reply to Martin and to Martin and Matthiessen.’ Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6: 197–211. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the Eng­ lish Language. In collaboration with Laurie Bauer, Betty Birner, Ted Briscoe, Peter Collins, (p. 735) David Denison, David Lee, Anita Mittwoch, Geoffrey Nunberg, Frank Palmer, John Payne, Peter Peterson, Lesley Stirling, Gregory Ward. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2004). ‘The classification of finite subordi­ nate clauses’, in Gunnar Bergh, Jennifer Herriman, and Mats Mobärg (eds), An Interna­ tional Master of Syntax and Semantics: Papers Presented to Aimo Seppänen on the Occa­ sion of his 75th Birthday (Gothenburg Studies in English, 88). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 103–16. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2005). A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Peter Peterson (2002). ‘Relative construc­ tions and unbounded dependencies’, in Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1031–96. Page 61 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Hudson, Richard A. (1976). Arguments for a Non-transformational Grammar. Chicago/ London: The University of Chicago Press. Hudson, Richard A. (1984). Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Hudson, Richard A. (1987). ‘Zwicky on Heads.’ Journal of Linguistics 23: 109–32. Hudson, Richard A. (1988). ‘Extraction and grammatical relations.’ Lingua 76: 177–208. Hudson, Richard A. (1990). An English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Hudson, Richard A. (1993). ‘Do we have heads in our minds?’, in Greville G. Corbett, Nor­ man M. Fraser, and Scott McGlashan (eds), Heads in Grammatical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 266–91. Hudson, Richard A. (2003a). ‘Case-agreement, PRO and structure sharing.’ Research in Language 1: 7–33. Hudson, Richard A. (2003b). ‘Word grammar’, in Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, HansWerner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds), Depen­ denz und Valenz: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Depen­ dency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 1. Halbband/ Volume 1. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 508–26. Hudson, Richard A. (2007). Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press. Hudson, Richard A. (2008). ‘Word grammar and construction grammar’, in Graeme Trous­ dale and Nikolas Gisborne (eds), Constructional Approaches to English Grammar. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 257–302. Hudson, Richard A. (2010a). An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hudson, Richard A. (2010b). ‘The canon.’ The Times Higher Education Supplement 1958 (29 July): 51. Hughes, Arthur, Peter Trudgill, and Dominic Watt (2005). English Accents and Dialects: An Introduction to Social and Regional Varieties of English in the British Isles. London: Hodder Arnold. Hughes, Rebecca (1996). English in Speech and Writing. London: Routledge. Humphries, Colin, Jeffrey R. Binder, David A. Medler, and Einat Liebenthal (2006). ‘Syn­ tactic and semantic modulation of neural activity during auditory sentence comprehen­ sion.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18: 665–79.

Page 62 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Humphries, Colin, Tracy Love, David Swinney, and Gregory Hickok (2005). ‘Re­ sponse of anterior temporal cortex to syntactic and prosodic manipulations during sen­ tence processing.’ Human Brain Mapping 26: 128–38. (p. 736)

Hundt, Marianne (1998a). ‘It is important that this study (should) be based on the analy­ sis of parallel corpora: On the use of the mandative subjunctive in four varieties of Eng­ lish’, in Hans Lindquist, Staffan Klintborg, Magnus Levin, and Maria Estling (eds), The Major Varieties of English. Växjö: Växjö University Press, 159–75. Hundt, Marianne (1998b). New Zealand English Grammar: Fact or Fiction? Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hundt, Marianne (2004). ‘Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the Progressive in mod­ ern English.’ English Language and Linguistics 8: 47–69. Hundt, Marianne (2007). English Mediopassive Constructions: A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Study of Their Origin, Spread and Current Status. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hundt, Marianne (2008). ‘Text corpora’, in Anke Lüdeling and Merja Kytö (eds), Corpus Linguistics [HSK 29.1]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 168–87. Hundt, Marianne (2009). ‘Colonial lag, colonial innovation, or simply language change?’, in Günter Rohdenburg and Julia Schlüter (eds), One Language, Two Grammars: Differ­ ences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–37. Hundt, Marianne (2014). ‘The demise of the being to V construction.’ Transactions of the Philological Society 112: 167–87. Hundt, Marianne (2016). ‘Error, feature, (incipient) change – or something else altogeth­ er? On the role of low-frequency deviant patterns for the description of Englishes’, in Ele­ na Seoane and Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds), World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 37–60. Hundt, Marianne, and Anne-Christine Gardner (2017). ‘Corpus-based approaches: Watch­ ing English change’, in Laurel J. Brinton (ed), English Historical Linguistics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 96–130. Hundt, Marianne, and Geoffrey Leech (2012). ‘Small is beautiful: On the value of stan­ dard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change’, in Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press, 175–88. Hundt, Marianne, and Christian Mair (1999). ‘“Agile” and “Uptight” genres: The corpusbased approach to language change in progress.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguis­ tics 4: 221–42.

Page 63 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Hundt, Marianne, Sandra Mollin, and Simone E. Pfenninger (eds) (2017). The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunston, Susan, and Gill Francis (2000). Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hunter, John (1784). ‘A grammatical essay in the nature, import, and effect of certain con­ junctions.’ Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 1: 113–34. Huntley, Martin (1984). ‘The semantics of English imperatives.’ Linguistics and Philoso­ phy 7(2): 103–33. Isel, Frédéric, Anja Hahne, Burkhard Maess, and Angela D. Friederici (2007). ‘Neurody­ namics of sentence interpretation: ERP evidence from French.’ Biological Psychology 74: 337–46. Iverson, Gregory K., and Sang-Cheol Ahn (2007). ‘English voicing in dimensional theory.’ Language Sciences 29: 247–69. (p. 737)

Jackendoff, Ray S. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cam­

bridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray S. (1973). ‘The base rules for prepositional phrases’, in Stephen R. Ander­ son and Paul Kiparsky (eds), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 345–56. Jackendoff, Ray S. (1977). X-Bar̅ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray S. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray S. (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackendoff, Ray S. (2007). Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray S. (2009). ‘Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual se­ mantics’, in Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Com­ pounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 105–28. Jackendoff, Ray S. (2010). Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975– 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jacobs, Joachim (1993). ‘Integration’, in Marga Reis (ed), Wortstellung und Information­ sstruktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 64–116. Jacobs, Joachim (1994). Kontra Valenz. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.

Page 64 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Jacobs, Joachim (2009). ‘Valenzbindung oder Konstruktionsbindung? Eine Grundfrage der Grammatiktheorie.’ ZGL: 490–513. Jacobson, Pauline (1999). ‘Towards a variable-free semantics.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 22(2): 117–84. Jacobson, Pauline (2002). ‘The (Dis)organization of the Grammar: 25 Years.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5–6): 601–26. Jacobson, Pauline (2014). Compositional Semantics: An Introduction to the Syntax/Seman­ tics Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. James, Francis (1986). Semantics of the English Subjunctive. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Jansen, Wouter (2007). ‘Phonological ‘voicing’, phonetic voicing, and assimilation in Eng­ lish.’ Language Sciences 29: 270–93. Janssen, Theo M. V. (1997). ‘Compositionality’, in van Benthem and ter Meulen (1997), 417–73. Jarrett, Gene Andrew (2010). Companion to African American Literature. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Jary, Mark, and Mikhail Kissine (2014). Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (2016). Meaning in Linguistic Interaction: Semantics, Metasemantics, Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jeffries, Lesley (1993). The Language of Twentieth–Century Poetry. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Jeffries, Lesley (2000). ‘Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater: In defence of theo­ retical eclecticism in stylistics.’ Poetics and Linguistics Association Occasional Papers 12, 1–15. Jeffries, Lesley (2006). ‘Poetry: Stylistic aspects’, in Keith Brown (ed), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. Waltham, MA: Elsevier, 645–51. Jeffries, Lesley (2010a). Critical Stylistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Jeffries, Lesley (2010b). ‘“The Unprofessionals”: Syntactic iconicity and reader interpreta­ tion in contemporary poems’, in Dan McIntyre and Beatrix Busse (eds), Language and Style. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 95–115. Jeffries, Lesley (2015). ‘Textual meaning and its place in a theory of language.’ Topics in Linguistics. 15(1), 1–10. (p. 738)

Page 65 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Jeffries, Lesley, and Dan McIntyre (2010). Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jespersen, Otto (1905). Growth and Structure of the English Language. Leipzig: Teubner. Reprinted with Foreword by Randolph Quirk by University of Chicago Press, 1982. Jespersen, Otto (1909–1949). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part I: Sounds and Spellings; Part II: Syntax Vol. 1; Part III, Syntax Vol. 2; Part IV: Syntax Vol. 3. Heidelberg: Winter. Part V: Syntax Vol. 4; Part VI, Morphology (with Paul Christophersen, Nils Haislund, and Knud Schibsbye); Part VII: Syntax (with Nils Haislund). Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Republished in 1954 by George Allan and Unwin. Jespersen, Otto (1917). Negation in English and Other Languages, 2nd edn. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. (Reprinted 1966.) Jespersen, Otto (1924/1975). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen and Un­ win. Jespersen, Otto (1938). A Linguist’s Life: An English Translation of Otto Jespersen’s Auto­ biography with Notes, Photos and a Bibliography. Edited by Arne Juul, Hans F. Nielsen, and Jørgen Erik Nielsen and translated by David Stoner. Denmark: Odense University. Reprinted 1995. Ježek, Elisabetta (2005). The Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johannessen, Janne Bondi (1998). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, David E., and Paul M. Postal (1980). Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Johnson, Keith (2004). ‘Massive reduction in conversational American English’, in Kiyoko Yoneyama and Kikuo Maekawa (eds), Spontaneous Speech: Data and Analysis. Proceed­ ings of the 1st Session of the 10th International Symposium. Tokyo: The National Insti­ tute for Japanese Language, 29–54. Johnson, Kyle (2001). ‘What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t but not why’, in Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 439–79. Jonson, Ben (1640). The English Grammar. London: Bishop. Jurafsky, Daniel (1992). An On-line Computational Model of Human Sentence Interpreta­ tion: A Theory of the Representation and Use of Linguistic Knowledge. Ph.D. thesis. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley. Jusczyk, Peter W., Anne Cutler, and Nancy J. Redanz (1993). ‘Infants’ preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words.’ Child Development 64: 675–87.

Page 66 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Just, Marcel A., Patricia A. Carpenter, and Jacqueline D. Woolley (1982). ‘Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 111: 228–38. Just, Marcel A., Patricia A. Carpenter, Timothy A. Keller, William F. Eddy, and Keith R. Thulborn (1996). ‘Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension.’ Science 274: 114. Kaan, Edith (2002). ‘Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in pro­ cessing subject-verb dependencies: An ERP study.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31: 165–93. Kaan, Edith, and Tamara Y. Swaab (2003). ‘Electrophysiological evidence for serial sen­ tence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continua­ tions.’ Cognitive Brain Research 17: 621–35. Kaan, Edith, Anthony Harris, Edward Gibson, and Phillip Holcomb (2000). ‘The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 15: 159–201. (p. 739)

Kachru, Braj B. (1985). ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle’, in Randolph Quirk and Henry Widdowson (eds), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and the British Council, 11–30. Kachru, Braj B. (2006). ‘The English language in the outer circle’, in Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds), World Englishes, Volume 3. London: Routledge. Kahan, Jeffrey (2015). ‘“I tell you what mine author says”: A Brief History of Stylomet­ rics.’ ELH: English Literary History 82(3): 815–44. Kahane, Sylvain (2003). ‘The Meaning-Text Theory’, in Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds), De­ pendenz und Valenz: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. De­ pendency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 1. Halb­ band/Volume 1. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 546–70. Kahane, Sylvain (2012). ‘Why to choose dependency rather than constituency for syntax: A formal point of view’, in Juri D. Apresjan, Marie-Claude L’Homme, Leonid Iomdin, Jasmi­ na Milicevic, Alain Polguère, and Leo Wanner (eds), Meanings, Texts, and Other Exciting Things: A Festschrift to Commemorate the 80th Anniversary of Professor Igor Alexan­ drovic Mel´cuk, 257–72. Kahane, Sylvain, and Timothy Osborne (2015). ‘Translator’s Introduction’, in Lucien Tes­ nière (ed), Elements of Structural Syntax. Translated by Timothy Osborne and Sylvain Ka­ hane. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, xxix–lxxiii. Kaisse, Ellen M. (1985). Connected Speech. New York: Academic Press. Page 67 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Kaleta, Agnieszka (2016). ‘The binding hierarchy and infinitival complementation in Eng­ lish and in Polish: A contrastive study’, in Grzegorz Drożdż (ed), Studies in Lexicogram­ mar: Theory and Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 143–59. Kallel, Amel (2011). The Loss of Negative Concord in Standard English: A Case of Lexical Reanalysis. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Kaltenböck, Gunther (2004). ‘Using non-extraposition in spoken and written texts: A func­ tional perspective’, in Karin Aijmer and Anna-Brita Stenström (eds), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 219–42. Kaltenböck, Gunther (2005). ‘It-extraposition in English: A functional view.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10(2): 119–59. Kaltenböck, Gunther (2011). ‘Explaining diverging evidence: The case of clause-initial I think’, in Doris Schönefeld (ed), Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Is­ sues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 81–112. Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine, and Tania Kuteva (2011). ‘On thetical grammar.’ Stud­ ies in Language 35(4): 852–97. Kamp, Hans (1981). ‘A theory of truth and semantic representation’, in Jeroen Groe­ nendijk, Theo M. B. Janssen, and Martin Stokhof (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts, 277–322. Kamp, Hans, and Uwe Reyle (1993). From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheo­ retic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kaplan, David (1989). ‘Demonstratives’, in Joseph Almog, John Perry, and Harvey Wettstein (eds), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 481–563. Kaplan, Ronald M., and Joan Bresnan (1982). ‘Lexical-functional grammar: A for­ mal system for grammatical representation’, in Joan Bresnan (ed), The Mental Represen­ tation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 173–281. (p. 740)

Karlsson, Fred (1987). Finnish Grammar, 2nd edn. Helsinki: Werner Söderström Osakey­ htiö. Karttunen, Lauri (1973). ‘Presuppositions of compound sentences.’ Linguistic Inquiry 4(2): 169–93. Karttunen, Lauri (1974). ‘Presupposition and linguistic context.’ Theoretical Linguistics 1(1): 181–94. Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters (1979). ‘Conventional implicature’, in Choon-Kyu Oh and David A. Dineen (eds), Presupposition, vol. 11 of Syntax and Semantics, 1–56. New York: Academic Press. Page 68 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Kasher, Asa (ed) (1998). Pragmatics, vol. I–VI. New York: Routledge. Kastovsky, Dieter (2005). ‘Hans Marchand and the Marchandeans’, in Pavol Štekauer and Rochelle Lieber (eds), Handbook of Word-Formation. New York, NY: Springer, 99–124. Katamba, Francis, and John Stonham (2006). Morphology, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Pal­ grave Macmillan. Katz, Jonah, and Elizabeth Selkirk (2011). ‘Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English.’ Language 87: 771–816. Kay, Paul (2013). ‘The limits of (construction) grammar’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 32–48. Kay, Paul, and Charles J. Fillmore (1999). ‘Grammatical constructions and linguistic gen­ eralization: The What’s X doing Y? construction.’ Language 75(1): 1–33. Kaye, Jonathan (1989). Phonology: A Cognitive View. New Jersey, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kaye, Jonathan (1995). ‘Derivations and interfaces’, in Jacques Durand and Francis Katamba (eds), Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations. Harlow: Long­ man. Kayne, Richard S. (1983). ‘Connectedness.’ Linguistic Inquiry 14(2): 223–49. Kayne, Richard S. (1984). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris Publica­ tions. Kayne, Richard S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kazanina, Nina, Ellen Lau, Moti Lieberman, Masaya Yoshida, and Colin Phillips (2007). ‘The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora.’ Journal of Memory and Language 56: 384–409. Kearns, Kate (2000). Semantics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kearns, Kate (2011). Semantics, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Keenan, Edward, and Bernard Comrie (1977). ‘Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar.’ Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99. Keenan-Ochs, Elinor, and Bambi Schieffelin (1976). ‘Topic as a discourse notion’, in Charles N. Li (ed), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 335–84. Kehoe, Andrew, and Matt Gee (2011). ‘Social tagging: A new perspective on textual “aboutness”’, in Paul Rayson, Sebastian Hoffmann, and Geoffrey Leech (eds), Method­ ological and Historical Dimensions of Corpus Linguistics. (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 6.) Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts, and Change in Page 69 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References English. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/06/kehoe_gee/, last ac­ cessed 6 April 2019. Keizer, Evelien (2004). ‘Postnominal PP complements and modifiers: A cognitive distinc­ tion.’ English Language and Linguistics 8(2): 1–28. Keizer, Evelien (2007). The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Cate­ gorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (p. 741)

Keizer, Evelien (2011). ‘English proforms: An alternative account.’ English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 303–34. Keizer, Evelien (2015). A Functional Discourse Grammar for English. Oxford: Oxford Uni­ versity Press. Keizer, Evelien (2016). ‘We teachers, you fools: Pro + N(P) constructions in Functional Discourse Grammar.’ Language Sciences 53: 177–92. Keller, Frank (2000). Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality. Ph.D. thesis. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Kelly, Michael H. (1992). ‘Using sound to solve syntactic problems: The role of phonology in grammatical category assignments.’ Psychological Review 99: 349–64. Kelly, Michael H. (1996). ‘The role of phonology in grammatical category assignment’, in James L. Morgan and Katherine Demuth (eds), From Signal to Syntax. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 249–62. Kelly, Michael H., and J. Kathryn Bock (1988). ‘Stress in time.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14: 389. Kempson, Ruth M. (1975). Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kempson, Ruth M. (2016). ‘Syntax as the dynamics of language understanding’, in Keith Allan (ed), The Routledge Handbook of Linguistics. London: Routledge, 135–52. Kempson, Ruth M., Wilfried Meyer-Viol, and Dov Gabbay (2001). Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. Oxford: Blackwell. Kenesei, István (2007). ‘Semiwords and affixoids: The territory between word and affix.’ Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54: 263–93. Kennedy, Christopher (1999). Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York: Garland. Kennedy, Christopher (2007). ‘Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and ab­ solute gradable adjectives.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1): 1–45.

Page 70 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally (2005). ‘Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates.’ Language 81(2): 345–81. Kenstowicz, Michael (1993). Phonology in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Kho, Kuan H., Peter Indefrey, Peter Hagoort, C. W. M. van Veelen, Peter C. van Rijen, and Nick F. Ramsey (2008), ‘Unimpaired sentence comprehension after anterior temporal cor­ tex resection.’ Neuropsychologia 46: 1170–8. Kilgariff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On. Brighton: Lexical Computing. Available at: www.sketchengine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/ The_Sketch_Engine_2014.pdf. Kim, Albert, and Lee Osterhout (2005). ‘The independence of combinatory semantic pro­ cessing: Evidence from event-related potentials.’ Journal of Memory and Language 52: 205–25. Kim, Jong-Bok, and Ivan A. Sag (2002). ‘Negation without head-movement.’ Natural Lan­ guage and Linguistic Theory 20(2): 339–412. Kim, Jong-Bok, and Peter Sells (2015). ‘English binominal NPs: A construction-based per­ spective.’ Journal of Linguistics 51(1): 41–73. Kiparsky, Paul (1982a). ‘Word-formation and the Lexicon’, in Fred Ingemann (ed), Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference. Lawrence: University of (p. 742)

Kansas, 3–29. Kiparsky, Paul (1982b). ‘From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology’, in Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith (eds), The Structure of Phonological Representations. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Kiparsky, Paul (1985). ‘Some consequences of lexical phonology.’ Phonology 2: 85–138. Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky (1970). ‘Fact’, in Manfred Bierwisch and Karl Erich Heidolph (eds), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 143–73. Kiss, Katalin É. (1996). ‘Two subject positions in English.’ The Linguistic Review 13: 119– 42. Kissine, Mikhail (2012). ‘Sentences, utterances and speech acts’, in Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 169–90. Kitagawa, Yoshihisa (1986). Subjects in Japanese and English. Ph.D. thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Klavans, Judith L. (1982). ‘Some problems in a theory of clitics.’ Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Page 71 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Klein, Dan, and Christopher D. Manning (2004). ‘Corpus-based induction of syntactic structure: Models of dependency and constituency.’ Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2004), 479–86. http:// nlp.stanford.edu/~manning/papers/factored-induction-camera.pdf. Klein, Ewan (1980). ‘A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 4(1): 1–45. Klein, Ewan (1982). ‘The interpretation of adjectival comparatives.’ Journal of Linguistics 18(1): 113–36. Klein, Ewan (1991). ‘Comparatives’, in Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 673–91. Klein, Ewan, and Ivan A. Sag (1985). ‘Type-driven translation.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 8(2): 163–201. Klima, Edward S. (1965). Studies in Diachronic Syntax. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Klotz, Michael (2015). ‘Foundations of dependency and valency theory’, in Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook. Vol­ ume 2. Berlin/Munich, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 1004–26. Klotz, Michael (2019) ‘Explaining explain: Some remarks on verb complementation, argu­ ment structure and the history of two English verbs.’ English Studies 100 (3): 339–356. Klotz, Michael, and Thomas Herbst (2016). English Dictionaries: A Linguistic Introduction. Berlin: Schmidt. Kluender, Robert, and Marta Kutas (1993a). ‘Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5: 196– 214. Kluender, Robert, and Marta Kutas (1993b). ‘Subjacency as a processing phenomenon.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 573–633. Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher (1985). ‘Sprache der Nähe–Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte.’ Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43. Kokkonidis, Miltiadis (2008). ‘First-order glue.’ Journal of Logic, Language and Informa­ tion 17(1): 43–68. König, Ekkehard (1991). The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. Lon­ don: Routledge.

Page 72 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund (2000). ‘Intensifiers and reflexives: A typo­ logical perspective’, in Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci Curl (eds), Reflexives: Forms and Functions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 41–74. (p. 743)

König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund (2007). ‘Speech act distinctions in grammar,’ in Tim­ othy Shopen (ed), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 2nd edn, Vol. 1: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 276–324. König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund (2011). ‘Satztyp und Typologie’, in Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach, and Hans Altmann (eds), Satztypen des Deutschen. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 84–873. König, Esther, Wolfgang Lezius, and Holger Voormann (2003). TIGERSearch User’s Manu­ al. IMS, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart. Available at: www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/ forschung/ressourcen/werkzeuge/TIGERSearch/manual.html. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew (2014). ‘Verbal derivation’, in Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford Univer­ sity Press, 257–75. Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche (1991). ‘The position of subjects.’ Lingua 85: 211–58. Koopman, Hilda, Dominique Sportiche, and Edward Stabler (2013). An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Korta, Kepa, and John Perry (2015). ‘Pragmatics’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, Winter 2015 edn. Kortmann, Bernd (2002). ‘New prospects for the study of English dialect syntax: Impetus from syntactic theory and language typology’, in Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips, and Su­ sanne van der Kleij (eds), Syntactic Microvariation. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute, 185– 213. Kortmann, Bernd (2004). ‘Synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in the British Isles’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 1089–103. Kortmann, Bernd (2006). ‘Syntactic variation in English: A global perspective’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 603–24. Kortmann, Bernd (2013). ‘How powerful is geography as an explanatory factor of varia­ tion? Areal features in the Anglophone world’, in Peter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stuken­ brock, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds), Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographi­

Page 73 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References cal, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 165– 94. Kortmann, Bernd, and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds) (2012a). The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Kortmann, Bernd, and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (2012b). ‘Introduction’, in Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/ Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–11. Kortmann, Bernd, and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds) (2013). The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English 2.0. [eWAVE 2.0]. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary An­ thropology. http://ewave-atlas.org. Kortmann, Bernd, and Verena Schröter (2017). ‘Varieties of English’, in Raymond Hickey (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 304–30. Kortmann, Bernd, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (2004). ‘Global synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in English’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 1142–1202. (p. 744)

Kortmann, Bernd, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (2011). ‘Parameters of morphosyn­

tactic variation in world Englishes: Prospects and limitations of searching for universals’, in Peter Siemund (ed), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 257–83. Kortmann, Bernd, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds) (2012). Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kortmann, Bernd, and Christoph Wolk (2012). ‘Morphosyntactic variation in the Anglo­ phone world: A global perspective’, in Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 906– 36. Kortmann, Bernd, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar W. Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004). A Handbook of Varieties of English. Volume 2: Morphology and Syntax. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Koster, Jan (1978). ‘Why subject sentences don’t exist’, in S. Jay Keyser (ed), Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53–64. Kratzer, Angelika (1996). ‘Severing the external argument from its verb’, in Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 109–37. Kratzer, Angelika, and Elizabeth Selkirk (2007). ‘Default phrase stress, prosodic phrasing and the spellout edge: The case of verbs.’ The Linguistic Review 24: 93–135. Page 74 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Kreidler, Charles W. (1987). ‘English word stress: A theory of word-stress patterns in Eng­ lish by Ivan Poldauf and W. R. Lee [Review].’ Language 63: 155–8. Kress, Gunther, and Robert Hodge (1979). Language as Ideology. London: Routledge. Kreyer, Rolf (2006). Inversion in Modern Written English: Syntactic Complexity, Informa­ tion Status and the Creative Writer. Tübingen: Narr. Krifka, Manfred (1999). ‘Quantifying into question acts’, in Tanya Matthews and Devon Strolovitch (eds), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9. Ithaca, NY: CLC Pub­ lications. Krifka, Manfred (2001). ‘Quantifying into question acts.’ Natural Language Semantics 9(1): 1–40. Krifka, Manfred (2008). ‘Basic notions of information structure.’ Acta Linguistica Hungar­ ica 55(3–4): 243–76. Krifka, Manfred (2011). ‘Questions’, in Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul Portner (eds), Semantics 2. Handbook of Linguistics and Communication Science 33.2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1742–85. Krug, Manfred G. (2000). Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammati­ calization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kruisinga, Etsko (1909–1932). A Handbook of Present-Day English. Groningen: Noord­ hoff. Kruisinga, Etsko (1931). A Handbook of Present-Day English, Part II. English Accidence and Syntax, vol. 1, 5th edn. Groningen: Noordhoff. Kučera, Henry, and W. Nelson Francis (1967). Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English. Providence, MA: Brown University Press. Kuhn, Thomas (1977). ‘The historical structure of scientific discovery,’ in Thomas Kuhn, The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: Uni­ versity of Chicago Press, 165–77. Kuno, Susumo (1972). ‘Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English.’ Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320. Kunter, Gero (2011). Compound Stress in English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kuperberg, Gina R. (2007). ‘Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax.’ Brain Research 1146: 23–49. Kuperberg, Gina R., Tatiana Sitnikova, David Caplan, and Phillip J. Holcomb (2003). ‘Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences.’ Cognitive Brain Research 17: 117–29. (p. 745)

Page 75 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Kutas, Marta, and Kara D. Federmeier (2000). ‘Electrophysiology reveals semantic memo­ ry use in language comprehension.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4: 463–70. Kutas, Marta, and Steven A. Hillyard (1980). ‘Event-related brain potentials to semanti­ cally inappropriate and surprisingly large words.’ Biological Psychology 11: 99–116. Kutas, Marta, Cyma Van Petten, and Robert Kluender (2006). ‘Psycholinguistics electri­ fied II: 1994–2005’, in Matthew J. Traxler and Morton Ann Gernsbacher (eds), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 659–724. Kuteva, Tania (2004). Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Labov, William (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Centre for Applied Linguistics. Labov, William (1972a). ‘Negative attraction and negative concord in English grammar.’ Language 48: 773–818. Labov, William (1972b). Language in the Inner City: Studies in Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ladd, D. Robert (1980). The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ladd, D. Robert (2008). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ladd, D. Robert (2014). Simultaneous Structure in Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ladd, D. Robert, and Rachel Morton (1997). ‘The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical?’ Journal of Phonetics 25: 313–42. Lakatos, Imre (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. New York: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Lakoff, George (1965). On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity. Ph.D. thesis. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Published as Lakoff (1970a). Lakoff, George (1970a). Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lakoff, George (1970b). ‘Linguistics and natural logic.’ Synthese 22(1–2): 151–271. Lakoff, George (1975). ‘Pragmatics in natural logic’, in Edward L. Keenan (ed), Formal Se­ mantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 253–86. Lakoff, George (1982). ‘Categories: An essay in cognitive linguistics’, in Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Korea: Linguistic Society of Korea, 139–93.

Page 76 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lakoff, George (1992). ‘The contemporary theory of metaphor’, in Andrew Ortony (ed), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202–51. Lakoff, George (1993). ‘Cognitive phonology’, in John Goldsmith (ed), The Last Phonologi­ cal Rule: Reflections on Constraints and Derivations. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 117–45. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson (1980/1981). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lakoff, Robin (1989). ‘The way we were; Or; the real actual truth about generative se­ mantics: A memoir.’ Journal of Pragmatics 13(6): 939–88. Lambek, Joachim (1958). ‘The mathematics of sentence structure.’ American Mathemati­ cal Monthly 65(3): 154–70. Lambrecht, Knud (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi­ (p. 746)

ty Press. Lambrecht, Knud (2001). ‘A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions.’ Linguistics 39(3): 463–516. Landau, Idan (2013). Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1982). ‘Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive.’ Language 58(1): 22–80. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I. Theoretical Pre­ requisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1988). ‘A usage-based model’, in Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed), Top­ ics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 127–61. Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II. Descriptive Ap­ plication. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1997). ‘Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping.’ Cog­ nitive Linguistics 8: 1–32. Langacker, Ronald W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. (2002 [1991]). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Page 77 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Langacker, Ronald W. (2005). ‘Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so’, in Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and M. Sandra Peña Cervel (eds), Cognitive Linguis­ tics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 101–59. Langacker, Ronald W. (2008a). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (2008b). ‘Sequential and summary scanning: A reply.’ Cognitive Lin­ guistics 19: 571–84. Langacker, Ronald W. (2009). Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. (2013). ‘Modals: striving for control’, in Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Mar­ ta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita, and Johan van der Auwera (eds), English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter [TIELS 81], 1–55. Langacker, Ronald W. (2015). ‘How to build an English clause.’ Journal of Foreign Lan­ guage Teaching and Applied Linguistics 2(2): 1–45. Langacker, Ronald W. (2016). ‘Trees, chains, assemblies, and windows’. Keynote paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Construction Grammar at the Federal University of Juiz de For, 5–7 October 2016. Langendoen, D. Terence, and Harris Savin (1971). ‘The projection problem for presuppo­ sitions’, in Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen (eds), Studies in Linguistic Se­ mantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 373–88. Lapointe, Steven (1980). A Theory of Grammatical Agreement. Ph.D. thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Lappin, Shalom, and Chris Fox (eds) (2015). The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Larkin, Philip (1974). High Windows. London: Faber and Faber. Larson, Richard (1988). ‘On the double object construction.’ Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335– 91. Lasnik, Howard (2002). ‘Clause-mate conditions’. Korean Linguistics Today and Tomor­ row: Proceedings of the 2002 Association for Korean Linguistics, 386–93. Lasnik, Howard, and Terje Lohndal (2010). ‘Government–binding/principles and parameters theory.’ Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1–1: 40–50. (p. 747)

Lasnik, Howard, and Terje Lohndal (2013). ‘Brief overview of the history of generative syntax’, in Marcel den Dikken (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 26–60. Page 78 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito (1984). ‘On the nature of proper government.’ Lin­ guistic Inquiry 15: 235–89. Lass, Roger (1992). ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Norman Blake (ed), The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. II 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23–155. Lass, Roger (1999). ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Roger Lass (ed), The Cambridge His­ tory of the English Language, Vol. III 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–186. Lass, Roger (2006). ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Richard Hogg and David Denison (eds), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 43– 108. Lau, Ellen F., Clare Stroud, Silke Plesch, and Colin Phillips (2006). ‘The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis.’ Brain and Language 98: 74–88. Lee, Seung-Ah (2007). ‘Ing forms and the progressive puzzle: A construction-based ap­ proach to English progressives.’ Journal of Linguistics 43: 153–95. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1969). Towards a Semantic Description of English. London: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey N. (2000a). ‘Grammars of spoken English: New outcomes of corpus-ori­ ented research.’ Language Learning 50(4): 675–724. Leech, Geoffrey N. (2000b). ‘Same grammar or different grammar? Contrasting ap­ proaches to the grammar of spoken English discourse’, in Srikant Sarangi and Malcolm Coulthard (eds), Discourse and Social Life. London: Longman, 48–65. Leech, Geoffrey N. (2003). ‘Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961– 1992’, in Roberta Fachinetti, Manfred Krug, and Frank Palmer (eds), Modality in Contem­ porary English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 223–40. Leech, Geoffrey N. (2004). Meaning and the English Verb, 3rd edn. London: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey N. (2008). Language in Literature: Style and Foregrounding. London: Pearson Education. Leech, Geoffrey N. (2012). ‘Where have all the modals gone? On the recent loss of fre­ quency of English modal auxiliaries.’ Guest lecture, English Department, Zürich, 18 April 2012. Leech, Geoffrey N., and Roger Garside (1991). ‘Running a grammar factory: The produc­ tion of syntactically annotated corpora or “treebanks”, in Stig Johansson and Anna-Britte

Page 79 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Stenström (eds), English Computer Corpora: Selected Papers and Research Guide. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 15–32. Leech, Geoffrey N., and Mick Short (2007). Style in Fiction. London: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey N., and Jan Svartvik (2002). A Communicative Grammar of English, 3rd edn. Abingdon/New York: Routledge. Leech, Geoffrey N., Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair, and Nicholas Smith (2009). Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lees, Robert B. (1960). The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Lehmann, Christian (1985). ‘Synchronic variation and diachronic change.’ Lingua e Stile 20(3): 303–318. Lehmann, Christian (1988). ‘Towards a typology of clause linkage’, in John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), Clause Combining in Discourse and Grammar (p. 748)

(Typological Studies in Language, 18). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181– 225. Leino, Jaakko (2013). ‘Information structure’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trous­ dale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 329–44. Leitner, Gerhard (1984). ‘English grammaticology.’ International Review of Applied Lin­ guistics in Language Teaching 23: 199–215. Lerner, Gene H. (1992). ‘Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter.’ Qualitative Sociology 15(3): 247–71. Lev, Iddo (2007). Packed Computation of Exact Meaning Representations. Ph.D. thesis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Levi, Judith (1978). The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press. Levin, Beth (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1988). ‘Non-event -er nominals: A probe into argument structure.’ Linguistics, 26: 1067–83. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1991). ‘Wiping the slate clean: A lexical seman­ tic exploration.’ Cognition 41: 123–51. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Page 80 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1998). ‘Morphology and the lexicon’, in An­ drew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell, 248–71. Levine, Robert D. (2012). ‘Auxiliaries: To’s company.’ Journal of Linguistics 48: 187–203. Levine, Robert D. (2017). Syntactic Analysis: An HPSG-based Approach. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Levinson, Stephen C. (1979). ‘Pragmatics and social deixis: Reclaiming the notion of con­ ventional implicature’, in Christine Chiarello, John Kingston, Eve E. Sweetser, James Collins, Haruko Kawasaki, John Manley-Buser, Dorothy W. Marshak, Catherine O’Connor, David Shaul, Marta Tobey, Henry Thompson and Katherine Turner (eds), Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguis­ tics Society, 206–33. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levinson, Stephen C. (2017). ‘Speech acts’, in Yan Huang (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 199–216. Levy, Yonata (1983). ‘It’s frogs all the way down.’ Cognition 15: 75–93. Lewis, David (1970). ‘General semantics.’ Synthese 22(1–2): 18–67. Lewis, Mark (1674). An Essay to Facilitate the Education of Youth, by Bringing Down the Rudiments of Grammar to the Sense of Seeing. London: Parkhurst. Lewis, Shevaun, and Colin Phillips (2015). ‘Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44: 27–46. Li, Juan (2011). ‘Collision of language in news discourse: A functional–cognitive perspec­ tive on transitivity.’ Critical Discourse Studies 8(3): 203–19. Liberman, Mark, and Janet Pierrehumbert (1984). ‘Intonational variance under changes in pitch range and length’, in Mark Aronoff and Richard T. Oehrle (eds), Language Sound Structure: Studies in Phonology Presented to Morris Halle by his teacher and students. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Liberman, Mark, and Alan Prince (1977). ‘On stress and linguistic rhythm.’ Lin­ guistic Inquiry 8: 249–336. (p. 749)

Lieber, Rochelle (2004). Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Lieber, Rochelle (2010). Introducing Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 81 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Lieber, Rochelle (2012). ‘Semantics of derivational morphology’, in Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2098–119. Lieber, Rochelle (2014). ‘Theoretical approaches to derivation’, in Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 50–66. Lieber, Rochelle (2015). ‘The semantics of transposition.’ Morphology 25: 353–69. Lieber, Rochelle (2016). English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Lieber, Rochelle, and Sergio Scalise (2007). ‘The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in a new theoretical universe’, in Geert Booij, Luca Ducceschi, Bernard Fradin, Emiliano Guevara, Angela Ralli and Sergio Scalise (eds), On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5) Fréjus 15–18 September 2005. Bologna: Università degli Studi di Bologna, 1–24. Lieber, Rochelle, and Pavol Štekauer (eds) (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lieven, Elena (2008). ‘Building language competence in first language acquisition.’ Euro­ pean Review 16(4): 445–56. Lieven, Elena (2016). ‘Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from here?’ Language and Cognition 8(3): 346–68. Lieven, Elena (2017). ‘Developing language from usage: Explaining errors’, in Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin, and Simone E. Pfenninger (eds), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieven, Elena, and Michael Tomasello (2008). ‘Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective’, in Peter Robinson and Nick C. Ellis (eds), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge, 168–96. Lieven, Elena, Julian M. Pine, and Gillian Baldwin (1997). ‘Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development.’ Journal of Child Language 24(1): 187–219. Lightfoot, David (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi­ ty Press. Lightfoot, David (1999). The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolu­ tion. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lindström, Jan, Yael Maschler, and Simona Pekarek Doehler (2016). ‘A cross-linguistic perspective on grammar and negative epistemics in talk-in-interaction.’ Journal of Prag­ matics 106: 72–9. Page 82 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Linell, Per (1998). Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Per­ spectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Linell, Per (2005). The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. London: Routledge. Linn, Andrew (2006). ‘English grammar writing’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 72–92. Littlemore, Jeannette, and John R. Taylor (eds) (2014). The Bloomsbury Compan­ ion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. (p. 750)

Lobeck, Anne (2006). ‘Ellipsis in DP’, in Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell, 145–73. Löbel, Elisabeth (1989). ‘Q as a functional category’, in Christa Bhatt, Elisabeth Löbel, and Claudia Schmidt (eds), Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena. Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins, 133–57. Löbner, Sebastian (1985). ‘Definites.’ Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326. Lohndal, Terje (2014). Phrase Structure and Argument Structure: A Case Study of the Syntax Semantics Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Longacre, Robert E. (1965). ‘Some fundamental insights of tagmemics.’ Language 41: 65– 76. Longobardi, Giuseppe (1994). ‘Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form.’ Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–65. López-Couso, María José and Belén Méndez-Naya (1996). ‘On the use of the subjunctive and modals in Old and Middle English dependent commands and requests: Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97: 411–22. Los, Bettelou (2012). ‘Generative approaches to English historical linguistics’, in Alexan­ der Bergs and Laurel J. Brinton (eds), English Historical Linguistics. An International Handbook, vol. 2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1613–31. Los, Bettelou (2015). A Historical Syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Lounsbury, Floyd (1953). Oneida Verb Morphology. Yale: Yale University Press. Lowe, John J. (2015a). ‘Complex predicates: An LFG+Glue analysis.’ Journal of Language Modelling 3(2): 413–62. Lowe, John J. (2015b). Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit: The Syntax and Semantics of Ad­ jectival Verb Forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Page 83 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Lowth, Robert (1762). A Short Introduction to English Grammar. London: A. Millar and R. and J. Dodsley. Lowth, Robert (1763). A Short Introduction to English Grammar: With Critical Notes (2nd edn., corrected). London: A. Millar and R. and J. Dodsley. Reprinted 1995, with Introduc­ tion by David A. Reibel. London: Routledge/Thoemmes. (Original work published 1762.) Luck, Steven (2005). An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cam­ bridge, MA: MIT Press. Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (2012a). ‘Tense and aspect’, in Raymond Hickey (ed), Areal Fea­ tures of the Anglophone World. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 329–58. Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (2012b). ‘Typological profile: L2 varieties’, in Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/ Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 844–72. Lyons, John (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Lyons, John (1977). Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John (1995). Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press. Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (2011). ‘The study of semantic alternations in a dialogic Functional Discourse Grammar’, in Pilar Guerrero Medina (ed), Morphosyntactic Alternations in Eng­ lish: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London: Equinox, 38–61. (p. 751)

Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (2016). ‘Functional linguistics’, in Keith Allen (ed), The

Routledge Handbook of Linguistics. London/New York: Routledge, 470–84. Macnamara, John (1982). Names for Things: A Study of Human Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. MacWhinney, Brian (1978). ‘The acquisition of morphophonology.’ Monographs of the So­ ciety for Research in Child Development, 1–123. MacWhinney, Brian (2001). ‘Emergentist approaches to language’, in Joan L. Bybee and Paul Hopper (eds), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 449–70. MacWhinney, Brian, Andrej Malchukov, and Edith Moravcsik (eds) (2014). Competing Mo­ tivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maddieson, Ian (2013). ‘Consonant-vowel ratio’, in Matthew Dryer and Martin Haspel­ math (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/3 (last accessed 7 April 2019). Page 84 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Madlener, Karin (2015). Frequency Effects in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Mahlberg, Michaela (2013). Corpus Stylistics and Dickens’s Fiction. New York/London: Routledge. Mahlberg, Michaela, and Catherine Smith (2012). ‘Dickens, the suspended quotation and the corpus.’ Language and Literature 21(1): 51–65. Mahlberg, Michaela, Peter Stockwell, Johan de Joode, Catherine Smith, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell (2016). ‘CLiC Dickens: Novel uses of concordances for the integration of corpus.’ stylistics and cognitive poetics.’ Corpora 11(3): 433–63. Maiden, Martin (2016). ‘Some lessons from history: Morphomes in diachrony’, in Ana R. Luís and Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds), The Morphome Debate: Diagnosing and Analysing Morphomic Patterns. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33–63. Maienborn, Claudia, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds) (2011a). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 1. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Maienborn, Claudia, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds) (2011b). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Maienborn, Claudia, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds) (2012). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Mair, Christian (1990). Infinitival Complement Clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mair, Christian (2003). ‘Gerundial complements after begin and start: Grammatical and sociolinguistic factors, and how they work against each other’, in Günther Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf (eds), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (Topics in English Linguistics, 34). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 329–45. Mair, Christian (2014a). ‘Do we got a difference? Divergent developments of semi-auxil­ iary (have) got (to) in British and American English’, in Marianne Hundt (ed), Late Mod­ ern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–76. Mair, Christian (2014b). ‘Globalisation and the transnational impact of non-standard vari­ eties’, in Eugene Green and Charles F. Meyer (eds), The Variability of Current World Eng­ lishes. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 65–96. Mair, Christian, and Geoffrey Leech (2006). ‘Current changes in English Syntax’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 318–42. Page 85 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Malchukov, Andrej L. (2009). ‘Incompatible categories: Resolving the “present perfective paradox”’, in Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop, and Andrej L. Malchukov (eds), Cross-linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect, and Modality (Linguistik Aktuell, 148). Ams­ terdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 13–32. (p. 752)

Maling, Joan (1983). ‘Transitive adjectives: A case of categorial reanalysis’, in Frank He­ ny and Barry Richards (eds), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Reidel, 253–89. Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson (1988). ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory: To­ wards a functional theory of text organization.’ Text 8(3): 243–81. Marantz, Alec (1995). ‘The minimalist program’, in Gert Webelhuth (ed), Government and Binding Theory and Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, 349–82. Marantz, Alec (1997). ‘No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the pri­ vacy of your own lexicon.’ University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: vol. 4(2), article 14: 201–25. Marantz, Alec (2016). ‘Linguistics as cognitive science: Back to our roots.’ 11th Annual Joshua and Verona Whatmough Lecture in Linguistics, Harvard University, April 11. [Available on YouTube]. Marchand, Hans (1960). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Forma­ tion: A Synchronic Diachronic Approach, 1st edn. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz. Marchand, Hans (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Forma­ tion: A Synchronic Diachronic Approach, 2nd edn. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuch­ handlung. Marcus, Mitchell, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, and Beatrice Santorini (1993). ‘Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank.’ Computational Linguistics 19(2): 313–30. Martí, Luisa (2006). ‘Unarticulated constituents revisited.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 29(2): 135–66. Martin, J. R. (2016). ‘Meaning matters: A short history of systemic functional linguistics.’ WORD 62(1): 35–58. Martin, J. R. (2011). ‘Systemic functional linguistics’, in Ken Hyland and Brian Paltridge (eds). Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum, 101–119. Martínez Insúa, Ana E. (2004). Existential There-constructions in Contemporary British English. München: Lincom. Mastop, R. J. (2005). What Can You Do?: Imperative Mood in Semantic Theory. Amster­ dam: Institute for Logic and Computation. Page 86 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Matthews, George H. (1965). Hidatsa Syntax. London: Mouton. Matthews. P. H. (1972). Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, P. H. (1981). Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, P. H. (1993). Grammatical Theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mattys, Sven L., Laurence White, and James F. Melhorn (2005). ‘Integration of multiple segmentation cues: A hierarchical framework.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen­ eral 134: 477–500. Mazoyer, Bernard M., Nathalie Tzourio, Victor Frak, André Syrota, Noriko Murayama, Olivier Levrier, Georges Salamon, Stanislas Dehaene, Laurent Cohen, and Jacques Mehler (1993). ‘The cortical representation of speech.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5: 467– 79. McArthur, Tom (1992). ‘Standard English’, in Tom McArthur (ed), The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 982–4. McCawley, James D. (1968a). ‘Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure’, in Bill J. Darden, Charles J. N. Bailey, and Alice Davison (eds), Papers from the (p. 753) Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 71–80. McCawley, James D. (1968b). ‘The role of semantics in a grammar’, in Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Win­ ston, 124–69. McCawley, James D. (1988). The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Vol. I. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. McCloskey, Jim (1997). ‘Subjecthood and subject positions’, in Liliane Haegeman (ed), El­ ements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 197–235. McCoard, Robert W. (1978). The English Perfect: Tense Choice and Pragmatic Inferences. Amsterdam: North-Holland. McCormick, Kay (2004). ‘Cape Flats English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kort­ mann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 993–1005. McEnery, Tony, and Andrew Hardie (2012). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Prac­ tice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 87 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References McGilvray, James (2014). Chomsky: Language, Mind, Politics, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Polity Press. McGinnis-Archibald, Martha (2016). ‘Distributed morphology’, in Andrew Hippisley and Gregory Stump (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 390–423. McGregor, William B. (1997). Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. McIntyre, Dan (2006). Point of View in Plays: A Cognitive Stylistic Approach to Viewpoint in Drama and Other Text-types. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. McKinnon, Richard, and Lee Osterhout (1996). ‘Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials.’ Language and Cogni­ tive Processes 11: 495–524. McMahon, April (2000). Change, Chance, and Optimality, Oxford: Oxford University Press. McWhorter, John (2001). ‘The world’s simplest grammars are Creole grammars.’ Linguis­ tic Typology 6: 125–66. Melchers, Gunnel (2004). ‘English spoken in Orkney and Shetland: Morphology, syntax and lexicon’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 34–46. Mel’čuk, Igor (2003). ‘Levels of dependency in linguistic description: Concepts and prob­ lems’, in Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jür­ gen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds), Dependenz und Valenz: Ein internationales Hand­ buch der zeitgenössischen Forschung/Dependency and Valency: An International Hand­ book of Contemporary Research. 1. Halbband/Volume 1. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 188–229. Mel’čuk, Igor (2009). ‘Dependency in natural language’, in Alan Polguère and Igor Mel’čuk (eds), Dependency in Linguistic Description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins. 1–110. Melloni, Chiara (2011). Event and Result Nominals: A Morpho-semantic Approach. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag. Merchant, Jason (1999). The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and Identity in Ellipsis. Ph.D. thesis. Santa Crux, CA: University of California at Santa Cruz. Merchant, Jason (2001). The Syntax of Silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Merchant, Jason (2013). ‘Voice and ellipsis.’ Linguistic Inquiry 44: 77–108. Miall, David, and Don Kuiken (1994). ‘Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Re­ sponse to literary stories.’ Poetics 22: 389–407. Page 88 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Michael, Ian (1970). English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (p. 754)

Michaelis, Laura, and Knud Lambrecht (1996). ‘The exclamative sentence type in Eng­ lish.’ Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Miestamo, Matti (2007). ‘Negation – an overview of typological research.’ Language and Linguistics Compass 1(5): 552–70. Miestamo, Matti (2010). ‘Negatives without negators’, in Jan Wohlgemuth and Michael Cysouw (eds), Rethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 45). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 169–94. Millar, Neil (2009). ‘Modal verbs in TIME. Frequency changes 1923–2006.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2): 191–220. Miller, Carolyn (1984). ‘Genre as social action.’ Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151–67. Miller, D. Gary (2014). English Lexicogenesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Miller, George A. (1995). ‘WordNet: A lexical database for English.’ Communications of the ACM 38(11): 39–41. Miller, George A., and Noam Chomsky (1963). ‘Finitary models of language users’, in R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter (eds), The Handbook of Mathemati­ cal Psychology, vol. 2, New York: Wiley, 419–93. Miller, James Edward (2011). A Critical Introduction to Syntax. London: Continuum. Miller, Jim (2004). ‘Scottish English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar W. Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 47–72. Miller, Jim (2006). ‘Spoken and written English’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 670–91. Miller, Jim, and Regina Weinert (1998). Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Dis­ course. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Minkova, Donka, and Robert Stockwell (2009). English Words: History and Structure, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mintz, Toben H. (2003). ‘Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child di­ rected speech.’ Cognition 90: 91–117. Moens, Marc, and Mark Steedman (1988). ‘Temporal ontology and temporal reference.’ Computational Linguistics 14: 15–28.

Page 89 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Mompean, Jose A. (2014). Cognitive Linguistics and Phonology, in Jeannette Littlemore and John Taylor (eds), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 253–276. Monaghan, Charles (1998). The Murrays of Murray Hill. Brooklyn, NY: Urban History Press. Monaghan, Padraic, Nick Chater, and Morten H. Christiansen (2005). ‘The differential role of phonological and distributional cues in grammatical categorisation.’ Cognition 96: 143–82. Mondorf, Britta (2010). ‘Genre effects in the replacement of reflexives by particles’, in Heidrun Dorgeloh and Anja Wanner (eds), Syntactic Variation and Genre. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 219–45. Montague, Richard (1970). ‘English as a formal language’, in Bruno Visentini et al. (eds), Linguaggi nella Società e nella Tecnica. Milan: Edizioni di Communità, 189–224. Reprint­ ed in Montague (1974: 188–221). Montague, Richard (1973). ‘The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English’, in Jaakko Hintikka, Julian Moravcsik, and Patrick Suppes (eds), Approaches to Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 221–42. Reprinted in Montague (1974: 247–70). Montague, Richard (1974). Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Edited and with an introduction by Richmond H. Thomason. (p. 755)

Montalbetti, Mario (1984). After Binding. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massa­

chusetts Institute of Technology. Montgomery, Michael (2004). ‘Appalachian English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Ko­ rtmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 245–80. Moreton, Elliott (2004). ‘Non‐computable functions in optimality theory’, in John J. Mc­ Carthy (ed), Optimality Theory in Phonology: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 141–63. Morgan, Jerry L. (1969). ‘On the treatment of presupposition in transformational gram­ mar’, in Robert I. Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia M. Green, and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 167–77. Morrill, Glyn V. (1994). Type Logical Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Morrill, Glyn V. (2011). Categorial Grammar: Logical Syntax, Semantics, and Processing. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Page 90 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Moss, Lesley (2014). Corpus Stylistics and Henry James’ Syntax. Ph.D. thesis. London: University College London. Mufwene, Salikoko S. (2001). The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mufwene, Salikoko S. (2004). ‘Gullah: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 356–73. Mukherjee, Joybrato (2006). ‘Corpus linguistics and English reference grammars.’ Lan­ guage and Computers 55: 337–54. Mulder, Jean, and Sandra A. Thompson (2008). ‘The grammaticalization of but as final particle in English conversation’, in Laury, Ritva (ed), Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mulder, Jean, Sandra A. Thompson, and Cara Perry Williams (2009). ‘Final but in Aus­ tralian English conversation’, in Pam Peters, Peter Collins, and Adam Smith (eds), Com­ parative Studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and Beyond. Amster­ dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 339–59. Müller, Peter O., Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen and Franz Rainer (eds) (2015). WordFormation: An International Handbook of the Languages of the World. 5 volumes. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Müller, Stefan (2015). ‘HPSG – A synopsis’, in Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 937–73. Müller, Stefan (2016a). Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Con­ straint-based Approaches. Berlin: Language Science Press. http://langsci-press.org/cat­ alog/book/25. Müller, Stefan (2016b). ‘Flexible phrasal constructions, constituent structure and (crosslinguistic) generalizations: A discussion of template-based phrasal LFG approaches’, in Doug Arnold, Miriam Butt, Berthold Crysmann, Tracy Holloway King, and Stefan Müller (eds), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Gram­ mar and Lexical Functional Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Müller, Stefan (2018). A Lexicalist Account of Argument Structure: Template-Based Phrasal LFG Approaches and a Lexical HPSG Alternative. Berlin: Language Science Press. Müller, Stefan, and Stephen Wechsler (2014). ‘Lexical approaches to argument structure.’ Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 1–76. Müller, Stefan, and Stephen Wechsler (2015). ‘The lexical-constructional debate’, in Wechsler. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 228–79. Page 91 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Münte, Thomas F., and Hans J. Heinze (1994). ‘ERP negativities during syntactic processing of written words’, in Hans J. Heinze, Thomas F. Münte, and G. R. Mangun (eds), Cognitive Electrophysiology. Boston: Birkhauser, 211–38. (p. 756)

Münte, Thomas F., Mike Matzke, and Sönke Johannes (1997). ‘Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuro­ science 9: 318–29. Murphy, M. Lynne (2003). Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonymy, Synonymy, and Other Paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murray, Lindley (1795). English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. York: Wilson, Spencer and Mawman. Murray, Lindley (1808). An English Grammar: Comprehending the Principles and Rules of the Language, Illustrated by Appropriate Exercises, and a Key to those Exercises, Vols. 1– 2. England: Thomas Wilson and Sons. Murray, Lindley (1826). Memoirs of the Life of Lindley Murray, in a Series of Letters. York: Longman and Rees. Murray, Thomas, and Beth Lee Simon (2004). ‘Colloquial American English: Grammatical features’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 221–44. Muysken, Pieter (2008). Functional Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nagle, Stephen J. (1994). ‘The English double modal conspiracy.’ Diachronica 11: 199– 212. Narrog, Heiko (2005a). ‘On defining modality again.’ Language Sciences 27: 165–92. Narrog, Heiko (2005b). ‘Modality, mood, and change of modal meanings: A new perspec­ tive.’ Cognitive Linguistics 16: 677–731. Narrog, Heiko (2012a). Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change. Oxford: Oxford Uni­ versity Press. Narrog, Heiko (2012b). ‘Modality and speech act orientation’, in Johan van der Auwera and Jan Nuyts (eds), Grammaticalization and (Inter)subjectification. [Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten.] Brussels: Universa, 21–36. Narrog, Heiko, and Bernd Heine (eds) (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticaliza­ tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nathan, Geoffrey S. (2008). Phonology: A Cognitive Grammar Introduction. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Neale, Stephen (1990). Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Page 92 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Neale, Stephen (2000). ‘On being explicit: Comments on Stanley and Szabó, and on Bach.’ Mind and Language 15(2–3): 284–94. Neidle, Carol (1994). ‘Lexical functional grammar’, in R. E. Asher and M. Y. Simpson (eds), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. New York: Pergamon Press: 2147– 53. Nelson, Gerald, Sean Wallis, and Bas Aarts (2002). Exploring Natural Language: Working With the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins. Nesfield, J. C. (1900). Outline of English Grammar. London: Macmillan. Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publica­ tions. Nevalainen, Terttu (2006). ‘Negative concord as an English “Vernacular Universal”: So­ cial history and linguistic typology.’ English Language and Linguistics 34(3): 257–78. Nevalainen, Terttu (2015). ‘Descriptive adequacy of the S-curve model in diachronic stud­ ies of language change’, in Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (ed), Can We Predict Linguis­ tic (p. 757) Change? (Studies in Variation, Contact and Change in English, 16). ErlangenNürnberg: Friedrich-Alexander University. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/vol­ umes/16/nevalainen/. Nevalainen, Terttu, and Elisabeth Closs Traugott (eds) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Neville, Helen, Janet L. Nicol, Andrew Barss, Kenneth I. Forster, and Merrill F. Garrett (1991). ‘Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3: 151–65. Nevins, Andrew, and Jeffrey Parrott (2010). ‘Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties.’ Lingua 120(5): 1135–59. Newlyn, Lucy (2005). Ginnel. Manchester: Carcanet. Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1980). Linguistic Theory in America. New York: Academic Press. Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1998). Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Newmeyer, Frederick J. (2003). ‘Grammar is grammar and usage is usage.’ Language 79: 682–707. Newmeyer, Frederick J. (2010). ‘What conversational English tells us about the nature of grammar: A critique of Thompson’s analysis of object complements’, in Kasper Boye and

Page 93 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Elizabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds), Usage and Structure: A Festschrift for Peter Harder. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 3–43. Newton, John (1669). School Pastime for Young Children: Or the Rudiments of Grammar. London: Walton. Nikolaeva, Irina (ed) (2007). Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Noonan, Michael (1999). ‘Non-structuralist syntax’, in Michael Darnell, Edith Moravcsik, Fritz Newmeyer, Michael Noonan, and Kathleen Wheatley (eds), Functionalism and For­ malism in Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 11–31. Nordlinger, Rachel, and Louisa Sadler (2004). ‘Nominal tense in crosslinguistic perspec­ tive.’ Language 80: 776–806. Nordlinger, Rachel, and Louisa Sadler (2019). ‘Morphology in LFG and HPSG’, in Jenny Audring and Francesca Masini (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press. Nordlinger, Rachel, and Elisabeth Closs Traugott (1997). ‘Scope and the development of epistemic modality: Evidence from ought to.’ English Language and Linguistics 1: 295– 317. Nouwen, Rick (forthcoming). ‘E-type pronouns: Congressmen, sheep and paychecks’, in Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann, and Thomas Ede Zim­ merman (eds), The Companion to Semantics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Nouwen, Rick, Adrian Brasoveanu, Jan van Eijck, and Albert Visser (2016). ‘Dynamic se­ mantics’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, Winter 2016 edn. Noyes, Alfred (1906). ‘The Highwayman.’ Blackwood’s Magazine vol. CLXXX: 244–7. Edin­ burgh: William Blackwood and Sons. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow (1994). ‘Idioms.’ Language 70: 491– 538. Nuyts, Jan (2001). Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A CognitivePragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nuyts, Jan (2006). ‘Modality: Overview and linguistic issues’, in Frawley (ed), 1–26. OED = Oxford English Dictionary (OED Online). 2000–. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/. OED (1961). The Oxford English Dictionary, 1st edn (extended). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (p. 758)

Page 94 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Öhl, Peter (2014). ‘Acquisition based and usage based explanations of grammaticalisaton. An integrative approach’, in Sylvie Hancil and Ekkehard König (eds), Grammaticalization: Theory and Data. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vol. 162 of Studies in Lan­ guage Companion Series. O’Keefe, Anne, and Michael McCarthy (eds) (2012). The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London/New York: Routledge. Orasan, Constantin (2001). ‘Patterns in scientific abstracts’, in Proceedings of Corpus Lin­ guistics 2001. Lancaster: Lancaster University, 433–43. Orton, Harold, and Eugen Dieth (eds) (1962–1971). Survey of English Dialects, 13 vol­ umes. Leeds: E.J. Arnold and Son Ltd. Osborne, Timothy (2015). ‘Dependency grammar’, in Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook. Volume 2, Berlin/Mu­ nich, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 1027–45. Osborne, Timothy, and Thomas Groß (2012). ‘Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar.’ Cognitive Linguistics 23(1), 165–216. Osborne, Timothy, Michael Putnam, and Thomas Gross (2011). ‘Bare phrase structure, la­ bel-less structures, and specifier-less syntax: Is minimalism becoming a dependency grammar?’ The Linguistic Review 28: 315–64. Osterhout, Lee, and Peter Hagoort (1999). ‘A superficial resemblance does not necessari­ ly mean you are part of the family: Counterarguments to Coulson, King and Kutas (1998) in the P600/SPS-P300 debate.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 14: 1–14. Osterhout, Lee, and Phillip J. Holcomb (1992). ‘Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly.’ Journal of Memory and Language 31: 785–806. Osterhout, Lee, and Linda A. Mobley (1995). ‘Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree.’ Journal of Memory and Language 34: 739–73. Osterhout, Lee, Phillip J. Holcomb, and David Swinney (1994). ‘Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during pars­ ing.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20: 786–803. Östman, Jan-Ola, and Jef Verschueren (eds) (2016). Handbook of Pragmatics Online. Ams­ terdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/online/hop/. Övergaard, Gerd (1995). The Mandative Subjunctive in American and British English in the 20th Century. Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksell. Palmer, Frank R. (1965). A Linguistic Study of the English Verb. London: Longman. Palmer, Frank R. (1979). Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman. Page 95 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Palmer, Frank R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, Frank R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman. Palmer, Frank R. (2001). Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, Frank R. (2003). ‘Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological is­ sues’, in Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug, and Frank Palmer (eds), Modality in Contem­ porary English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–17. Paltridge, Brian, and Sue Starfield (eds) (2013). The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell. Panagiotidis, Phoevos (2015). Categorial Features: A Generative Theory of Word Class Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Papafragou, Anna (1998). ‘Inference and word meaning: the case of modal auxil­ iaries.’ Lingua 105: 1–47. (p. 759)

Partee, Barbara H. (1995). ‘Lexical semantics and compositionality’, in Lila R. Gleitman and Mark Liberman (eds), An Invitation to Cognitive Science: Language, vol. 1, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 311–60. Partee, Barbara H., Alice ter Meulen, and Robert E. Wall (1993). Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pater, Joe (2009). ‘Weighted constraints in generative linguistics.’ Cognitive Science 33, 999–1035. Patten, Amanda (2012). The English It-cleft. A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pawley, Andrew (2004). ‘Australian Vernacular English: Some grammatical characteris­ tics’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 611–42. Pawley, Andrew, and Frances Hodgetts Syder (1983). ‘Natural selection in syntax: Notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar.’ Journal of Prag­ matics 7: 551–79. Payne, John (2011). ‘Genitive coordinations with personal pronouns.’ English Language and Linguistics 15: 363–85. Payne, John, and Rodney Huddleston (2002). ‘Nouns and noun phrases’, in Rodney Hud­ dleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 323–523.

Page 96 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Payne, John, Rodney Huddleston, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2007). ‘Fusion of functions: The syntax of once, twice and thrice.’ Journal of Linguistics 43: 565–603. Payne, John, Rodney Huddleston, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2010). ‘The distribution and category status of adjectives and adverbs.’ Word Structure 3: 31–81. Payne, John, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Barbara C. Scholz, and Eva Berlage (2013). ‘Anaphoric one and its implications.’ Language 89(4): 794–829. Penhallurick, Robert (2004). ‘Welsh English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 102–13. Penrose, Ann, and Steven Katz (1998). Writing in the Sciences: Exploring Conventions of Scientific Discourse. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Perek, Florent (2012). ‘Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental gram­ mar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment.’ Cognitive Linguistics 23(3): 601–35. Perek, Florent, and Adele E. Goldberg (2015). ‘Generalizing beyond the input: The func­ tions of the constructions matter.’ Journal of Memory and Language 84: 108–27. Pérez-Guerra, Javier, and Ana E. Martınez-Insua (2010). ‘Do some genres or text types be­ come more complex than others?’, in Heidrun Dorgeloh and Anja Wanner (eds), Syntactic Variation and Genre. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 111–40. Perlmutter, David M. (ed) (1983). Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Perry, John (1986). ‘Thought without representation.’ Supplementary Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 60: 137–51. Phillips, Colin (2006). ‘The real-time status of island phenomena.’ Language 82: 795–823. Phillips, Colin, Nina Kazanina, and Shani H. Abada (2005). ‘ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies.’ Cognitive Brain Research 22: 407–28. Phillips, Susan (2011). ‘Chaucer’s language lessons’. The Chaucer Review 46(1 and 2): 39–59. Pickering, Martin J., and Victor S. Ferreira (2008). ‘Structural priming: A critical review.’ Psychological Bulletin 134(3): 427–59. (p. 760)

Pierrehumbert, Janet (2003). ‘Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology.’ Language and Speech 46: 115–54. Pierrehumbert, Janet (2006). ‘The next toolkit.’ Journal of Phonetics 34: 516–30. Pierrehumbert, Janet, and Julia Hirschberg (1990). ‘The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse.’ Intentions in Communication 271–311. Page 97 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Pierrehumbert, Janet, Mary E. Beckman, and D. R. Ladd (2000). ‘Conceptual foundations of phonology as a laboratory science’, in Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr, and Gerard Docherty (eds), Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press, 273–304. Pietsch, Lukas (2005). Variable Grammars: Verbal Agreement in Northern Dialects of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pietsch, Lukas (2009). ‘Hiberno-English medial-object perfects reconsidered: A case of contact-induced grammaticalisation.’ Studies in Language 33(3): 528–568. Pinker, Steven (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pinker, Steven (1999). Words and Rules. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Pinker, Steven (2009). Language Learnability and Language Development [with new com­ mentary by the author]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pintzuk, Susan (2019). ‘Adding linguistic information to parsed corpora’. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 18. Available at: http://csli-lilt.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/LiLT/ article/view/106 Plag, Ingo (2003). Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plag, Ingo, and Harald Baayen (2009). ‘Suffix ordering and morphological processing.’ Language 85: 109–52. Plag, Ingo, Gero Kunter, Sabine Lappe, and Maria Braun (2008). ‘The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalisation in compound stress assignment in English.’ Lan­ guage 84: 760–94. Plank, Frans (1984). ‘The modals story retold.’ Studies in Language 8: 305–64. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag (1987). Information-based Syntax and Semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Popper, Karl (1934/2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge. Portner, Paul, and Barbara H. Partee (eds) (2002). Formal Semantics: The Essential Read­ ings. Oxford: Blackwell. Postal, Paul M. (1964). Constituent Structure: A Study of Contemporary Models of Syntac­ tic Description. The Hague: Mouton. Postal, Paul M. (1974). On Raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Page 98 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Postal, Paul M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum (1988). ‘Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions.’ Linguistic Inquiry 19: 635–70. Potts, Christopher (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford Univer­ sity Press. Potts, Christopher (2007a). ‘The centrality of expressive indices.’ Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 255–68. Potts, Christopher (2007b). ‘The Expressive Dimension.’ Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–97. Potts, Christopher (2015). ‘Presupposition and implicature’, in Lappin and Fox (eds), 168–202. (p. 761)

Poutsma, Hendrik (1904–1929). A Grammar of Late Modern English I–V. Groningen: No­ ordhoff. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky (2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. [Revision of Prince and Smolensky (1993).] Oxford: Blackwell. Prince, Ellen F. (1978). ‘A comparison of Wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse.’ Language 54: 883–907. Prince, Ellen F. (1981a). ‘Toward a taxonomy of given-new information’, in Peter Cole (ed), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 223–55. Prince, Ellen F. (1981b). ‘Topicalization, focus-movement, and Yiddish-movement: A prag­ matic differentiation’, in Danny K. Alford, Karen Ann Hunold, Monica A. Macaulay, Jenny Walter, Claudia Brugman, Paul Chertok, Inese Civkulis and Marta Tobey (eds), Proceed­ ings of the 7th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 249–64. Prince, Ellen F. (1984). ‘Topicalisation and left-dislocation: A functional analysis’, in Sheila J. White and Virginia Teller (eds), Discourses in Reading and Linguistics. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 213–25. Prince, Ellen F. (1992). ‘The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status’, in William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund-raising Text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 295–325. Prince, Ellen F. (1997). ‘On the functions of left-dislocation in English discourse’, in Akio Kamio (ed), Directions in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins, 117–43. Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1974). ‘Lowth’s grammar: A re-evaluation.’ Linguistics 137: 63–78. Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1982). ‘Syncategorematicity and English infinitival to.’ Glossa 16: 181–215. Page 99 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2009). ‘Lexical categorization in English dictionaries and traditional grammars.’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 57: 255–73. Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2010). ‘The truth about English grammar: Rarely pure and never simple’, in Tien-en Kao and Yao-fu Lin (eds), A New Look at Language Teaching and Test­ ing: English as Subject and Vehicle. Taipei: Language Training and Testing Center, 16–39. Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2013). ‘The central question in comparative syntactic metatheory.’ Mind and Language 28(4): 492–521. Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Rodney Huddleston (2002). ‘Prepositions and preposition phras­ es’, in Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 597–661. Pullum, Geoffrey K., and James Rogers (2008). ‘Expressive power of the syntactic theory implicit in The Cambridge Grammar.’ Presented to the Linguistics Association of Great Britain (online at http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/EssexLAGB.pdf). Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Deirdre Wilson (1977). ‘Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries.’ Language 53: 741–88. Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Bert Cappelle, and Yury Shtyrov (2013). ‘Brain basis of mean­ ing, words, constructions and grammar’, in Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 396–416. Pustejovsky, James (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Putnam, Hilary (1974). ‘The “Corroboration” of Scientific Theories’, republished in Ian Hacking (ed) (1981), Scientific Revolutions, Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press, 60–79. Quaglio, Paulo, and Douglas Biber (2006). ‘The grammar of conversation’, in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 692–723. (p. 762)

Quine, Willard van Orman (1956). ‘Quantifiers and propositional attitudes.’ Journal of Phi­ losophy 53(5): 177–87. Quine, Willard van Orman (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Quirk, Randolph (1960). ‘Towards a description of English usage.’ Transactions of the Philological Society 59: 40–61. Quirk, Randolph (2002). ‘Randolph Quirk’, in Keith Brown and Vivian Law (eds), Linguis­ tics in Britain: Personal Histories. Oxford: Philological Society, 239–48. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1972). A Gram­ mar of Contemporary English. London: Longman. Page 100 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985). A Compre­ hensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Radden, Günter, and René Dirven (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Radford, Andrew (1981). Transformational Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Radford, Andrew (1988). Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Radford, Andrew (1997). Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Ap­ proach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rainer, Franz (2016). ‘Blocking’. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Retrieved 3 Jun. 2019, from https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/ 9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-33. Ramchand, Gillian (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Ramchand, Gillian, and Charles Reiss (eds) (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic In­ terfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Randall, Beth (2005–2007). CorpusSearch 2. Available at: http:// corpussearch.sourceforge.net. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin (1998). ‘Building verb meanings’, in Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds), The Projection of Arguments. Stanford: CSLI Publica­ tions, 97–134. Rauh, Gisa (2010). Syntactic Categories: Their Identification and Description in Linguistic Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Recanati, François (1987). Meaning and Force: The Pragmatics of Performative Utter­ ances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Recanati, François (2002). ‘Unarticulated constituents.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 25(3): 299–345. Recanati, François (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reichenbach, Hans (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. London: Collier-Macmillan Ltd. Reinhart, Tanya (1981a). ‘Definite NP anaphora and C-Command domains.’ Linguistic In­ quiry 12: 605–35.

Page 101 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Reinhart, Tanya (1981b). ‘Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics.’ Philosophica 27: 53–94. Reinhart, Tanya (1982). Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Renner, Vincent (2008). ‘On the semantics of English coordinate compounds.’ English Studies 89: 606–13. Renner, Vincent (2013). ‘Lexical blending as wordplay.’ Paper presented at the Interna­ tional Conference on Wordplay and Metalinguistic Reflection, Tübingen, March 2013. Rett, Jessica (2009). ‘A degree account of exclamatives’, in Proceedings of SALT 18. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. (p. 763)

Rett, Jessica (2011). ‘Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 34(5): 411–42. Rialland, Annie (2007). ‘Question prosody: An African perspective’, in Tomas Riad and Carlos Gussenhoven (eds), Tones and Tunes: Typological Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 35–62. Richards, Marc (2015). ‘Minimalism’, in Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommu­ nikationswissenschaft. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 803–39. Riemsdijk, Henk van (2006). ‘Free relatives’, in Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell, 338–82. Rijkhoff, Jan (2002). The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ritz, Marie-Eve (2012). ‘Perfect tense and aspect’, in Robert Binnick (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 881–907. Rizzi, Luigi (1997). ‘The fine structure of the left periphery’, in Liliane Haegeman (ed), El­ ements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281–337. Rizzi, Luigi (2015). ‘Notes on labeling and subject positions’, in Elisa Di Domenico, Cor­ nelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini (eds), Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–16. Robenalt, Clarice and Adele E. Goldberg (2016). ‘Nonnative speakers do not take compet­ ing alternative expressions into account the way native speakers do’. Language Learning 66(1): 60–93. Roberts, Ian (1985). ‘Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxil­ iaries.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.

Page 102 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Roberts, Ian, and Anna Roussou (2003). Semantic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robins, R. H. (1964). General Linguistics. An Introductory Survey. London: Longmans. Rochemont, Michael (1986). Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Rochemont, Michael S. and Peter Culicover (1990). English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogalsky, Corianne, and Gregory Hickok (2008). ‘Selective attention to semantic and syn­ tactic features modulates sentence processing networks in anterior temporal cortex.’ Cerebral Cortex 19: 786–96. Rohdenburg, Gunther (2003). ‘Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determin­ ing the use of interrogative clause linkers’, in Gunther Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf (eds), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 205–49. Rooth, Mats (1985). Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Rooth, Mats (1992). ‘A theory of focus interpretation.’ Natural Language Semantics 1: 75– 116. Rosch, Eleanor (1975). ‘Cognitive representations of semantic categories.’ Journal of Ex­ perimental Psychology: General 104(3): 192–233. Rosch, Eleanor, and Carolyn B. Mervis (1975). ‘Family resemblances: Studies in the inter­ nal structure of categories.’ Cognitive Psychology 7(4): 573–605. Rosenbach, Anette (2006). ‘Descriptive genitives in English: A case study on construction­ al gradience.’ English Language and Linguistics 10: 77–118. Rosenbach, Anette (2014). ‘English genitive variation – the state of the art.’ Eng­ lish Language and Linguistics 18(2): 215–62. (p. 764)

Ross, John R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ross, John R. (1969). ‘Auxiliaries as main verbs’, in W. Todd (ed), Studies in Philosophical Linguistics (Series 1). Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press (online at http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~jlawler/haj/AuxasMV.pdf). Ross, John R. (1970). ‘On declarative sentences’, in Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company, 222–72. Page 103 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Rossi, Sonja, Manfred F. Gugler, Anja Hahne, and Angela D. Friederici (2005). ‘When word category information encounters morphosyntax: An ERP study.’ Neuroscience Let­ ters 384: 228–33. Round, Erich (2015). ‘Rhizomorphomes, meromorphomes and metamorphomes’, in Matthew Baerman, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett (eds), Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29–52. Rumens, Carol (2002). Hex. Hexham, Northumberland: Bloodaxe Books. Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam R. L. Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson, and Jan Scheffczyk (2010). FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley, CA: Interna­ tional Computer Science Institute. Distributed with the FrameNet data. Russell, Benjamin (2006). ‘Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures.’ Jour­ nal of Semantics 23(4): 361–82. Russell, Benjamin (2007). ‘Imperatives in conditional conjunction.’ Natural Language Se­ mantics 15: 131–66. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson (1974). ‘A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.’ Language 50: 696–735. Sadock, Jerrold M. (1974). Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Acade­ mic Press. Sadock, Jerrold M. (2012). The Modular Architecture of Grammar. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Sadock, Jerrold, and Arnold M. Zwicky (1985). ‘Speech act distinctions in syntax’, in Tim Shopen (ed), Language Typology and Linguistic Description, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press, 155–96. Sag, Ivan A. (1976). Deletion and Logical Form. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Massachu­ setts Institute of Technology. Sag, Ivan A. (1997). ‘English relative clauses.’ Journal of Linguistics 33: 431–83. Sag, Ivan A. (2012). ‘Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis’, in Hans Boas and Ivan A. Sag (eds), Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publica­ tions, 69–202. Sag, Ivan A., Thomas Wasow, and Emily M. Bender (2003). Syntactic Theory, 2nd edn. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Sag, Ivan A., Gerald Gazdar, Thomas Wasow, and Steven Weisler (1985). ‘Coordination and how to distinguish categories.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 117.

Page 104 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Salkie, Raphael (2010). ‘Will: Tense or modal or both?’ English Language and Linguistics 14: 187–215. Sanders, T., and H. Pander Maat (2006). ‘Cohesion and coherence: Linguistic approach­ es’, in Keith Brown (ed), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier (supplied as online service by ScienceDirect), 591–595. Sanders, T., and J. Sanders (2006). ‘Text and text analysis’, in Keith Brown (ed), Encyclo­ pedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier (supplied as online ser­ vice by ScienceDirect), 597–607. Sankoff, Gillian, and Hélène Blondeau (2007). ‘Language change across the lifes­ pan: /r/ in Montreal French.’ Language, 83(3): 560–88. (p. 765)

Sansom, Peter (2000). Point of Sale. Manchester: Carcanet Press. Santi, Andrea, and Yosef Grodzinsky (2007). ‘Working memory and syntax interact in Broca’s area.’ Neuroimage 37: 8–17. Sapir, Edward (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt/Brace. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (1993). ‘Syntactic categories and subcategories’, in Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann (eds), Syntax. Ein inter­ nationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung/An International Handbook of Contem­ porary Research (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication, 9). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 646–86. Sauerland, Uli (2010). ‘Embedded implicatures and experimental constraints: A reply to Geurts & Pouscoulous and Chemla.’ Semantics and Pragmatics 3(2): 1–13. Scalise, Sergio, and Emiliano Guevara (2005). ‘The lexicalist approach to word formation and the notion of the lexicon’, in Pavol Stekauer and Rochelle Lieber (eds), Handbook of Word-formation. Dordrecht: Springer, 147–88. Scheer, Tobias (2008). ‘Why the prosodic hierarchy is a diacritic and why the interface must be direct’, in Jutta M. Hartmann, Veronika Hegedüs, and Henk Van Riemsdijk (eds), Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 145– 193. Scheer, Tobias (2010). ‘Issues in the development of generative phonology’, in Nancy C. Kula, Bert Botma, and Kuniya Nasuukawa (eds), The Bloomsbury Companion to Phonolo­ gy. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 397–446. Scheer, Tobias (2011). A Guide to Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface Theories: How Ex­ tra-phonological Information is Treated in Phonology since Trubetzkoy’s Grenzsignale. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Page 105 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Schilk, Marco, and Marc Hammel (2014). ‘The progressive in South Asian and Southeast Asian varieties of English: Mapping areal homogeneity and heterogeneity’, in Lieven Van­ delanotte, Kristin Davidse, Caroline Gentens, and Ditte Kimps (eds), Recent Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Developing and Exploiting Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 141–71. Schleppegrell, Mary J. (2014). ‘Systemic functional linguistics’, in James Paul Gee and Michael Handford (eds) (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London/ New York: Routledge, 21–34. Schlobinski, Peter (2001). ‘*knuddel --zurueckknuddel -- dichganzdollknuddel*. Inflektive und Inflektivkonstruktionen im Deutschen.’ Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 29: 192–218. Schmid, Hans-Jörg (2007). ‘Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels’, in Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press, 117–38. Schmid, Hans-Jörg (2013). ‘Is usage more than usage after all? The case of English not that.’ Linguistics 51: 75–116. Schneider, Agnes (2012). ‘Typological profile: Pidgins and Creoles’, in Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/ Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 874–904. Schneider, Edgar W. (2004). ‘Synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in the Amer­ icas and the Caribbean’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Sch­ neider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 1104–15. Schneider, Edgar W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (p. 766)

Schneider, Edgar W. (2011). English Around the World: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Schönefeld, Doris (2001). Where Lexicon and Syntax Meet. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Schönefeld, Doris (2006). ‘Constructions.’ Constructions SV1-1/2006 (http:// journals.linguisticsociety.org/elanguage/constructions/article/download/ 16/16-5469-1-PB.pdf). Schönefeld, Doris (2011). ‘Introduction: On evidence and the convergence of evidence in linguistic research’, in Doris Schönefeld (ed), Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1– 31. Schreier, Daniel, and Marianne Hundt (eds) (2013). English as a Contact Language. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 106 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Schröter, Verena, and Bernd Kortmann (2016). ‘Pronoun deletion in Hong Kong English and colloquial Singaporean English’, in Alexander Onysko (ed), Language Contact in World Englishes. Special issue of World Englishes 35(2): 221–41. Schumacher, Helmut, Jacqueline Kubczak, Renate Schmidt and Vera de Ruiter (2004). VALBU – Valenzwörterbuch Deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Narr. Schütze, Carson T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reprinted by Lan­ guage Science Press (Classics in Linguistics #2), Berlin, 2016. Schütze, Carson T. (2001). ‘Semantically empty lexical heads as last resorts’, in Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), Semi-lexical Categories. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 127–87. Schütze, Carson T., and Jon Sprouse (2013). ‘Judgment data’, in Robert J. Podesva and De­ vyani Sharma (eds), Research Methods in Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 27–50. Schuyler, Tamara (2002). Wh-movement out of the Site of VP Ellipsis. MA thesis. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California at Santa Cruz. Schwarzschild, Roger (1999). ‘Givenness, avoid F, and other constraints on the placement of accents.’ Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–77. Scott, Michael (2012). WordSmith Tools version 6, Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software. Searle, John R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, John R. (1975). ‘A taxonomy of illocutionary acts’, in Keith Gunderson (ed), Lan­ guage, Mind, and Knowledge, vol. VII of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 344–69. Reprinted in Searle (1979: 1– 29). Searle, John R. (1976). ‘A classification of illocutionary acts.’ Language in Society 5: 1–23. Searle, John R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1977). ‘Some remarks on noun phrase structure’, in Peter W. Culicov­ er, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian (1977) (eds), Formal Syntax. New York: Academ­ ic Press, 285–316. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Struc­ ture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1986). ‘On derived domains in sentence phonology.’ Phonology Year­ book 3: 371–405. Page 107 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Selkirk, Elisabeth (1996). ‘The prosodic structure of function words’, in James L. Morgan and Katherine Demuth (eds), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 187–213. (p. 767)

Selkirk, Elisabeth (2000). ‘The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing’, in Merle Horne (ed), Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 231–61. Selkirk, Elisabeth (2002). ‘Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English’, in Bernard Bel and Isabel Marlin (eds), Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Speech Prosody. Aixen-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage, 643–6. Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). ‘The syntax-phonology interface’, in John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle and Alan C. L. Yu (eds), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 435–84. Sells, Peter (2013). ‘Lexical-functional grammar’, in Marcel den Dikken (ed), The Cam­ bridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 162– 201. Semino, Elena (2014). ‘Language, mind and autism in Mark Haddon’s The Curious Inci­ dent of the Dog in the Night-Time’, in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob (eds), Linguis­ tics and Literary Studies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 279–303. Seoane, Elena (2006). ‘Changing styles: On the recent evolution of scientific British and American English’, in Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Dieter Kastovsky, Nikolaus Ritt, and Her­ bert Schendel (eds), Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, 191–211. Sereno, Joan A. (1994). ‘Phonosyntactics’, in Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols, and John J. Ohala (eds), Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 263–75. Sereno, Joan A., and Allard Jongman (1990). ‘Phonological and form class relations in the lexicon.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19: 387–404. Seuren, Pieter A. M. (1998). Western Linguistics: An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Sgall, Petr, Eva Hajicová, and Jarmila Panevová (1986). The Meaning of the Sentence and its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel. Shaer, Benjamin, and Werner Frey (2004). ‘“Integrated” and “non-integrated” left-periph­ eral elements in German and English.’ ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35(2): 465–502. Sherman, Donald (1975). ‘Noun-verb stress alternation: an example of the lexical diffu­ sion of sound change in English.’ Linguistics 13: 43–72.

Page 108 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Shi, Rushen, James L. Morgan, and Paul Allopenna (1998). ‘Phonological and acoustic bases for earliest grammatical category assignment: A cross-linguistic perspective.’ Jour­ nal of Child Language 25: 169–201. Sidnell, Jack (2012). ‘Turn-continuation by self and by other.’ Discourse Processes 49: 314–37. Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds) (2013). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Ox­ ford: Wiley-Blackwell. Siemund, Peter (2002). ‘Reflexive and intensive self-forms across varieties of English.’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (ZAA) 50(3): 250–68. Siemund, Peter (2008). Pronominal Gender in English: A Study of English Varieties from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. London: Routledge. Siemund, Peter (2013). Varieties of English: A Typological Approach. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Siemund, Peter (2015). ‘Exclamative clauses in English and their relevance for theories of clause types.’ Studies in Language 39(3): 697–727. Siemund, Peter (2016). ‘The mutual relevance of typology and variation studies.’ Linguis­ tic Typology 20(3): 521–36. Siemund, Peter (2018). Speech Acts and Clause Types: English in a Cross-linguis­ tic Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (p. 768)

Siewierska, Anna (1991). Functional Grammar. London: Routledge. Siewierska, Anna, and Willem Hollmann (2007). ‘Ditransitive clauses in English with spe­ cial reference to Lancashire dialect’, in Mike Hannay and Gerald J. Steen (eds), Structur­ al-Functional Studies in English Grammar: In Honour of Lachlan Mackenzie (Studies in Language Companion Series, 83). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83–102. Silverstein, Michael (1976). ‘Hierarchy of features and ergativity’, in R. M. W. Dixon (ed), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages (Linguistic Series, 22). Canberra: Aus­ tralian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 112–71. Simons, Mandy (2006). ‘Foundational issues in presupposition.’ Philosophy Compass 1(4): 357–72. Simpson, Paul (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge. Sims, Andrea (2015). Inflectional Defectiveness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sinclair, John (1987). ‘Collocation: A progress report’, in Ross Steele and Terry Thread­ gold (eds), Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday. Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins, 319–31. Page 109 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Sinclair, John (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, John (1992). ‘The automatic analysis of corpora’, in Jan Svartvik (ed), Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 379–97. Sinclair, John (2004). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Rout­ ledge. Sinclair, John, and Anna Mauranen (2006). Linear Unit Grammar: Integrating Speech and Writing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Singh, Raj, Ken Wexler, Andrea Astle-Rahim, Deepthi Kamawar, and Danny Fox (2016). ‘Children interpret disjunction as conjunction: consequences for theories of implicature and child development.’ Natural Language Semantics 24(4): 305–52. Slobin, Dan. I. (1994). ‘Talking perfectly: Discourse origins of the present perfect’, in William Pagliuca (ed), Perspectives on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 119–33. Smith, Andrew D. M., Graeme Trousdale, and Richard Waltereit (eds) (2015). New Direc­ tions in Grammaticalisation Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vol. 166 in Studies in Language Companion Series. Smith, C. Alphons (1900). Review of A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical. Journal of Germanic Philology 3: 115–18. Smith, Carlota S. (1997). The Parameter of Aspect, 2nd edn. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer. Smith, Carlota S. (2003). Modes of Discourse: The Local Structure of Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Jennifer, and Sophie Holmes-Elliott (2017). ‘The unstoppable glottal: Tracking rapid change in an iconic British variable.’ English Language and Linguistics 1–33. Smith, Neil, and Nicholas Allott (2015). Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals, 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Nicholas, and Geoffrey Leech (2013). ‘Verb structures in twentieth-century British English’, in Bas Aarts, Joanne Close, Geoffrey Leech, and Sean Wallis (eds), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 68–98. Snider, Neal, and Inbal Arnon (2012). ‘A unified lexicon and grammar? Compositional and non-compositional phrases in the lexicon’, in Stefan Th. Gries and Dagmar Divjak (eds), Frequency Effects in Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 127–63. Sobin, Nicholas (2004). ‘Expletive constructions are not “Lower Right Corner” movement constructions.’ Linguistic Inquiry 35: 503–8. (p. 769)

Page 110 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Somers, Harald L. (1987). Valency and Case in Computational Linguistics. Edinburgh: Ed­ inburgh University Press. Sopher, H. (1971). ‘Apposition.’ English Studies 52: 401–12. Sóskuthy, Márton, and Jennifer Hay (2017). ‘Changing word usage predicts changing word durations in New Zealand English.’ Cognition: International Journal of Cognitive Science 166: 298–313. Spencer, Andrew (1988). ‘Bracketing paradoxes and the English lexicon.’ Language 64: 663–82. Spencer, Andrew (1991). Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Spencer, Andrew (2004). ‘Morphology – an overview of central concepts’, in Louisa Sadler and Andrew Spencer (eds), Projecting Morphology. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 67–110. Spencer, Andrew (2012). ‘Identifying stems.’ Word Structure, 5: 88–108. Spencer, Andrew (2013). Lexical Relatedness: A Paradigm-based Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spencer, Andrew (2015). ‘Derivation’, in Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer (eds), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Lan­ guages of the World, vol. 1. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 301–21. Spencer, Andrew (2016a). ‘How are words related?, in Daniel Siddiqi, and Heidi Harley (eds), Morphological Metatheory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–26. Spencer, Andrew (2016b). ‘Individuating lexemes’, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of LFG15. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 357–77. Spencer, Andrew (2016c). ‘Two morphologies or one?’, in Andrew Hippisley and Gregory Stump (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge Universi­ ty Press, 27–49. Spencer, Andrew (2017a). ‘Morphology’, in Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-Miller (eds), The Handbook of Linguistics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 211–33. Spencer, Andrew (2017b). ‘Split-morphology and lexicalist morphosyntax: The case of transpositions’, in Claire Bowern, Laurence Horn, and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds), On Look­ ing Into Words (And Beyond). Berlin: Language Science Press, 385–420. Spencer, Andrew, and Ana R. Luís (2012). Clitics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 111 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Spencer, Andrew, and Gergana Popova (2015). ‘Inflection and periphrasis’, in Matthew Baerman (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Inflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 197– 230. Spencer, Nancy J. (1973). ‘Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticality-acceptability.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2: 83–98. Spender, Dale (1980). Man Made Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 1st edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Second edition published in 1995. Sportiche, Dominique (1988). ‘A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for con­ stituent structure.’ Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–49. Sprouse, Jon, and Diogo Almeida (2012). ‘Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syn­ tax: Adger’s Core Syntax.’ Journal of Linguistics 48: 609–52. (p. 770)

Sprouse, Jon, Carson T. Schütze, and Diogo Almeida (2013). ‘A comparison of in­

formal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010.’ Lingua 134: 219–48. Sprouse, Jon, Matt Wagers, and Colin Phillips (2012). ‘A test of the relation between work­ ing memory and syntactic island effects.’ Language 88: 82–123. Sprouse, Jon, Ivano Caponigro, Ciro Greco, and Carlo Cecchetto (2016). ‘Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 307–44. Stalnaker, Robert C. (1970). ‘Pragmatics.’ Synthese 22: 272–89. Stalnaker, Robert C. (1974). ‘Pragmatic presuppositions’, in Milton K. Munitz and Peter Unger (eds), Semantics and Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 197–213. Stalnaker, Robert C. (1978). ‘Assertion’, in Peter Cole (ed), Pragmatics, Syntax and Se­ mantics, vol. ix. New York: Academic Press, 315–32. Stanley, Jason (2000). ‘Context and logical form.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 23(4): 391– 434. Stanley, Jason (2002). ‘Making it articulated.’ Mind and Language 17(1–2): 149–68. Stanley, Jason, and Zoltán Gendler Szabó (2000). ‘On quantifier domain restriction.’ Mind and Language 15(2–3): 219–61. Starke, Michal (2001). Move Reduces to Merge: A Theory of Locality. Ph.D. thesis. Gene­ va: University of Geneva. Stassen, Leon (1985). Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford. Blackwell. Page 112 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Steedman, Mark (1991). ‘Structure and intonation.’ Language 67: 260–96. Steedman, Mark (1996). Surface Structure and Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Steedman, Mark (2000). The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Steedman, Mark (2012). Taking Scope: The Natural Semantics of Quantifiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries (2003). ‘Collostructions: Investigating the in­ teraction of words and constructions.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–43. Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries (2005). ‘Covarying collexemes.’ Corpus Lin­ guistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 1–43. Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries (2009). ‘Corpora and grammar’, in Anke Lüdeling and Merja Kytö (eds), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 933–52. Steinhauer, Karsten, and John Drury (2012). ‘On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies.’ Brain and Language 120: 135–62. Štekauer, Pavol (1998). An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-formation. Amster­ dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Štekauer, Pavol (2014). ‘Derivational paradigms’, in Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 354–83. Štekauer, Pavol (2015). ‘The delimitation of derivation and inflection’, in Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer (eds), Word-Formation: An Interna­ tional Handbook of the Languages of the World, vol. 1. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 218–35. Štekauer, Pavol, Salvador Valera, and Lívia Körtvélyessy (2012). Word-formation in the World’s Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stenius, Erik (1967). ‘Mood and language game.’ Synthese 17: 254. Stewart, Thomas W. (2015). Contemporary Morphological Theories: A User’s Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. (p. 771)

Stirling, Lesley, and Rodney Huddleston (2002). ‘Deixis and anaphora’, in Rodney Huddle­ ston and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1449–564.

Page 113 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Stivers, Tanya (2010). ‘An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation.’ Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2772–81. Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson (eds) (2010). Question–Response Sequences in Conversation Across Ten Languages. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10). Stockwell, Peter (2002). Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Stockwell, Robert, Paul Schachter, and Barbara Hall Partee (1973). The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Storrer, Angelika (2003). ‘Ergänzungen und Angaben’, in Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds), Dependenz und Valenz: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Re­ search. 1. Halbband/Volume 1. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 764–80. Stowe, Laurie A. (1986). ‘Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 1: 227–45. Stowe, Laurie A., Cees A. J. Broere, Anne M. J. Paans, Albertus A. Wijers, Gijsbertus Mul­ der, Wim Vaalburg, and Frans Zwarts (1998). ‘Localizing components of a complex task: Sentence processing and working memory.’ NeuroReport 9: 2995–9. Stowell, Timothy (1981). Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, MA: Mass­ achusetts Institute of Technology. Stowell, Tim (1982). ‘The tense of infinitives.’ Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561–70. Stowell, Tim, and Eric Wehrli (eds) (1992). Syntax and Semantics 26. Syntax and the Lexi­ con. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Strawson, Peter F. (1950). ‘On Referring.’ Mind 59(235): 320–44. Strawson, Peter F. (1971). ‘Identifying reference and truth-values’, in Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Lin­ guistics and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 86–114. Stroud, Clare, and Colin Phillips (2011). ‘Examining the evidence for an independent se­ mantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish.’ Brain and Language 120: 108–26. Stubbs, Michael (2005) ‘Conrad in the computer: Examples of quantitative stylistic meth­ ods.’ Language and Literature 14(1): 5–24. Stubbs, Michael, and Isabel Barth (2003). ‘Using recurrent phrases as text-type discrimi­ nators: a quantitative method and some findings.’ Functions of Language 10(1): 65–108.

Page 114 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Stump, Gregory T. (2001). Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Stump, Gregory T. (2010). ‘The derivation of compound ordinal numerals: Implications for morphological theory.’ Word Structure 2: 205–33. Stump, Gregory T. (2016). Inflectional Paradigms: Content and Form at the Syntax-Mor­ phology Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sturt, Patrick (2003). ‘The time-course of the application of binding constraints in refer­ ence resolution.’ Journal of Memory and Language 48: 542–62. Sturtevant, Edgar H. (1947). An Introduction to Linguistic Science. New Haven: Yale Uni­ versity Press. Swales, John (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (p. 772)

Sweet, Henry (1884). ‘The practical study of language.’ Transactions of the Philological Society 19: 577–99. Sweet, Henry (1888). A History of English Sounds. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sweet, Henry (1891). A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical. Part I: Introduc­ tion, Phonology, and Accidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sweet, Henry (1898). A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical. Part II: Syntax. Ox­ ford: Clarendon Press. Sweetser, Eve E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press. Swerts, Marc, and Sabine Zerbian (2010). ‘Prosodic transfer in Black South African Eng­ lish.’ Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010, 100198: 1–4. downloaded from http:// speechprosody2010.illinois.edu/papers/100198.pdf. Szabó, Zoltán Gendler (ed) (2005). Semantics vs. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Szabolcsi, Anna, and Terje Lohndal (2017). ‘Strong vs. weak islands’, in Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1–51. Szczepek, Beatrice (2000a). ‘Formal aspects of collaborative productions in English con­ versation.’ InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 17. http://www.inlist.unibayreuth.de/issues/17/index.htm.

Page 115 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Szczepek, Beatrice (2000b). ‘Functional aspects of collaborative productions in English conversation.’ InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 21. http://www.inlist.unibayreuth.de/issues/21/index.htm. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (2012). ‘Typological profile: L1 varieties’, in Bernd Kortmann and Kerstin Lunkenheimer (eds), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin/ Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 826–42. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Bernd Kortmann (2009a). ‘The morphosyntax of varieties of English worldwide: A quantitative perspective.’ Special Issue The Forests Behind the Trees. Lingua 119: 1643–63. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Bernd Kortmann (2009b). ‘Vernacular universals and An­ gloversals in a typological perspective’, in Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, and Heli Paulasto (eds), Vernacular Universals and Language Contacts: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond. London/New York: Routledge, 33–53. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Bernd Kortmann (2012). ‘Introduction’, in Bernd Kortmann and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds), Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 6–34. Szymanek, Bogdan (1989). Introduction to Morphological Analysis. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Taavitsainen, Irma (1994). ‘Subjectivity as a text-type marker in historical stylistics.’ Lan­ guage and Literature 3: 197–212. Tagliamonte, Sali (1998). ‘Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York.’ Language Variation and Change 10(2): 153–91. Tagliamonte, Sali (2005). ‘So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conver­ sation of young Canadians.’ Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1896–1915. Tagliamonte, Sali, Jennifer Smith, and Helen Lawrence (2005). ‘No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain.’ Language Variation and Change 17(1): 75–112. (p. 773)

Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tannen, Deborah (1982). ‘Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy.’ Language 58: 1–21. Tanner, Darren (2015). ‘On the left anterior negativity (LAN) in electrophysiological stud­ ies of morphosyntactic agreement: A commentary on “Grammatical agreement process­ ing in reading: ERP findings and future directions” by Molinaro et al., 2014.’ Cortex 66: 149–55.

Page 116 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Tanner, Darren, and Janet G. Van Hell (2014). ‘ERPs reveal individual differences in mor­ phosyntactic processing.’ Neuropsychologia 56: 289–301. Tarasova, Elizaveta (2013). Some New Insights into the Semantics of English N+N Com­ pounds. Ph.D. thesis. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington. Taylor, John R. (1996). Possessives in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press Taylor, John R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, John R. (2004). ‘The ecology of constructions’, in Günter Radden and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds), Studies in Linguistic Motivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 49– 73. Taylor, John R. (2012). The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, John R. (2015a). ‘Prototype effects in grammar’, in Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak (eds), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 562–78. Taylor, John R. (2015b). ‘Word-formation in cognitive grammar’, in Peter O. Müller, Inge­ borg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, and Franz Rainer (eds), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 144–58. Taylor, John R. (2017). ‘Lexical semantics’, in Barbara Dancygier (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 246–61. Taylor, John R., and Kam-Yiu Pang (2008). ‘Seeing as though.’ English Language and Lin­ guistics 12: 103–39. ten Hacken, Pius (2014). ‘Delineating derivation and inflection’, in Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford; Oxford University Press, 10–25. Ten Wolde, Elnora, and Evelien Keizer (2016). ‘Structure and substance in functional dis­ course grammar: the case of the binominal noun phrase.’ Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 48(1): 134–57. Tesnière, Lucien (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. Tesnière, Lucien (2015). Elements of Structural Syntax. Translated by Timothy Osborne and Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins [Éléments de syntaxe structurale 1959, 1965 Paris: Klincksieck]. Theses (1983). Theses presented to the First Congress of Slavists held in Prague in 1929. In Josef Vachek and Libuše Dušková (eds), Praguiana: Some Basic and Less Known As­ pects of the Prague Linguistic School. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 77–120. Page 117 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Thieroff, Rolf (2010). ‘Moods, moods, moods’, in Björn Rothstein and Rolf Thieroff (eds), Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–29. Thompson, Sandra A. (1985). ‘Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs. final purpose clauses in English.’ Text 5: 55–84. Thompson, Sandra A. (1988). ‘A discourse approach to the category “adjective”’, in John A. Hawkins (ed), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 167–210. Thompson, Sandra A. (1990). ‘Information flow and dative shift in English dis­ course’, in Jerold A. Edmondson, Feagin Crawford, and Peter Mühlhäusler (eds), Develop­ ment and Diversity: Language Variation across Space and Time. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 239–53. (p. 774)

Thompson, Sandra A. (2002). ‘“Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realis­ tic account.’ Studies in Language 26(7): 125–64. Thompson, Sandra A., and Yuka Koide (1987). ‘Iconicity and “indirect objects” in English.’ Journal of Pragmatics 11(3): 399–406. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. (1982). ‘Double negation and eighteenth-century English grammars.’ Neophilologus 66: 278–85. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (1990). ‘Exemplification in eighteenth-century English grammars.’ Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguis­ tics, Cambridge, 6–9 April 1987. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 481–96. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (ed) (1996). Two Hundred Years of Lindley Murray. Mün­ ster: Nodus. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (2010). The Bishop’s Grammar: Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press [print edition]. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (2011). The Bishop’s Grammar: Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press [online edition]. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid and Wim van der Wurff (eds) (2009) Current Issues in Late Modern English. Berlin and New York: Peter Lang. Tognini-Bonelli, Elena (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Tomasello, Michael (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tomlin, Russell S. (1986). Basic Word Order: Functional Principles. London: Croom Helm. Tonhauser, Judith, David I. Beaver, and Judith Degen (2018). ‘How projective is projective content? Gradience in projectivity and at-issueness.’ Journal of Semantics 35(3): 495–542. Page 118 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Tonhauser, Judith, David I. Beaver, Craige Roberts, and Mandy Simons (2013). ‘Towards a taxonomy of projective content.’ Language 89(1): 66–109. Toolan, M. (2016). ‘Peter Black, Christopher Stevens, class and inequality in the Daily Mail.’ Discourse and Society 27(6): 642–60. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1989). ‘On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An exam­ ple of subjectification in semantic change.’ Language 65(1): 31–55. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1992). ‘Syntax’, in Richard M. Hogg (ed), The Cambridge His­ tory of the English Language. Vol. I, From the Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: University Press, 168–289. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2006). ‘Historical aspects of modality’, in Frawley (ed) (2006), 107–39. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2008). ‘The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns’, in Alexander Bergs and Gabriele Diewald (eds), Constructions and Language Change. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 23–45. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2010). ‘(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification,’ in Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), Subjectification, Intersubjecti­ fication and Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 29–70. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard Dasher (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Bernd Heine (eds) (1991). Approaches to Grammaticaliza­ tion. Two volumes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Graeme Trousdale (2010). ‘Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?’, in Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Graeme Trousdale (eds), Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins, 19–44. (p. 775)

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Graeme Trousdale (2013). Constructionalization and Con­ structional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Graeme Trousdale (2014). ‘Contentful constructionaliza­ tion.’ Journal of Historical Linguistics 4(2): 256–83. Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2012). ‘Semantics of intonation.’, in Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger and Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Lan­ guage Meaning 3: 2039–969. Trudgill, Peter (1999a). ‘Standard English: What it isn’t’, in Tony Bex and Richard Watts (eds), Standard English: The Widening Debate. London: Routledge, 117–28. Trudgill, Peter (1999b). The Dialects of England. Oxford: Blackwell. Page 119 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Trudgill, Peter (2004). ‘The dialect of East Anglia: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kort­ mann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 142–53. Trudgill, Peter (2009a). ‘Vernacular universals and the sociolinguistic typology of English dialects’, in Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, and Heli Paulasto (eds), Vernacular Univer­ sals and Language Contacts: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond. London/New York: Routledge, 304–22. Trudgill, Peter (2009b). ‘Sociolinguistic typology and complexification’, in Geoffrey Samp­ son, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill (eds), Language Complexity as a Variable Concept. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press, 98–109. Trudgill, Peter, and Jack Chambers (1991). Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation. London/New York: Longman. Trudgill, Peter, and Jean Hannah (2008). International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English. London: Arnold. Tubau Muntañá, Susagna (2008). Negative Concord in English and Romance: Syntax– Morphology Interface Conditions on the Expression of Negation. Utrecht: LOT. Upton, Clive, and J. D. A. Widdowson (1996). An Atlas of English Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Välimaa-Blum, Rütta (2005). Cognitive Phonology in Construction Grammar: Analytic Tools for Students of English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Vallduví, Enric (1992). The Informational Component. New York: Garland. Vallduví, Enric (2016). ‘Information structure’, in Maria Aloni and Paul Dekker (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 728–55. Vallduví, Enric, and Elisabet Engdahl (1996). ‘The linguistic realization of information packaging.’ Linguistics 34: 459–519. van Benthem, Johan, and Alice ter Meulen (eds) (1997). Handbook of Logic and Language, 1st edn. Amsterdam: North-Holland. van Benthem, Johan, and Alice ter Meulen (eds) (2011). Handbook of Logic and Language, 2nd edn. London: Elsevier. van Bergen, Linda (2013). ‘Early progressive passives.’ Folia Linguistica 34(1): 173–207. Vandenberghe, Rik, Anna Christina Nobre, and Cathy J. Price (2002). ‘The response of left temporal cortex to sentences.’ Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 14: 550–60.

Page 120 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References van der Auwera, Johan (1986). ‘Conditionals and speech acts’, in Elizabeth Trau­ gott, Alice ter Meulen, and Judy Reilly (eds), On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197–214. (p. 776)

van der Auwera, Johan (1999). ‘On the semantic and pragmatic polyfunctionality of modal verbs’, in K. Turner (ed), The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, 49–64. van der Auwera, Johan (2011). ‘Standard Average European’, in Bernd Kortmann and Jo­ han van der Auwera (eds), The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 291–306. van der Auwera, Johan, and Andrej Malchukov (2005). ‘A semantic map for depictive ad­ jectivals’, in Nikolaus Himmelmann and Eva F. Schultze-Berndt (eds), Secondary Predica­ tion and Adverbial Modification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 393–421. van der Auwera, Johan, and Vladimir Plungian (1998). ‘Modality’s semantic map.’ Linguis­ tic Typology 2: 79–124. van der Auwera, Johan, Dirk Noël, and An Van linden (2013). ‘Had better, ’d better and better: Diachronic and transatlantic variation’, in Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carratero, Jorge Arús Hita, and Johan van der Auwera (eds), English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 119–54. van der Gaaf, Willem (1931). ‘Beon and habban connected with an inflected infinitive.’ English Studies 13(1–6): 176–88. van der Hulst, Harry (2006). ‘On the parallel organization of linguistic components.’ Lin­ gua 116: 657–88. van der Sandt, Rob (1992). ‘Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution.’ Journal of Semantics 9(4): 333–77. van de Velde, Freek (2012). ‘A structural-functional account of NP-internal mood.’ Lingua 122: 1–23. van Dijk, Teun A. (2008). ‘Critical discourse analysis and nominalization: Problem or pseu­ do-problem?’ Discourse and Society 19(6): 821–8. van Dijk, Teun A. (2014). Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Eynde, Frank (2007). ‘The big mess construction’, in Stefan Müller (ed), Proceedings of the HPSG-07 Conference, 415–33. van Gompel, Roger P. G., and Simon P. Liversedge (2003). ‘The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29: 128–39. Page 121 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References van Herten, Marieke, Herman H. J. Kolk, and Dorothee J. Chwilla (2005). ‘An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies.’ Cognitive Brain Research 22: 241–55. van Kemenade, Ans (1999). ‘Functional categories, morphosyntactic change, grammati­ calization.’ Linguistics 37: 997–1010. Van Langendonck, Willy (1994). ‘Determiners as heads?’ Cognitive Linguistics 5: 243–59. Van linden, An, Jean-Christophe Verstraete, and Hubert Cuyckens (2008). ‘The semantic development of essential and crucial: Paths to deontic meaning.’ English Studies 89(2): 226–47. van Marle, Jaap (1985). On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dor­ drecht: Foris Publications. Van Peer, Willie (1986). Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations of Foregrounding. Lon­ don: Croom Helm. van Tiel, Bob, Emiel Van Miltenburg, Natalia Zevakhina, and Bart Geurts (2016). ‘Scalar diversity.’ Journal of Semantics 33(1): 137–75. (p. 777)

Van Trijp, Remi (2013). ‘A comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and

Sign-Based Construction Grammar.’ Constructions and Frames 5(1): 88–116. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed) (1993). Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amster­ dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (2005). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and Randy J. LaPolla (1997). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vater, Heinz (1978). ‘On the possibility of distinguishing between complements and ad­ juncts’, in Werner Abraham (ed), Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21–45. Velupillai, Viveka (2012). An Introduction to Linguistic Typology. Amsterdam/Philadel­ phia: John Benjamins. Venditti, Jennifer J., Sun-Ah Jun, and Mary E. Beckman (1996). ‘Prosodic cues to syntactic and other linguistic structures in Japanese, Korean and English’, in James Morgan, and Katherine Demuth (eds), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Ear­ ly Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 287–311. Vendler, Zeno (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Page 122 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (2001). ‘Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system.’ Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1505–28. Villata, Sandra, Luigi Rizzi, and Julie Franck (2016). ‘Intervention effects and Relativized Minimality: New experimental evidence from graded judgments.’ Lingua 179: 76–96. Virtanen, Tuija (2004). ‘Point of departure: Cognitive aspects of sentence-initial adver­ bials’, in Tuija Virtanen (ed), Approaches to Cognition Through Text and Discourse. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 79–98. Visser, Fredericus Th. (1963–1973). An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Vol. III(1). Leiden: E.J. Brill. von Fintel, Kai (1994). Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Ph.D. thesis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Vorlat, Emma (1959). ‘The sources of Lindley Murray’s The English Grammar.’ Leuven­ sche Bijdragen 48: 108–25. Vorlat, Emma (1975). The Development of English Grammatical Theory 1586–1737. Leu­ ven: Leuven University Press. Vos, Riet (1999). A Grammar of Partitive Constructions. Ph.D. thesis. Tilburg: Tilburg Uni­ versity. Wade, Katie (1996). Personal Pronouns in Present Day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wade, Terence (1992). A Comprehensive Russian Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Wagers, Matthew, and Colin Phillips (2009). ‘Multiple dependencies and the role of the grammar in real-time comprehension.’ Journal of Linguistics 45: 395–433. Wagner, Michael (2010). ‘Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 183–237. Wagner, Susanne (2003). Gender in English Pronouns: Myth and Reality. Ph.D. thesis. Freiburg: University of Freiburg. Wagner, Susanne (2004). ‘English dialects in the Southwest: Morphology and syn­ tax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Up­ ton (eds) (2004), 154–74. (p. 778)

Wagner, Susanne (2012). ‘Pronominal systems’, in Raymond Hickey (ed), Areal Features of the Anglophone World. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 379–408.

Page 123 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Wald, Benji, and Lawrence Besserman (2002). ‘The emergence of the verb-verb com­ pound in twentieth century English and twentieth century linguistics’, in Donka Minkova and Robert Stockwell (eds), Studies in the History of the English Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 417–47. Walker, Traci (2014). ‘Form (does not equal) function: The independence of prosody and action.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction 47: 1–16. Waller, Tim (2005). The Subjunctive in Present-Day British English: A Survey, with Partic­ ular Reference to the Mandative Subjunctive. M.A. thesis. London: University College London. Wallis, John (1653). Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae. Hamburg: Gotfried Schultzen. Wallis, Sean (2007). ‘Annotation, retrieval and experimentation’, in Anneli Meurman-Solin and Arja Nurmi (eds), Annotating Variation and Change. Helsinki: Varieng, University of Helsinki. Available at: www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/01/wallis Wallis, Sean (2008). ‘Searching treebanks and other structured corpora’, in Anke Lüdel­ ing and Merja Kytö (eds), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 738–59. Wallis, Sean (2013). ‘Binomial confidence intervals and contingency tests: Mathematical fundamentals and the evaluation of alternative methods.’ Journal of Quantitative Linguis­ tics 20(3): 178–208. Wallis, Sean (2014). ‘What might a corpus of parsed spoken data tell us about language?’, in Ludmila Veselovská and Markéta Janebová (eds), Complex Visibles Out There. (Pro­ ceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure.)Olomouc: Palacký University, 641–62. Wallis, Sean (2015). Adapting Random-Instance Sampling Variance Estimates and Binomi­ al Models for Random-Text Sampling. London: Survey of English Usage. Available at http://corplingstats.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/adapting-variance. Wallis, Sean (2019). ‘Investigating the additive probability of repeated language produc­ tion decisions.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(4): 492–525. Wallis, Sean (forthcoming). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A New Approach. New York: Routledge. Wallis, Sean, and Gerald Nelson (1997). ‘Syntactic parsing as a knowledge acquisition problem.’ Proceedings of 10th European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, Catalonia, Spain: Springer, 285–300. Wallis, Sean, and Gerald Nelson (2001). ‘Knowledge discovery in grammatically analysed corpora.’ Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 5: 307–40.

Page 124 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Waltereit, Richard (2011). ‘Grammaticalization and discourse’, in Narrog and Heine (eds) (2011), 413–23. Wanner, Anja (2009). Deconstructing the English Passive. (Topics in English Linguistics, 41.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ward, Gregory L. (1988). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing. New York/London: Garland. Ward, Gregory L., and Betty J. Birner (2001). ‘Discourse and information struc­ ture’, in Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 119–37. (p. 779)

Ward, Gregory, and Ellen F. Prince (1991). ‘On the topicalization of indefinite NPs.’ Jour­ nal of Pragmatics 16: 167–77. Ward, Gregory, Richard Sproat, and Gail McKoon (1991). ‘A pragmatic analysis of socalled anaphoric islands.’ Language 67: 439–74. Warner, Anthony R. (1983). ‘Review article: D.W. Lightfoot, Principles of Diachronic Syn­ tax.’ Journal of Linguistics 19(1): 187–209. Warner, Anthony R. (1993). English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Warner, Anthony R. (1995). ‘Predicting the progressive passive: Parametric change within a lexicalist framework.’ Language 71(3): 533–57. Warner, Anthony R. (2000). ‘English auxiliaries without lexical rules’, in Robert D. Borsley (ed), The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories. New York: Academic Press, 167– 220. Wasow, Thomas (1997). ‘End-weight from the speaker’s perspective.’ Journal of Psycholin­ guistic Research 26(3): 347–61. Wasow, Thomas (2001). Postverbal Behavior, Stanford: CSLI Publications. Wattam, Stephen (2015). Technological Advances in Corpus Sampling Methodology. Ph.D. thesis. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Available at: www.extremetomato.com/cv/pa­ pers/thesis.pdf. Webelhuth, Gert (1995). ‘X-bar theory and case theory’, in Gert Webelhuth (ed), Govern­ ment and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, 15–95. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1961). Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam Co. Wechsler, Stephen (2015). Word Meaning and Syntax: Approaches to the Interface. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press. Page 125 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Weir, Andrew (2012). ‘Left-edge deletion in English and subject omission in diaries.’ Eng­ lish Language and Linguistics 16: 105–29. Welke, Klaus (2011). Valenzgrammatik des Deutschen. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Wells, J. C. (2006). English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wells, J. C. (2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, 3rd edn. Harlow: Pearson Educa­ tion. Wellwood, Alexis, Roumyana Pancheva, Valentine Hacquard, and Colin Phillips (2018). ‘The anatomy of a comparative illusion.’ Journal of Semantics 35: 543–83. Werth, Paul (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman. Westerhoff, Jan (2005). Ontological Categories: Their Nature and Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1956). Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Ben­ jamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wichmann, Anne (2000). Beginnings, Middles and Ends: Intonation in Text and Discourse. London: Routledge. Wiechmann, Daniel, and Elma Kerz. (2013). ‘The positioning of concessive adverbial clauses in English: Assessing the importance of discourse-pragmatic and processingbased constraints.’ English Language and Linguistics 17: 1–23. Wierzbicka, Anna (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben­ jamins. (p. 780)

Williams, Edwin (1977). ‘Discourse and logical form.’ Linguistic Inquiry 8: 101–39.

Williamson, Timothy (1994). Vagueness. New York: Routledge. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber (1988). ‘Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sen­ tences’, in Jonathan Dancy, J. M. E. Moravcsik, and C. C. W. Taylor (eds), Human Agency: Language, Duty and Value. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 77–101. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. Wilson, George (1759). The Youth’s Pocket Companion, 2nd edn. London: J. Cooke. Wiltshire, Caroline, and James Harnsberger (2006). ‘The influence of Gujarati and Tamil L1s on Indian English: A preliminary study.’ World Englishes 25: 91–1004. Page 126 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Winkler, Susanne (2012). ‘The information structure of English’, in Manfred Krifka and Renate Musan (eds), The Expression of Information Structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Wolff, Susann, Matthias Schlesewsky, Masako Hirotani, and Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky (2008). ‘The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese.’ Brain and Language 107: 133–57. Wolfram, Walt (2004a). ‘Rural and ethnic varieties in the Southeast: Morphology and syn­ tax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Up­ ton (eds) (2004), 281–302. Wolfram, Walt (2004b). ‘Urban African American vernacular English: Morphology and syntax’, in Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar Schneider, and Clive Upton (eds) (2004), 319–40. Wood, Mary McGee (1993). Categorial Grammars. London: Routledge. Wright, Joseph (1898–1905). The English Dialect Dictionary, 6 volumes. Oxford: Henry Frowde. Wurmbrand, Susi (2014). ‘Tense and aspect in English infinitives.’ Linguistic Inquiry 45(3): 403–47. Xu, Yi, and Ching X. Xu (2005). ‘Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative into­ nation.’ Journal of Phonetics 33: 159–97. Yoshida, Masaya, Michael Walsh Dickey, and Patrick Sturt (2013). ‘Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and ellipsis in real-time sentence processing.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 277–302. Zanuttini, Raffaela, and Paul Portner (2003). ‘Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-seman­ tics interface.’ Language 79: 39–81. Zappavigna, Michele (2015). ‘Searchable talk: The linguistic functions of hashtags.’ Social Semiotics 15: 274–91. Zec, Draga, and Sharon Inkelas (1990). ‘Prosodically constrained syntax’, in Sharon Inke­ las and Draga Zec (eds), The Syntax-Phonology Connection. Chicago: University of Chica­ go Press, 365–78. Zeijlstra, Hedde (2004). Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. Utrecht: LOT. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2000). Hypothetical Modality: Grammaticalisation in an L2 Dialect. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2001). ‘Past ability modality and the derivation of complementary in­ ferences.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2: 273–316. Page 127 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Ziegeler, Debra P. (2003). ‘On the generic origins of modality in English’, in David Hart (ed), English Modality in Context: Diachronic Perspectives. Bern: Peter Lang, 33–69. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2006). Interfaces with English Aspect: Diachronic and Empiri­ cal Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (p. 781)

Ziegeler, Debra P. (2008a). ‘Propositional aspect and the development of modal inferences in English’, in W. Abraham and E. Leiss (eds) (2008), 43–79. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2008b). ‘Grammaticalisation under control: Towards a functional analysis of same-subject identity-sharing.’ Folia Linguistica 42: 401–51. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2010). ‘Semantic determinism and the grammaticalisation of have to in English: A reassessment.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11: 32–66. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2012). ‘Towards a composite definition of nominal modality’, in Werner Abraham and Elisabeth Leiss (eds), Covert Patterns of Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Series, 343–83. Ziegeler, Debra P. (2013). ‘On the generic argument for the modality of will’, in Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita, and Johan van der Auwera (eds), English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter [TIELS 81], 221–50. Ziem, Alexander, and Alexander Lasch (2013). Konstruktionsgrammatik: Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsbasierter Ansätze. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, and Bruno Strecker (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. 3 Bände. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Zimmermann, Ilse (1990). ‘Syntactic categorization’, in Werner Bahner, Joachim Schildt, and Dieter Viehweger (eds), Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Lin­ guists, Berlin, GDR, 1987. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 864–7. Zirkel, Linda (2010). ‘Prefix combinations in English: Structural and processing factors.’ Morphology 20: 239–66. Ziv, Yael, and Barbara Grosz (1994). ‘Right-dislocation and attentional state.’ Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference and of the Workshop on Discourse. The Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics, 184–99. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa (1998). Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zupitza, Julius (ed) (1966). Aelfrics Grammatik und Glossar. Berlin: Weidmannsche Ver­ lagsbuchhandlung. Zwicky, Arnold M. (1977). ‘On clitics.’ Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Page 128 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

References Zwicky, Arnold M. (1985). ‘Heads.’ Journal of Linguistics 21: 1–29. Zwicky, Arnold M. (1987). ‘Suppressing the Z’s.’ Journal of Linguistics 23: 133–48. Zwicky, Arnold M. (1993). ‘Heads, bases and functors’, in Greville G. Corbett, Norman M. Fraser, and Scott McGlashan (eds), Heads in Grammatical Theory. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press, 192–315. Zwicky, Arnold M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum (1983). ‘Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t.’ Language 59: 502–13.

Page 129 of 129

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index

Name Index   The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics Online Publication Date: Mar 2020

(p. 782)

(p. 783)

Name Index

A Aarts, B. 25, 31, 37, 39, 60, 66, 148, 151, 291, 299, 348n, 366, 399, 400, 403n, 421, 438, 442, 454, 476n, 486, 503, 511, 586n Aarts, B. and L. Haegeman 291, 355n, 359 Aarts, B. and S. Wallis 666 Aarts, B., S. Chalker, et al. 683 Aarts, B., J. Close, et al. 75, 78, 80, 81 Aarts, B., D. Denison, et al. 357, 442 Aarts, F. and J. Aarts 139n Abney, S. P. 156n, 309, 338–9, 346, 347, 351 Aboh, E. 340n Abraham, W. 418 Abraham, W. and E. Leiss 418 Achard, M. 361, 367 Ackema, P. and M. Schoorlemmer 251 Ackerman, F., et al. 228 Acqaviva, P. and P. Panagiotidis 294 Acuña-Fariña, J. C. 348n Adcock, F. 683 Ades, A. E. and M. Steedman 530 Adger, D. 45, 156n, 292, 511 Aelius Donatus 6 Åfarli, T. A. 157 Ágel, V. 138n, 139n, 141n Ágel, V., et al. 124n Aikhenvald, A. Y. and R. M. W. Dixon 197 Ainsworth-Darnell, K., et al. 53 Aitchison, J. 583n Ajdukiewicz, K. 530 Akmajian, A. and A. Lehrer 343, 349, 350 Alexiadou, A. 251, 487n, 491 Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou, et al. 158n Alexiadou, A., L. Haegeman, et al. 156n, 339, 340n, 351n Page 1 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Alexiadou, A., M. Rathert, et al. 406 Allan, K. 420, 421, 438 Allan, K. and K. M. Jaszczolt 538n Allen, M. R. 268 Allerton, D. J. 131n, 138, 140n, 142, 465 Allwood, J., et al. 530n Al-Mutairi, F. R. 490 Aloni, M. and P. Dekker 530n Alston, R. C. 3 Alston, W. 376 Anderson, J. M. 504 Anderson, S. R. 223, 226 Anderwald, L. 609, 610, 613, 618–19, 622–3, 646n Anderwald, L. and B. Kortmann 630, 639n Andreou, M. and A. Ralli 269 Andrews, A. 537 Andrews, B. 683 Anthony, L. 70, 76 Anttila, A. and Y-M. Y. Cho 519 Arbini, R. 389 Ariel, M. 556, 557 Aristotle 23, 442, 467 Arnauld, A. and C. Lancelot 284 Arnold, D. and A. Spencer 235 Arnold, J. E., et al. 476 Aronoff, M. 227, 229 Aronoff, M. and M. Lindsay 237, 248 Asudeh, A. 529, 537 Asudeh, A. and G. Giorgolo 529 Asudeh, A. and I. Toivonen 529 Asudeh, A., M. Dalrymple, et al. 529 Asudeh, A., G. Giorgolo, et al. 529 Athanasiadou, A. et al. 571 Atkinson, D. 658, 666 Atlas, J. D. 546n Austen, J. 93n, 679 Austin, J. L. 375, 538–40 B (p. 784) Bach, E. 531 Bach, K. 549 Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish 385 Baerman, M., et al. 224 Baeskow, H. 259 Baker, M. C. 292–4, 295, 296, 299, 336 Baker, P. and E. Levon 571 Baker, R. G. and P. T. Smith 514 Barber, Ch. 589 Bard, E. G., et al. 40, 44 Page 2 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Bar-Hillel, Y. 530 Barker, C. 259, 527 Barker, C. and P. Jacobson 537 Baron, D. 669 Barsky, R. F. 17 Bartels, C. 511 Barth-Weingarten, D. and E. Couper-Kuhlen 573 Bary, C. and D. Haug 537 Bastiaansen, M., et al. 52 Bates, E. and B. MacWhinney 197 Bauer, L. 223, 233, 234n, 245, 263, 268, 269, 271, 273, 274, 275, 280, 360 Bauer, L. and R. Huddleston 262 Bauer, L. and A. Renouf 278 Bauer, L., et al. 230n, 236, 239, 243, 244n, 245–6, 247, 248, 249, 252, 254, 255, 256, 257, 262, 275, 276–7, 279 Baumgärtner, K. 137n Bazerman, C. 655, 663, 671 Beal, J. 609, 614, 626, 627 Beard, R. 225, 231n, 232n Beaugrande, R.-A. de and W. U. Dressler 556 Beaver, D. I. 546n Beaver, D. I. and B. Geurts 546n Bell, M. J. 264–5 Bell, M. J. and I. Plag 267, 271 Bemis, D. K. and L. Pylkkänen 55 Benczes, R. 276 Bender, E. M. and I. A. Sag 253n Ben-Shachar, M. et al. 56 Berg, T. 512, 515 Berko, J. 297, 512 Bermúdez-Otero, R. 508 Bermúdez-Otero, R. and K. Börjars 504, 519, 520 Bermúdez-Otero, R. and P. Honeybone 504, 516 Berwick, R. C., P. Pietroski, B. Yankama, and N. Chomsky 17 Bianchi, V. 319 Biber, D. 570–1, 656, 657, 658, 659, 662, 668, 671 Biber, D. and S. Conrad 655, 658, 660, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666–7 Biber, D. and B. Gray 196, 575–7, 657, 658, 666, 667 Biber, D. and R. Reppen 60 Biber, D., et al. 183, 185, 289, 399, 476n, 479, 495n, 558, 560, 562, 563, 570, 655, 656, 661, 662– 3, 666, 668 Bieswanger, M. 658 Billig, M. 568 Binnick, R. 256, 399, 400 Birner, B. J. 464n, 466, 479 Birner, B. J. and G. Ward 216n, 463, 464, 465, 466, 474–6, 477, 479 Blevins, J. P. 230 Blevins, J. P. and I. Sag 162 Page 3 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Bloch, B. 223 Bloomfield, L. 33, 202, 268, 282–5, 288, 290–1, 294, 295, 296, 359, 364, 486 Blumenthal-Dramé, A. 498n Boas, H. C. 116, 149n Bobaljik, J. D. 225, 238n, 248n, 492 Bodomo, A. 493n Boeckx, C. 153 Boehm, B. 68n Boersma, P. and D. Weenink 519 Bolinger, D. 370, 459, 510, 511, 524 Bonami, O. 251 Bonami, O. and G. Stump 226 Booij, G. 119, 222, 228, 235n, 236, 269, 275, 279, 502, 519 Borer, H. 157, 528 Borik, O. 406n Bornkessel, I. and M. Schlesewsky 57 Bornkessel, I., et al. 56 Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. and M. Schlesewsky 55 Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., et al. 56, 57 Borsley, R. D. 162, 319, 334n, 395 Bošković, Ž. 490n (p. 785) Bouma, G., et al. 319 Bowerman, S. 617 Bowers, J. 157 Bowie, J. and B. Aarts 563, 564 Bowie, J. and S. Wallis 71, 449n Bowie, J., et al. 418, 597 Boyé, G. and G. Schalchli 226 Boye, K. and E. Engberg-Pedersen 671 Boye, K. and P. Harder 192 Brazil, D. 184, 187–8 Breban, T. and C. Gentens 196 Breivik, L. E. 475, 670 Brekle, H. E. 271 Brems, L. 348n, 352 Brems, L. and K. Davidse 348n Brennan, J. and L. Pylkkänen 55, 57 Brennan, J., et al. 57 Brentari, D. 504 Bresnan, J. 292, 306n, 314, 319, 493, 528, 672 Bresnan, J. and J. Grimshaw 322 Bresnan, J. and J. Hay 605 Bresnan, J., A. Asudeh, et al. 162, 204–5, 220n, 527, 528 Bresnan, J., A. Cueni, et al. 476 Brezina, V. and M. Meyerhoff 80n Brinton, L. J. 575n Brisard, F. 196 Briscoe, E. J. 72 Page 4 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Broca, P. 56 Broccias, C. and W. B. Hollmann 295 Bromberger, S. and M. Halle 512 Brown, D. and A. Hippisley 227n, 237 Brown, Gillian and G. Yule 466n Brown, Goold 213 Brown, R. 297, 512 Bruening, B. 529 Bullokar, W. xxi–xxii, 202, 287 Büring, D. 164n, 467n, 468 Burridge, K. 560, 609 Burrows, J. F. 679 Burton-Roberts, N. 348n Burton-Roberts, N. and G. Poole 504 Butler, C. S. 181, 289 Butler, C. S. and F. Gonzálvez-García 121, 200, 340n Bybee, J. L. 87, 93, 108, 181, 186, 341n, 423, 429, 497, 498, 498n, 503, 520, 573 Bybee, J. L. and S. Fleischman 418 Bybee, J. L. and P. J. Hopper 497–8, 499 Bybee, J. L. and W. Pagliuca 429–30 Bybee, J. L., et al. 398n, 399, 409n, 418, 419, 425, 427, 438 C Campbell, L. 198 Cann, R., et al. 559 Caplan, D., et al. 56 Cappelle, B. and I. Depraetere 117 Cardinaletti, A. 157 Carnap, R. 525 Carnie, A. 336 Carpenter, B. 530 Carr, P. and P. Honeybone 522 Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 278 Carston, R. 544, 547–8, 549 Carter, R. 682 Carter, R. and M. McCarthy 682 Carter, R. and W. Nash 674 Carver 455 Cassidy, K. and M. Kelly 512, 515 Cattell, R. 389 Cauthen, J. V. 369 Chafe, W. L. 187n, 461, 464–5, 469, 471, 558, 665, 670 Chapin, P. 19n Chapman, S. 538, 541 Chaucer, G. 681 Chaves, R. P. 329n Chemla, E. 551 Chemla, E. and B. Spector 551 Chen, D. and C. D. Manning 72 Page 5 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Chen, E., et al. 57 Chen, R. 479 Cheshire, J., V. Edwards, et al. 609 Cheshire, J., P. Kerswill, et al. 605 Chierchia, G. 550–1 Chierchia, G. and S. McConnell-Ginet 530n Chierchia, G., et al. 551 Chilton, P. 571 Chomsky, N. 3, 16–20, 23–4, 44, 46, 51, 60, 65, 66, 138, 139, 140n, 153, 156n, 158n, 161–2, 164n, 178, 203, 204, 206–7, 211, 291–2, 303, 306n, 314, 317, 330n, 359, 463, 488, 489, 490, 491, 505, 511, 516, 528, 530, 559 (p. 786) Chomsky, N. and M. Halle 470, 509, 517, 519 Christian, D. 610 Chung, S. 175 Church, K. 65 Churchill, W. 676 Cinque, G. 311, 509 Cinque, G. and L. Rizzi 482n Clark, H. H. and S. E. Haviland 463, 465, 471 Clarke, S. 614, 615, 618, 627 Close, J. and B. Aarts 597, 600 Coates, J. 418, 425, 427, 428 Coene, M. and Y. D’hulst 339 Coffin, C., et al. 571 Cohen, M. X. 52 Collins, C. 158n Collins, P. 418, 422n, 476, 478, 480, 481, 599 Collins, P. and P. Peters 616 Comrie, B. 57, 399, 400, 402n, 406n, 408 Condoravdi, C. and S. Kaufmann 418 Conrad, J. 677–8 Cook, G. 675 Coote, C. 6 Copestake, A., et al. 531 Corbett, G. G. 259, 607, 621 Corver, N. 351n Coseriu, E. 269 Coulson, S. and T. Oakley 96 Coulson, S., et al. 53, 54 Couper-Kuhlen, E. 575 Couper-Kuhlen, E. and T. Ono 560, 564 Couper-Kuhlen, E. and M. Selting 558, 562 Cowart, W. 40, 44 Craenenbroeck, J. van and J. Merchant 565n Craenenbroeck, J. van and T. Temmerman 565n Crain, S. and J. D. Fodor 49 Cristofaro, S. 367n, 448–9 Crnič, L., et al. 551 Page 6 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Croft, W. 107, 149n, 150n, 180, 197, 285, 286, 290, 293, 295–7, 341n, 356, 448, 482, 612, 679 Croft, W. and D. A. Cruse 341, 498 Cruse, A. D. 237n, 361, 524n, 525–6 Cruttenden, A. 508, 510, 592n Crystal, D. 14, 282, 291, 364, 659, 666, 682 Crystal, D. and D. Davy 657 Culicover, P. W. 311, 333 Culicover, P. W. and R. S. Jackendoff 23, 109, 174n, 292, 323–4, 330n, 333, 393, 459, 528, 562, 564, 565 Culicover, P. W. and M. Rochemont 463 Culpeper, J. 679 Culpeper, J. and M. Kytö 583 Cumming, S. et al. 555 Curme, G. O. 33–7 Curzan, A. 620, 663 Cutler, A. and D. Norris 506 D Dąbrowska, E. 109 Dąbrowska, E. and D. Divjak 87 Dahl, Ö. 137n, 398n, 399, 402n, 409n, 423 Dahl, Ö. and V. Velupillai 615 Dalrymple, M. 493, 529, 531, 537 Dalrymple, M., R. M. Kaplan, et al. 529 Dalrymple, M., J. Lamping, et al. 537 Daneš, F. 473 Davidse, K. 480 Davidse, K., et al. 571 Davidsen-Nielsen, N. 405 Davidson, J. 689 Davies, M. 71, 265, 349n, 454, 660, 662, 668 Davis, S. 538n Davis, S. and B. S. Gillon 530n Davis, S. M. and M. H. Kelly 515 Davydova, J. 605 Davydova, J., et al. 626 Déchaine, R.-M. 292 Déchaine, R.-M. and M. Wiltschko 355n Declerck, R. 399, 400n, 405, 406, 407n, 414, 480 Declerck, R. and S. Reed 407n Declerck, R., et al. 399n, 407, 415 Degand, L. and J. Evers-Vermeul 573, 575 Degand, L. and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen 575 Dehé, N. 562 Dehé, N. and Y. Kavalova 562 Delahunty, G. P. 480 Delais-Roussarie, E., et al. 506 de Marneffe, M.-C. and C. D. Manning 137 Den Dikken, M. 348n, 467n Page 7 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Denison, D. 29, 430, 588n Denison, D. and A. Cort 592, 594n (p. 787) Depraetere, I. 415 Depraetere, I. and C. Langford 403n, 407, 416n Depraetere, I. and S. Reed 427n Depraetere, I. and A. Verhulst 428, 429 De Smet, H. 29 Dickens, C. 679 Diessel, H. 121 Dik, S. C. 182n, 183, 191, 193, 467, 472, 493–4 Dikker, S., et al. 53 Di Sciullo, A.-M. and E. Williams 486 Divjak, D. 497n, 498n Dixon, R. M. W. and A. Y. Aikhenvald 263, 367, 505 Dodgson, M. 680 Don, J. 229 Don, J. and M. Erkelens 297, 512 Dons, U. 289 Dorgeloh, H. 479, 657, 662, 666, 670 Dorgeloh, H. and A. Wanner 655, 664, 668–9, 671 Douthwaite, J. 675 Downing, A. 183, 466n, 467 Dowty, D. R. 237, 366, 414, 415, 528 Dowty, D. R., et al. 529, 532 Doyle, A. C. 12 Doyle, R. 681 Dreschler, G. 581 Dronkers, N. F., et al. 57 Drubig, H. B. 670 Dryer, M. S. 197, 295, 464n Du Bois, J. W. 189, 558, 572 Duffley, P. J. 362, 368, 369, 370–1, 372, 524 Dunbar, P. L. 681 Dunmore, H. 688 Durieux, G. and S. Gillis 297, 512 Dürscheid, C. 659 E Edwards, V. 609, 621 Egan, T. 371, 449, 451 Ehrlich, S. 658 Ehrlich, V. 674 Einstein, A. 23 Elbourne, P. 529n, 550, 552n Eliot, T. S. 684 Ellis, N. C. 122 Elsness, J. 406, 616 Embick, D. 222, 225 Embick, D. and R. Noyer 225, 491, 492 Page 8 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Emmott, C. 678 Emonds, J. E. 159, 211, 213 Emons, R. 138, 139n, 143–4 Engel, U. 125n, 137, 142n Engel, U. and H. Schumacher 138 Engleberg, S., et al. 149n Englebretson, R. 572 Epstein, S. D., et al. 164 Erteschik-Shir, N. 468, 476 Evans, N. 393 Evans, N. and S. Levinson 608 Evans, V. 92 Evans, V. and M. Green 87, 519 F Fabb, N. 229 Fairclough, N. 566, 568 Faltz, L. M. 610 Fanthorpe, U. A. 683, 688 Farmer, T. A., et al. 297, 512 Fauconnier, G. 87 Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner 87, 96 Faulkner, W. 683, 684 Fawcett, R. P. 183n, 340n, 443n, 494, 495 Featherston, S. 40, 44, 48 Fellbaum, C. 524n Fens-de-Zeeuw, L. 5 Ferguson, C. A. 655 Ferreira, F. 44 Ferris, D. C. 572 Féry, C. and V. Samek-Lodovici 510 Fiebach, C. J., et al. 55 Fiengo, R. and R. May, 177 Fillmore, C. 138, 145–7, 149, 316, 354, 524n, 528 Fillmore, C. J., et al. 109, 528 Filppula, M. 611, 615, 617, 626, 628 Findlay, J. Y. 529, 537 Firbas, J. 181, 461 Firth, J. R. 13, 496 Fischer, K. and A. Stefanowitsch 107 Fischer, O. 418, 433, 434, 590 (p. 788) Fischer, O. and W. van der Wurff 582n, 585n, 588 Fitting, M. 532n Fleischman, S. 434, 657 Fligelstone, S., M. Pacey, et al. 679 Fligelstone, S., P. Rayson, et al. 679 Fodor, J. A. 57, 485 Foley, W. A. and R. D. Van Valin Jr. 367n, 527 Folli, R. and H. Harley 158n Page 9 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Foolen, A. 424 Ford, C. E. 184 Fowler, R. 568, 684 Fowler, R., et al. 566, 568 Fowles, J. 679 Fox, B. A. 575 Francis, G. 496 Francis, W. N. 12 Franke, M. 551 Frawley, W. 418, 425 Frazier, L. and G. B. Flores d’Arcais 49 Freed, A. F. 371 Frege, G. 378, 525, 530 Freidin, R. 153 Fried, M. 107, 590 Friederici, A. D. 53, 55 Friederici, A. D. and S. Frisch 54 Friederici, A. D., J. Bahlmann, et al. 56 Friederici, A. D., A. Hahne, et al. 53, 54 Friederici, A. D., M. Meyer, et al. 57 Friederici, A. D., E. Pfeifer, et al. 53, 54 Fries, C. C. 182, 206 Fries, P. H. 466n Frisch, S., et al. 54–5 G Gabelentz, G. von der 466 Gabrielatos, C. and P. Baker 571 Gagné, C. 271 Gahl, S. and S. M. Garnsey 672 Gamut, L. T. F. 530, 533 Garside, R. 679 Garside, R. and N. Smith 679 Gast, V. 623, 624 Gavins, J. 678 Gazdar, G. 162, 385 Gazdar, G., E. H. Klein, et al. 162, 203, 205, 292n, 360 Gazdar, G., G. K. Pullum, et al. 207 Geach, P. T. 552n Gee, J. P. 554 Geeraerts, D. 237n, 524, 525 Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens 87 Geis, M. 211 Geluykens, R. 477, 661 Gensler, O. 624 Georgakopoulou, A. and D. Goutsos 670, 671 Gerdes, K., et al. 124n, 126n Gerken, L., et al. 509 Gerwin, J. 624 Page 10 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Geurts, B. 551 Geurts, B. and N. Pouscoulous 551 Geurts, B. and B. van Tiel 551 Giannakidou, A. 408 Gibson, E. and E. Fedorenko 40, 44, 45 Giegerich, H. J. 229, 248, 263, 266, 267, 293 Ginzburg, J. 559 Ginzburg, J. and R. Fernández 559 Ginzburg, J. and I. A. Sag 162, 323–4 Giorgi, A. and F. Pianesi 406n Girard, J.-Y. 538 Gisborne, N. 131n, 137n, 149, 424 Givón, T. 180, 182n, 198, 340n, 343, 367–70, 419, 421, 425, 426, 471, 497n, 502n, 558 Godfrey, E. and S. Tagliamonte 621 Goldberg, A. E. 94, 107, 110, 111, 113, 114–16, 121, 149–51, 187, 228, 341n, 476n, 477, 482, 497n, 498, 500–1, 528, 591 Goldberg, A. E. and F. Ackerman 365 Goldberg, A. E. and R. Jackendoff 528 Golding, W. 684–5 Gómez-González, M. Á. 466n Goossens, L. 418 Gotti, M. 658, 664 Grabe, E., et al. 511 Grafmiller, J. 656 Graustein, G. and G. Leitner 3 Gray, B. and D. Biber 570–1 Greaves, P. 289 Greenbaum, S. and R. Quirk 15, 16 Greenberg, J. 497n, 608 (p. 789) Gregory, M. L. and L. A. Michaelis 475 Grewe, T., et al. 57 Grice, H. P. 471, 538, 541–5, 546n, 549, 551 Gries, S. Th. 65, 76n, 79, 80n, 501n Gries, S. Th. and A. Stefanowitsch 477, 478, 501 Gries, S. Th. and S. Wulff 122 Grimshaw, J. 148n, 258, 489n Grimshaw, J. and S. Vikner 365 Grodzinsky, Y. 56–7 Grodzinsky, Y. and A. Santi 57 Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof 551, 552 Gropen, J., et al. 115 Gross, T. and T. Osborne 135–6 Grossman, E. and S. Polis 436 Grosu, A. 322 Gruber, J. S. 528 Guéron, J. 555n Gueron, J. and J. Lacarme 418 Guevara, E. and S. Scalise 268 Page 11 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Guion, S. G., et al. 506 Gumperz, J. J. 510 Gundel, J. K. 461n, 467, 468n, 471, 474 Gundel, J. K., et al. 465n Gunter, T. C., et al. 53 Günther, C. 345n, 667 Gussenhoven, C. 469, 510 Gwynne, N. M. 210 H Haas, W. 125 Haddon, M. 685 Haegeman, L. 154n, 159n, 173n, 411 Haegeman, L. and J. Guéron 339 Haegeman, L. and T. Ihsane 661 Hagège, C. 394 Hagoort, P. 54, 55 Hagoort, P., C. Brown, et al. 54 Hagoort, P., M. Wassenaar, et al. 53 Hahne, A. and A. D. Friederici 53, 54 Haig, G. and S. Schnell 572n Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser 528 Hall, A. 548, 549–50 Halle, M. 519 Halle, M. and A. Marantz 222, 225, 294, 491 Halle, M. and J.-R. Vergnaud 509 Halliday, M. A. K. 100, 183, 186n, 189–90, 191, 195, 340, 347, 461, 466, 468, 471, 473, 494–5, 496, 508, 511, 556, 571 Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan 183, 556, 678 Halliday, M. A. K. and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen 340–1, 347, 351, 352, 495, 511 Hamawand, Z. 372 Hamblin, C. L. 382 Hamilton, W. L., et al. 267–8 Han, C.-H. 380 Harley, H. 294, 490–1, 492 Harley, H. and R. Noyer 294, 492 Harman, G. H. 162 Harris, R. A. 540 Harris, Z. S. 203 Harrison, C., et al. 571, 678 Harrison, T. 682 Hart, C. 571 Harvey, T. 210 Hasan, R. 495 Haspelmath, M. 198, 274, 290, 295–6, 497n, 620, 624 Hatcher, A. G. 271 Hawkins, J. A. 100, 189, 395, 472, 581 Hay, J. 229 Hay, J. and I. Plag 229 Page 12 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Hayes, B. and C. Wilson 519 Hayes, B., et al. 519 Hedberg, N. 470n Hedberg, N. and L. Fadden 467n, 481 Heger, K. 139n Heim, I. 551, 552 Heim, I. and A. Kratzer 529n, 534–6 Heine, B. 425–6, 432, 562, 575, 590 Heine, B. and T. Kuteva 572 Heine, B. and H. Narrog 530n Heine, B., et al. 572 Helbig, G. 138, 139n, 141n, 147n Helbig, G. and W. Schenkel 138, 139n Hemingway, E. 683 Hengeveld, K. 191, 192, 398n, 608 Hengeveld, K. and J. L. Mackenzie 121, 183, 191, 193, 340n, 482 Herbst, T. 115, 116, 139n, 147n, 149, 151 Herbst, T. and S. Schüller 131n, 138, 139n, 141, 142, 144n, 148, 149 (p. 790) Herbst, T. and P. Uhrig 144n Herbst, T., D. Heath, et al. 131n, 138, 144 Heringer, H. J. 137, 138, 143 Hermann, J. G. J. 284 Herring, S. C. 665 Herrmann, T. 628 Hewitt, G. 235 Hewson, J. 339n, 360, 524 Hewson, J. and V. Bubenik 371 Heycock, C. and A. Kroch 467n, 481 Hickey, R. 605, 631n Hill, A. A. 44 Hilpert, M. 107, 109, 111, 113, 116, 117, 118, 119 Hiltunen, R. 657 Himmelmann, N. and E. Schultze-Berndt 286 Hinojosa, J., et al. 53 Hinrichs, L., et al. 605, 627 Hinzen, W., et al. 530n Hirschberg, J. 550 Hirtle, W. H. 361, 371 Hjelmslev, L. 126, 143 Ho, Y. 679 Hockett, C. F. 467 Hodson, J. 681 Hoey, M. 679 Hoffmann, T. and G. Trousdale 106, 482 Hofmeister, P. and I. A. Sag 216 Hogg, R. M. 585 Höhle, B., et al. 297 Hollmann, W. B. 297–8, 367n, 512, 514, 515 Page 13 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Hommerberg, Ch. and G. Tottie 587 Hopper, P. J. 181, 340n, 497, 555, 672 Hopper, P. J. and S. A. Thompson 572 Hopper, P. J. and E. C. Traugott 419n, 433, 459, 572, 584 Horn, L. R. 418, 550 Horn, L. R. and G. Ward 538n Hornby, A. S. 152 Hornstein, N. 406n Howells, W. 681 Hoye, L. F. 422 Huang, C.-T. J. 50, 157, 174 Huang, Y. 538n Huddleston, R. 16, 207, 209n, 389, 423, 424, 466n Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum 112, 116, 148, 151, 201, 212, 243, 287, 289, 290, 291, 307, 310n, 322, 360, 364, 366n, 370, 371, 372, 376, 377, 380, 383, 386, 387, 388, 389, 391, 392, 398, 399, 400, 404n, 409n, 411n, 412, 420, 421, 422n, 423, 427, 442–3n, 443, 444, 445n, 447n, 448, 453n, 455, 476, 555, 557, 561n, 562, 604 Huddleston, R., et al. xxii, 25, 29n, 30, 31n, 36, 336, 441n, 447n, 454–5, 457–8, 587 Hudson, R. A. 8, 91, 125, 129n, 131–2, 135, 137, 139n, 148n, 149, 203, 217, 273, 282, 302, 304n, 339n, 344n, 360, 361–3, 443n, 451 Hughes, A., et al. 623–4 Hughes, R. 661, 666 Hume, D. 22 Humphries, C., et al. 57 Hundt, M. 581, 583n, 593, 594, 595, 596, 605, 669–70 Hundt, M. and A. Gardner 596, 597 Hundt, M. and G. Leech 658 Hundt, M. and C. Mair 656 Hundt, M., et al. 582n Hunston, S. and G. Francis 186, 495n Hunter, J. 211 I Isel, F., et al. 53 Iverson, G. K. and S.-C. Ahn 518 J Jackendoff, R. S. 89, 203, 211, 238, 275, 291, 292, 303, 307, 309, 313, 314, 327, 330, 338, 463, 468, 470, 492, 496n, 528 Jacobs, J. 139n, 149n, 470 Jacobson, P. 530, 531, 537 James, F. 425 James, H. 680 Jansen, W. 508 Janssen, T. M. V. 530 Jarrett, G. A. 681 Jary, M. and M. Kissine 376, 380, 382 Jaszczolt, K. M. 524 Jeffries, L. 658, 686, 688, 690 Jeffries, L. and D. McIntyre 674 Page 14 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Jespersen, O. xxii, 3, 10–13, 61, 206, 211, 257, 271, 343, 359, 360, 441n, 451, 472 Ježek, E. 237n Johannessen, J. B. 328, 456–7 Johnson, D. E. and P. M. Postal 217 Johnson, Keith 90n Johnson, Kyle 177, 178 Johnson, S. 7, 12 Jones, D. 13 Jonson, B. 289 Jurafsky, D. 341n Jusczyk, P. W., et al. 508 Just, M. A., et al. 48, 56 K Kaan, E. 53, 54 Kaan, E. and T. Y. Swaab 53, 54 Kaan, E., et al. 55 Kachru, B. 510, 605, 631 Kahan, J. 679n Kahane, S. 134n, 137 Kahane, S. and T. Osborne 127n Kaisse, E. M. 253 Kaleta, A. 367n Kallel, A. 19n Kaltenböck, G. 441n, 478 Kaltenböck, G., et al. 561–2 Kamp, H. 551 Kamp, H. and U. Reyle 530n, 551 Kaplan, D. 548 Kaplan, R. M. and J. Bresnan 162, 528 Karlsson, F. 234 Karttunen, L. 547, 552 Karttunen, L. and S. Peters 544 Kasher, A. 538n Kastovsky, D. 257n Katamba, F. and J. Stonham 274 Katz, J. and E. O. Selkirk 510 Kay, P. 110, 111 Kay, P. and C. Fillmore 91, 528 Kaye, J. 506, 507 Kayne, R. S. 155, 319, 328, 330n Kazanina, N., et al. 51 Kearns, K. 406n, 411, 413, 529n Keenan, E. and B. Comrie 628 Keenan-Ochs, E. and B. Schieffelin 466n Kehoe, A. and M. Gee 665 Keizer, E. 192, 196, 343, 344, 348n, 349n, 350, 354n, 356, 357 Keller, F. 40, 44 Kelly, M. H. 297, 512 (p. 791)

Page 15 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Kelly, M. H. and J. K. Bock 297, 512, 514 Kelly, M. H., et al. 512 Kelman, J. 681 Kempson, R. M. 463, 559 Kempson, R. M., et al. 559 Kenesei, I. 228, 232 Kennedy, C. 524n, 526, 527 Kennedy, C. and L. McNally 526, 527 Kenstowicz, M. 505 Kho, K. H., et al. 57 Kilgariff, A., et al. 77, 78 Kim, A. and L. Osterhout 55 Kim, J.-B. and I. A. Sag 314 Kim, J.-B. and P. Sells 348n Kiparsky, P. 229, 508 Kiparsky, P. and C. Kiparsky 478 Kiss, K. É. 157 Kissine, M. 385 Kitagawa, Y. 157 Klavans, J. L. 253 Klein, D. and C. D. Manning 137 Klein, E. 526 Klein, E. and I. A. Sag 531, 534n Klotz, M. 124n Klotz, M. and T. Herbst 152n Kluender, R. and M. Kutas 47, 48, 53 Koch, P. and W. Oesterreicher 659 Kokkonidis, M. 537 König, E. 470 König, E. and P. Siemund 386, 394, 610 König, E., et al. 73 Koontz-Garboden, A. 238 Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche 157 Koopman, H., et al. 282, 286 Korta, K. and J. Perry 538 Kortmann, B. 199, 609, 611, 613, 640, 646n Kortmann, B. and K. Lunkenheimer 606, 630–1, 632, 646n Kortmann, B. and V. Schröter 646n Kortmann, B. and B. Szmrecsanyi 609, 637, 644 Kortmann, B. and C. Wolk 634–6 Kortmann, B., et al. 628–9 (p. 792) Koster, J. 317 Kratzer, A. 158n, 534n Kratzer, A. and E. O. Selkirk 510 Kreidler, C. W. 511 Kress, G. and R. Hodge 566 Kreyer, R. 479, 670 Krifka, M. 379, 380, 381, 387, 467n, 468n, 470n, 541 Page 16 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Krug, M. G. 254, 255, 422, 433–4, 587, 592, 594n, 601 Kruisinga, E. 371, 441n Kučera, H. and W. N. Francis 61, 62 Kuhn, T. S. 68 Kuno, S. 465, 467 Kunter, G. 267 Kuperberg, G. R. 55 Kuperberg, G. R., et al. 55 Kutas, M. and K. D. Federmeier 54 Kutas, M. and S. A. Hillyard 54 Kutas, M., et al. 54 Kuteva, T. 572 L Labov, W. 19n, 67n, 79, 671 Ladd, D. R. 469, 510, 511, 520 Ladd, D. R. and R. Morton 511 Lakatos, I. 67, 68 Lakoff, G. 87, 102, 341n, 520, 528, 540–1 Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson 87, 341n, 678 Lakoff, R. 540 Lambek, J. 530 Lambrecht, K. 118, 190, 461, 463–6, 467–9, 471, 473, 475, 477, 482 Landau, I. 363n Langacker, R. W. 87, 88–9, 91, 94, 96, 99, 101, 102, 111, 135n, 149, 152, 181, 285, 293, 294–5, 341–2, 344–5, 347, 352n, 353, 357, 363–4, 365, 402, 404, 427, 430, 437, 442, 443n, 497n, 498– 500, 511, 520, 524, 571 Langacker, R. W., et al. 298n Langendoen, D. T. and H. Savin 547 Lapointe, S. 523 Lappin, S. and C. Fox 530n Larson, R. 330n, 331n Lasnik, H. 167n Lasnik, H. and T. Lohndal 153, 488n Lass, R. 582n, 586 Lau, E. F., et al. 53 Lee, S.-A. 250n Leech, G. N. 80, 183–4, 424, 471, 524, 558, 561, 601, 675, 676 Leech, G. N. and R. Garside 72 Leech, G. N. and M. Short 674, 677, 683, 684–5 Leech, G. N. and J. Svartvik 185 Leech, G. N., et al. 196, 586, 589, 596, 597–600, 601, 657 Lees, R. B. 271, 274 Lehmann, C. 448, 574 Leino, J. 118 Lerner, G. H. 563 Lev, I. 537 Levi, J. 271, 274 Levin, B. 258 Page 17 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav 238 Levine, R. D. 204, 324 Levinson, S. 375, 385, 432, 462, 538n, 540–1, 543, 550, 558 Levy, Y. 515 Lewis, D. 540, 549 Lewis, M. 289 Lewis, S. and C. Phillips 156n Li, J. 571 Liberman, M. and J. Pierrehumbert 508 Liberman, M. and A. Prince 514 Lieber, R. 231n, 233, 238, 258n, 274 Lieber, R. and S. Scalise 228 Lieber, R. and P. Štekauer 232n Lieven, E. V. 499, 592n Lightfoot, D. 429, 435, 573, 583, 584, 588, 590 Lindstrom, J. et al. 575 Linell, P. 557 Linn, A. xxi, 4, 202, 288 Littlemore, J. and J. R. Taylor 87 Lobeck, A. 346 Löbel, E. 351 Löbner, S. 353, 354n Lohndal, T. 37, 157, 528 Longacre, R. E. 204 Longobardi, G. 156n López-Couso, M. J. and B. Mendez-Naya 586 Los, B. 29, 582n, 583 (p. 793) Lounsbury, F. 230 Lowe, J. J. 537 Lowth, R. 6–7, 10, 202, 209, 284–9 Luck, S. 52 Lunkenheimer, K. 641n, 643, 646n Lyons, J. 266, 418, 420, 436, 442, 526 M Mackenzie, J. L. 180, 189 Macnamara, J. 293 MacWhinney, B. 497, 515 MacWhinney, B., et al. 197 Maddieson, I. 607 Madlener, K. 122 Mahlberg, M. 679 Mahlberg, M., et al. 680n Maiden, M. 227n Maienborn, C., et al. 530n Mair, C. 363n, 589n, 632, 650–2, 657 Mair, C. and G. Leech 669 Malchukov, A. 402n Maling, J. 326n Page 18 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Mann, W. C. and S. A. Thompson 183 Marantz, A. 40, 294, 487, 490, 492 Marchand, H. 257, 266 Marcus, M., et al. 73 Martí, L. 549n Martin, J. 571 Martínez Insúa, A. E. 476 Mastop, R. J. 382 Matthews, P. H. 125, 127n, 128, 137n, 262–3, 264, 288, 290, 360, 363n, 451 Mattys, S., et al. 506 Mazoyer, B. M., et al. 57 McArthur, T. 630 McCall Smith, A. 681 McCarthy, Cormac 681 McCawley, J. D. xxii, 409, 528 McCloskey, J. 157, 159n McCoard, R. W. 406 McCormick, K. 610, 623 McEnery, T. and A. Hardie 60 McGilvray, J. 17 McGinnis-Archibald, M. 222, 225 McGregor, W. B. 181, 183n McIntyre, D. 678 McKinnon, R. and L. Osterhout 54 McMahon, A. 517 McWhorter, J. 642, 644 Melchers, G. 613, 615 Mel’čuk, I. 124n, 125n, 133–4, 137n Melloni, C. 238n, 258 Merchant, J. 158n, 175, 177, 178, 323–4 Miall, D. and D. Kuiken 675 Michael, I. xxii, 287, 288, 289 Michaelis, L. and K. Lambrecht 383 Miestamo, M. 618, 620 Millar, N. 117 Miller, C. 654 Miller, D. G. 243 Miller, G. A. 524n Miller, G. A. and N. Chomsky 44 Miller, J. 558, 615, 618, 626, 627, 628 Miller, J. and R. Weinert 558, 560 Miller, J. E. 364 Minkova, D. and R. Stockwell 257n Moens, M. and M. Steedman 415 Mompean, J. 520 Monaghan, C. 4, 5 Monaghan, P., et al. 297, 512–13 Mondorf, B. 657 Page 19 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Montague, R. 525, 530, 531, 532n, 533, 549 Montalbetti, M. 44 Montgomery, M. 615, 617, 619, 627 Moreton, E. 519 Morgan, J. L. 547 Morrill, G. V. 530 Moss, L. 679–80 Mufwene, S. 605, 618 Mukherjee, J. 658 Mulder, J. and S. A. Thompson 575 Mulder, J., et al. 575 Müller, P. O., et al. 232n Müller, S. 492, 529n Müller, S. and S. Wechsler 528–9 Münte, T. F. and H. J. Heinze 53 Münte, T. F., et al. 53 Murphy, M. L. 237n Murray, L. 3, 4–7, 10, 209 Murray, T. and B. L. Simon 609, 617, 618, 622, 626 Muysken, P. 182 N (p. 794) Nagle, S. J. 423 Narrog, H. 418, 431, 436 Narrog, H. and B. Heine 572 Nathan, G. S. 520 Neale, S. 550 Neidle, C. 493 Nelson, G., et al. 62, 73, 75, 76, 79, 80n, 556 Nesfield, J. C. 210–11 Nespor, M. and I. Vogel 509 Nevalainen, T. 583n, 620 Nevalainen, T. and E. C. Traugott 582, 583n Neville, H., et al. 52 Nevins, A. and J. Parrott 622 Newlyn, L. 687 Newmeyer, F. J. 121, 441n, 540, 662, 671, 672 Nikolaeva, I. 412 Noonan, M. 181 Nordlinger, R. and L. Sadler 253, 492 Nordlinger, R. and E. C. Traugott 418, 428 Nouwen, R., et al. 551–2 Noyes, A. 675–6 Nunberg, G., et al. 285 Nuyts, J. 418, 421, 431, 436, 437 O Occam, William of 23 Öhl, P. 573 O’Keefe, A. and M. McCarthy 60 Page 20 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Orasan, C. 668 Orton, H. and E. Dieth 607 Osborne, T. 135n, 137n Osborne, T. and T. Gross 149 Osborne, T. and S. Kahane 126n Osborne, T., et al. 365 Osterhout, L. and P. Hagoort 54 Osterhout, L. and P. J. Holcomb 54 Osterhout, L. and L. A. Mobley 53 Osterhout, L., et al. 54 Östman, J.-O. and J. Verschueren 538n Övergaard, G. 596–7 P Palmer, F. R. 418, 419–21, 423, 424, 426, 427, 428–9, 436, 590, 592n Paltridge, B. and S. Starfield 657 Panagiotidis, P. 290, 292–4, 299 Papafragou, A. 424 Partee, B. H. 524 Partee, B. H., et al. 530n, 532, 533, 536 Pater, J. 519 Patten, A. 480 Pawley, A. 610, 611, 623, 627 Pawley, A. and F. H. Snider 672 Payne, J. 247 Payne, J. and R. Huddleston 266, 336, 346, 348n, 354, 356, 667 Payne, J., R. Huddleston, et al. 35n, 217–19, 248, 322 Payne, J., G. K. Pullum, et al. 356 Penhallurick, R. 618, 626 Penrose, A. and S. Katz 668 Perek, F. 474 Perek, F. and A. E. Goldberg 187 Pérez-Guerra, J. and A. E. Martìnez-Insua 667 Perlmutter, D. M. 204 Perry, J. 549 Phillips, C. 50 Phillips, C., et al. 53, 55 Phillips, S. 681 Pickering, M. J. and V. S. Ferreira 188 Pierrehumbert, J. 520 Pierrehumbert, J. and J. Hirschberg 511 Pierrehumbert, J., et al. 504 Pietsch, L. 615, 621–2 Pike, K. 204 Pinker, S. 264, 489, 508 Pinter, H. 677 Pintzuk, S. 69–70n Plag, I. 120, 257 Plag, I. and H. Baayen 229 Page 21 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Plag, I., et al. 267 Plank, F. 429 Pollard, C. and I. A. Sag 162, 204–5, 217, 364, 492, 528, 531 Popper, K. 22–3 Portner, P. and B. H. Partee 530n Postal, P. M. 306n Postal, P. M. and G. K. Pullum 306n Potts, C. 525, 544–5, 546n, 550 Poutsma, H. 441n Priestley, J. 6 Prince, A. and P. Smolensky 517 (p. 795) Prince, E. F. 461, 463, 464–6, 467, 471, 474–5, 480–1 Pullum, G. K. 7, 220n, 281–2, 284, 285–6, 290, 291, 293, 295, 296, 324 Pullum, G. K. and R. Huddleston 279, 390 Pullum, G. K. and J. Rogers 219–20 Pullum, G. K. and D. Wilson xxii, 207, 252 Pulvermüller, F., et al. 502 Pustejovsky, J. 237, 524n, 528 Putnam, H. 67 Q Quaglio, P. and D. Biber 558 Quine, W. van O. 525 Quirk, R. 3, 11, 13–16 Quirk, R., et al. xxii, 15–16, 25, 27n, 63, 75, 117–18, 139, 143, 144, 183, 185, 209n, 220, 263, 279, 289, 337, 347, 370, 376, 383, 393, 399, 400, 404n, 441n, 442n, 443, 448, 454–5, 458, 459–60, 468, 471, 556, 604 R Radden, G. and R. Dirven 87 Radford, A. 354, 355n, 359 Rainer, F. 237 Ramchand, G. 158n, 528 Ramchand, G. and C. Reiss 530n Randall, B. 73 Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin 238 Rauh, G. 528 Recanati, F. 376, 387, 549 Reichenbach, H. 405, 406n Reinhart, T. 163, 164, 467, 474 Renner, V. 273, 278 Rett, J. 381, 383–4, 393 Rialland, A. 511 Richards, M. 490 Riemsdijk, H. C. van 336 Rijkhoff, J. 342 Ritz, M.-E. 406 Rizzi, L. 156n, 157, 160n, 340n, 482n Robenalt, C. and A. E. Goldberg 151n Roberts, I. 421n, 434 Page 22 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Roberts, I. and A. Roussou 398n, 434 Robins, R. H. 282, 287 Rochemont, M. 470 Rochemont, M. S. and P. Culicover 476, 670 Rodefer, S. 683 Rogalsky, C. and G. Hickok 57 Rohdenburg, G. 62 Rooth, M. 468n Rosch, E. 524n Rosch, E. and C. B. Mervis 524n Rosenbach, A. 263, 656 Ross, J. R. xxii, 46, 108, 161, 207, 317, 327, 540 Rossi, S., et al. 53 Round, E. 227n Rumens, C. 683, 684 Ruppenhofer, J., et al. 524n Russell, B. 381, 382, 392, 551 S Sacks, H., et al. 184, 558 Sadock, J. M. 107, 540 Sadock, J. M. and A. M. Zwicky 377, 394 Sag, I. A. 111, 121, 177, 314, 324 Sag, I. A., G. Gazdar, et al. 330 Sag, I. A., T. Wasow, et al. 292, 294 Salkie, R. 399, 400n, 409, 424 Sanders, T. and H. Pander Maat 556 Sanders, T. and J. Sanders 556, 557 Sankoff, G. and H. Blondeau 497 Sansom, P. 686–7 Santi, A. and Y. Grodzinsky 56 Sapir, E. 296 Sasse, H.-J. 612 Sauerland, U. 551 Saussure, F. de 11, 88, 89, 215 Scalapino, L. 683 Scalise, S. and E. Guevara 491, 492 Scheer, T. 509, 517, 519 Schilk, M. and M. Hammel 402n Schleppegrell, M. 571 Schlobinski, P. 665 Schmid, H.-J. 498n, 671, 672 Schneider, A. 641n, 644 Schneider, E. W. 611, 631 Schönefeld, D. 488n, 493, 495n, 498n, 500n Schreier, D. and M. Hundt 582 Schröter, V. and B. Kortmann 647 Schumacher, H., et al. 138 (p. 796) Schütze, C. T. 40, 44, 346 Page 23 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Schütze, C. T. and J. Sprouse 42n, 43 Schuyler, T. 178 Schwarzschild, R. 510 Scott, M. 70, 76 Searle, J. R. 286n, 296, 361, 375, 379–80, 391, 540 Selkirk, E. 349, 469, 470, 507, 509, 519 Sells, P. 162 Semino, E. 685 Seoane, E. 669 Sereno, J. A. 515 Sereno, J. A. and A. Jongman 297, 512 Seuren, P. A. M. 360 Sgall, P., et al. 468 Shaer, B. and W. Frey 475 Shakespeare, W. 7, 433–4, 681–2 Shaw, G. B. 12 Sherman, D. 514 Shi, R., et al. 512, 515 Sidnell, J. 563 Sidnell, J. and T. Stivers 558 Siemund, P. 199, 376, 379, 383, 385, 386, 393, 421, 610, 611, 612, 614, 624, 626, 628–9, 630, 639n Siewierska, A. 443n Siewierska, A. and W. Hollmann 624 Silverstein, M. 613 Simons, M. 546n Simpson, P. 685 Sims, A. 224 Sinclair, J. 60, 65–6, 185–6, 495n, 496, 501, 503, 673, 690 Sinclair, J. and A. Mauranen 188–9 Singh, R., et al. 551 Slobin, D. I. 435 Smith, A. D. M., et al. 572 Smith, C. A. 8 Smith, C. S. 400, 403n, 409n, 411, 414, 415, 416 Smith, J. and S. Holmes-Elliott 518 Smith, N. and N. Allott 153 Smith, N. and G. N. Leech 598n Snider, N. and I. Arnon 486, 496 Sobin, N. 42 Somers, H. L. 139n Sopher, H. 348n Sóskuthy, M. and J. Hay 509 Spencer, A. 224, 226, 229, 230, 231, 235, 237, 255, 258n, 259–60 Spencer, A. and A. Luís 232 Spencer, A. and G. Popova 231 Spencer, N. J. 44 Spender, D. 683 Page 24 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Sperber, D. and D. Wilson 382, 542n, 549 Sportiche, D. 157 Sprouse, J. and D. Almeida 45 Sprouse, J., I. Caponigro, et. al. 48 Sprouse, J., C. T. Schütze, et al. 42–3, 45 Sprouse, J., M. Wagers, et al. 48 Stalnaker, R. C. 463, 548 Stanley, J. 548, 549, 550 Stanley, J. and Z. G. Szabó 547, 548, 549n, 550 Starke, M. 161 Stassen, L. 197 Steedman, M. 511, 530, 536 Stefanowitsch, A. and S. Th. Gries 77, 120, 501 Steinhauer, K. and J. Drury 53 Štekauer, P. 233, 237 Štekauer, P., et al. 232n, 280 Stenius, E. 378 Stevenson, R. L. 12 Stewart, T. W. 225 Stirling, L. and R. Huddleston 347n Stivers, T. 384n, 559 Stivers, T., et al. 559 Stockwell, P. 690 Stockwell, R., et al. 18–19n Storrer, A. 141n Stowe, L. A. 49, 50 Stowe, L. A., et al. 57 Stowell, T. 292, 412n Stowell, T. and E. Wehrli 486 Strawson, P. F. 467, 471, 550 Stroud, C. and C. Phillips 55 Stubbs, M. 679 Stubbs, M. and I. Barth 76–7 Stump, G. J. 222, 224, 225, 226–7, 236, 249 Sturt, P. 51 Sturtevant, E. H. 592n Swales, J. 654, 655, 664 (p. 797) Sweet, H. 3, 8–10 Sweetser, E. E. 418, 425, 431–2 Swerts, M. and S. Zerbian 510 Swift, J. 7, 12 Szabó, Z. G. 546 Szabolsci, A. and T. Lohndal 161 Szczepek, B. 563 Szmrecsanyi, B. 641n Szmrecsanyi, B. and B. Kortmann 637, 642, 643 Szymanek, B. 257 T Page 25 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Taavitsainen, I. 669 Tagliamonte, S. 607, 622 Tagliamonte, S., et al. 627 Talmy, L. 87, 91, 95, 103 Tannen, D. 659 Tanner, D. 54 Tanner, D. and J. G. van Hell 54 Tarasova, E. 271 Tarkington, B. 12 Taylor, J. R. 87, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 112, 294, 298, 357, 486, 520–1 Taylor, J. R. and K.-Y. Pang 104 ten Hacken, P. 233 Ten Wolde, E. and E. Keizer 348n Tesnière, L. 124, 126–31, 138–9, 145–6, 147n, 148, 151, 302, 360 Theses 181 Thieroff, R. 408 Thompson, S. A. 181, 184, 441n, 476, 572, 662 Thompson, S. A. and Y. Koide 477 Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. 5, 7, 202 Tognini-Bonelli, T. 65 Tomasello, M. 87, 121, 186, 499 Tomlin, R. S. 477 Tonhauser, J., D. I. Beaver, and J. Degen 547 Tonhauser, J., D. I. Beaver, C. Roberts et al. 547 Traugott, E. C. 348n, 418, 421, 422, 432, 434, 436–7, 573, 585n, 590–1 Traugott, E. C. and R. Dasher 418, 426, 429, 430, 432, 433, 436–7, 572 Traugott, E. C. and B. Heine 78n, 572 Traugott, E. C. and G. Trousdale 584, 590, 591, 601 Truckenbrodt, H. 511 Trudgill, P. 604, 614, 620, 627, 631, 642, 646, 651n Trudgill, P. and J. Chambers 613 Trudgill, P. and J. Hannah 421 Tubau Muntañá, S. 19n U Upton, C. and J. D. A. Widdowson 625 V Välimaa-Blum, R. 520 Vallduví, E. 461, 464, 467n, 468 Vallduví, E. and E. Engdahl 468 van Benthem, J. and A. ter Meulen 530n van Bergen, L. 595 Vandenberghe, R., et al. 57 van der Auwera, J. 198, 392, 422 van der Auwera, J. and A. Malchukov 286n van der Auwera, J. and V. Plungian 418, 427–8, 438 van der Auwera, J., et al. 592–4 van der Hulst, H. 504 van der Sandt, R. 552 Page 26 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Van de Velde, F. 196 van Dijk, T. A. 568 Van Eynde, F. 111 van Gompel, R. P. G. and S. P. Liversedge 50 van Herten, M., et al. 55 van Kemenade, A. 434 Van Langendonck, W. 339n Van linden, A., et al. 421–2 van Marle, J. 233n Van Peer, W. 675 van Tiel, B., et al. 551 Van Trijp, R. 121 Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 121, 527 Van Valin, R. D. Jr. and R. J. LaPolla 182n, 183, 190, 340n, 443n, 482 Vater, H. 141n Velupillai, V. 409n Venditti, J., et al. 509 Vendler, Z. 397, 412, 413, 430 Verstraete, J.-C. 423, 428 Villata, S., et al. 48 (p. 798) Virtanen, T. 671 Visser, F. Th. 363n, 594 von Fintel, K. 547 Vorlat, E. 6, 289 Vos, R. 349n, 351n W Wade, K. 247 Wade, T. 234 Wagers, M. and C. Phillips 50 Wagner, M. 509 Wagner, S. 199, 611, 613–14, 627, 646n Wald, B. and L. Besserman 278 Walker, T. 510 Waller, T. 596n Wallis, J. 202 Wallis, S. 61, 65, 69, 73, 75, 77n, 79, 80, 81, 82, 583n Wallis, S. and G. Nelson 68–9, 72 Waltereit, R. 573 Wanner, A. 664, 668–9 Ward, G. L. 465, 467, 474 Ward, G. L. and B. J. Birner 216n, 468 Ward, G. L. and E. F. Prince 465 Ward, G. L., et al. 265 Warner, A. R. 314, 418, 430, 588–9, 590, 595 Wasow, T. 66, 472 Wattam, S. 79 Webelhuth, G. 489n Webster 361 Page 27 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Name Index Wechsler, S. 524n, 528 Weir, A. 661 Welke, K. 149 Wells, H. G. 12 Wells, J. C. 278, 508 Wellwood, A., et al. 44 Welsh, I. 681, 682 Werth, P. 678 Westerhoff, J. 284–5 Whorf, B. L. 198–9 Wichmann, A. 510 Wiechmann, D. and E. Kerz 661 Wierzbicka, A. 370, 371–2 Williams, E. 177 Williamson, T. 524n Wilson, D. and D. Sperber 542n Wilson, G. 288 Wiltshire, C. and J. Harnsberger 510 Winkler, S. 468 Wolff, S., et al. 57 Wolfram, W. 618, 623 Wood, M. M. 530n Woolf, V. 683 Wright, J. 610 Wurmbrand, S. 409n, 412n X Xu, Y. and C. X. Xu 510 Y Yoshida, M., et al. 51 Z Zanuttini, R. and P. Portner 383 Zappavigna, M. 665 Zec, D. and S. Inkelas 509 Zeijlstra, H. 19–20 Ziegeler, D. P. 409, 418, 421, 422, 424, 425, 432, 434, 435, 436, 438 Ziem, A. and A. Lasch 107 Zifonun, G., et al. 139n Zimmermann, I. 292 Zirkel, L. 229 Ziv, Y. and B. Grosz 477 Zubizaretta, M.-L. 509 Zupitza, J. 610 Zwicky, A. M. 246, 253, 273, 304n, 344, 359, 360 Zwicky, A. M. and G. K. Pullum 232n, 254

Page 28 of 28

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index

Subject Index   The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics Online Publication Date: Mar 2020

(p. 799)

Subject Index

2 × 2 factorial designs 46–8 3A (annotation, abstraction, analysis) model 68–70 A Abkhaz language 235 aboutness 467 see also topic; topicalization absolute universals 607–8 abstraction in corpora 68–9 abuses of performative speech acts 539 academic writing 575–6, 657, 668–70 vs. news writing 663–4 accent placement for focus 469–70 acceptability judgements 41–8 accessibility of discourse referents 465 accessibility hierarchy 628 Accomplishments 397, 413–16 Achievements 397, 413–16 acoustic phonetic cues 514 actants 130 action words 296 see also verbs activation of information units 464–6 Active Filler Strategy 49–50 Activities 397, 413–16 actor and undergoer 527 adherent adjectives 33 adjacency condition 621 adjectival modifiers, as noun phrases 667 adjective clauses 214 adjective phrases 218, 325–7 topicalization 474 adjectives 94–5, 207–9, 211 adherent 33 antonyms 526–7 attributive 311, 576 Page 1 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index vs. predicative 572 comparison 248–9 as compounds 277–8 definitions 286 denominal 228 descriptive, vs. limiting 33–7 lumping 32–7 modal 421–2 ornative (X Y-ed) 236 taking clauses as complement 316 type-specifying function 342 as valency carriers 147–8 in written language 663 adjunct clauses 333 adjunctizers, as subordinators or prepositions 31–2 adjuncts 441, 444 vs. complements 364–7 mobility vs. stackability 366 obligatory vs. optional 365–6 in valency theory 139–41 in verb phrases 306–7 in X-bar theory 304 see also modifiers adverbial clauses, in discourse 184 adverbials conveying stance 570 in narrative language 670–1 in valency theory 139–41 adverbs 94–5 comparison 248–9 homophonous with prepositions 211 modal 421–2 advertising language, parallelism 676 affixation 228, 244, 259 auxiliary clitics 254 and clitics 232, 246–7 comparative 248–9 negative prefixation 9–10 (p. 800) ordering 229 phonological alternation 507–8 subject–verb agreement 620–1 African American English 626 after-perfect 615 afterthoughts (repairs) 477, 561 agency, deletion 567–9 agent-oriented actions 425–6 Agentive (A) case 146 agentivity, genre variation 668–70 agglutination 223 Page 2 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index Agree operations 490 agreement 134 and linear vs. hierarchical structure 154–5, 164 number 246 subject–verb, regional varieties 620–3 violations 53, 54 ain’t construction 618 Aktionsart (situation types) 396–7, 400, 412–17 allophones 520 allosentences 473 alternation and baselines 80–1 alternative double object construction 623–4 Alternative Semantics 468n ambiguity 95, 96, 344, 524n avoided by focus marking 470 in modals 434 structural 54–5, 112 American English 618, 622–3, 626–7 American structuralism 126, 127 amplitude, as phonotactic cue 508 analysis of corpus data 69–70 analysis, different approaches xxii anaphora, for cohesion 556–7 anchoring see grounding angloversals 637, 639–40 animacy hierarchy 613 annotation of corpora 68, 73 AntConc tool 70, 76 anterior temporal lobe 55–7 antonymy 525–7 aphasia 56 Appalachian English 615, 617, 619, 627 apposition 92 ARCHER (A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers) 433 areoversals 639 argument-focus 469–70 argument reversal 478–9 see also inversion; passive construction argument structure 113–16, 527–9 alternations 230 argumental compounds 269–72, 275 argumentation 21, 63 see also syntactic argumentation asemantic derivation 236–7 aspect 397 and Aktionsart 413–14 effect on sentence properties 410–12 marking, regional varieties 616–18 perfect 405–7 progressive 397, 400–3 Page 3 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index Aspects model (Chomsky) 138, 139 assertions, vs. presuppositions 463–4 associative interaction evidence 64 assumed familiarity model 466 assumptions in theories 67 attestation rate (AR) 639, 641–3, 646–50 attributive adjectives 311, 576 vs. predicative adjectives 572 attrition of inflection in English 246 Australian English 612, 616, 617, 623, 627, 631 automatic parsing 680 autonomy of language 516–17 vs. groundedness 511 auxiliary assumptions 67 auxiliary clitics 253–4 auxiliary verbs 206–7, 251–7 in complementizer position 314, 315–16 different analyses xxii as indication of clause type 377–8 in verb phrases 307–8 Aviation English 658 B back-formation 278 vs. compounding 266 background cognition 96 backward slash rule 537 Bahamian English 631 (p. 801) bahuvrihi compounds 268–9, 273 Bank of English™ corpus 66, 71 bare argument ellipsis 322–3 bare existentials 476 Bare Phrase Structure Grammar 330n baselines and alternation 80–1 be, as auxiliary 307–8 being to V construction 594–5, 596 big mess construction 111 binarity of compounds 272–3 binary branching of phrase structure 330–2, 333 binary Merge 155–67 binding 678 binding argument 549 Binding Constraints 51 Binding Theory 164n binominal syntagms 348–9 Black South African English, de-accenting 510 bleaching 434 blending theory 96 blends 233 Page 4 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index blocking 237 blood oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signals 55–6 BNC see British National Corpus bootstrapping hypothesis 508–9 bottom-up generalization algorithms 76–8 boundedness and unboundedness 415 branching 330–2, 333 bridging contexts 432–3 British Component of the International Corpus of English see ICE-GB British National Corpus (BNC) collocation analysis 64 complements 139–45 exclamatives 393 negation 589, 618, 623 n-grams 77 non-prototypical coordination 454, 456 passive constructions 363n phonological analysis 515 semi-modals 433, 600 sentence structure 126, 127, 130 size 658, 680 spoken vs. written English 660, 667 subordinating conjunctions 100 valency 147–8, 150 word classes 298 word order 670–1 broad focus 469–70 Broca’s area 56–7 Brown Corpus 61, 62, 586, 597, 658, 669 Brown family corpora 80, 583, 589, 596–8, 600 B-Brown 596–7 B-LOB 596–7 Brown 61, 62, 586, 597, 658, 669 FLOB 589, 597, 669 Frown 586, 589n, 597, 669 LOB 596–7, 663, 669 busy-progressive 617 C Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, The (CGEL; Huddleston and Pullum) 201–21 Cape Flats English 623, 634n Cardiff Grammar 183n Cardiff School 340n Caribbean English 647 cartographic approach 482n case 145–7 distinctions, nouns vs. pronouns 25, 26 loss in English 581 pronominal 613–14 Page 5 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index violations 53 case languages 139, 142–4 Case Theory 489 catastrophic change 584, 590 Categorial Grammar 530, 536–8 categorial particularism 295 categories 203–4 catena 135n catenative constructions 561n simple vs. complex 448, 451 catenative-auxiliary analysis xxii causal relations 104 c-command 162–7 Centre for Lexical Information (CELEX) corpus 515 CG see Cognitive Grammar (p. 802) CGEL see Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, A; Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, The chains 135 chunking 188 circumstants 130 classical morphemics 223 clauses 313–17, 358–9 comment 441n complements vs. adjuncts 364–7 coordination 453–4 vs. subordination 439–40 elliptical 322–4, 333–4 embedding 666 form types 606 fragments 562–6 grounding 97 headedness 332, 359–64 main clauses in subordinate form 411n Merge 156–67 phonological boundaries 508 radicals 378–9, 381, 382, 384 relative 445 regional varieties 626–8 separation by punctuation 557 in spoken discourse 560–1, 661–2 structure, regional varieties 623–8 subordinate 212–14 finite 442–6 modifiers vs. complements 441–2 non-finite 446–51 types 375, 376–84, 394–5 mood as 420, 421 unbounded dependency 317–22 Page 6 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index cleft sentences 118–19 clefts 56, 321, 480–1 clippings 233–4 clitics 231–2, 246–7 auxiliary 253–4 clusters 232 closed interrogatives 376–8, 382, 386, 387–8 clusters, lexical 679 CM see Construction Morphology COBUILD project (Collins COBUILD English Grammar) 66, 71, 100, 185–6, 495n COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English) agentivity 668 complements 140, 145, 356 compounds 265, 267 modals 581, 593, 595 non-prototypical coordination 454–9 pronouns 35 pseudopartitives 349 size 658 spoken vs. written English 660, 662 valency 147–8 co-construction in discourse 563–4 code, in modals 588 coercion 181, 415–16 Cognitive Construction Grammar 121 cognitive-functional linguistics 498, 519–21 Cognitive Grammar (CG; Langacker) xxii, 88–105, 107, 341–2, 347, 363–4, 443n, 498–500 phonology 520 Cognitive Linguistics 87–8, 276, 280, 336, 352, 497n, 571 on word classes 294–5 cognitive relations 609 cognitive-semantic criteria for headedness 343 COHA (Corpus of Historical American English) 71, 115, 593–4 coherence 556 cohesion 183 explicit linguistic devices 556–7 collection-noun (CollN) constructions 349 Collins COBUILD English Grammar see COBUILD project collocations 64, 76, 186, 679 collostructions 77–8 Combinatory Categorial Grammar 530 ‘Comfortable box’ (Newlyn) 687 comment clauses 441n commissive speech acts 380n common ground 463–4 see also presuppositions Communicative Grammar of English, A (Leech and Svartvik) 185 comparatives 312–13 clauses 214 Page 7 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index comparison categories 248–9 vs. descriptive categories 295 compartmentalization of grammar and lexis 485 competence vs. performance, in generative grammar 18 Complement function 211 complementation 134 complementizer phrases (CPs) 314, 320–1 complementizers 160, 314–16 as subordinators or prepositions 31–2 complements vs. adjuncts 364–7 in chains 207 clauses 198 hierarchy 367–70 internal vs. external 443 vs. modifiers 354–7, 441–2 non-finite 448 and prepositional phrases 327–8 relationship with modifiers 92 subcategorization 364, 370–3 as subordinate clauses 213 in valency theory 138, 139–41, 142–5 in X-bar theory 304 complex catenative constructions 448, 561n Complex Noun Phrase Constraint 109 complexity 666–7 Complexity Based Ordering (CBO) 222n, 229 compositional semantics 523, 529–38 compositionality 95–6, 157–9 compounds 228 argumental vs. non-argumental 269–72 binarity 272–3 definitions 262–3, 265–6, 279–80 endocentric vs. exocentric 268–9 headedness 273–4 models 274–6 morphology vs. syntax 263–5, 267, 275–6 neo-classical 245 semantics 268–72 subordinative vs. coordinative 269, 278 syntax 272–4 types 266–8 word classes 276–9 Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, A (CGEL; Quirk et al.) 15–16, 243, 247, 250, 254, 256–7 compression 576 computational system (CHL) 490 computer-mediated communication (CMC) 659, 664–5 (p. 803)

Page 8 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index conceptual metaphor theory 678 conceptual overlap 363n conceptual vs. medial approach to written/spoken distinction 659–60 conceptualization 101–4 concession 574 concordancing tools 70–1 conditional coordination constructions 391 conditional/implicational universals 608–9 conditionals 407–8 auxiliaries 253 congruence 134 conjunctions 211, 452–3 atemporal relations 94 coordinating 132–3, 328–30, 392 connectedness 134, 556–7 constative speech acts 539 constituency 37–9, 189, 203–4 constituency grammar 137, 303, 359–61, 363, 367 vs. dependency view 302 constituent order, identifying clause types 377–8, 394–5 constraints, in constructions 112 Construction Grammar (Goldberg) xxii, 106–9, 275, 280, 473–4, 480n, 482, 500–1, 679 dependency and valency 149–51 in language learning 121–2 and other approaches 120–1 see also constructions Construction Morphology (CM) 222, 228, 235n, 245n construction types, compounds as 265–6 constructional/phrasal theories 528–9 constructionalization, of modal verbs 590–4 constructions 187, 528 argument structure 113–16 definition 109–13 information packaging 117–19 (p. 804) modal auxiliary 116–17, 120 morphological 119–20 container-noun (CN) constructions 349 content, and function 182 content-driven approach to derivational morphology 237 context/code of auxiliaries 252 contextual deletion 142 contextual frame theory 678 contextual inflection 235 contextual relevance 547–50 contrast 194–5, 453 contrastive focus 469 control vs. raising 363n control verbs 362 convenience thresholds 641n Page 9 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index conventional implicature 541, 544–5 conversation 660–2 see also spoken language Conversation Analysis (CA) 184, 558–9 conversational implicature (CI) 541–5 Cooperative Principle (CP; Grice) 471, 541–5, 546n coordination 132–3, 134, 328–30 clause level 453–4 of compounds 267, 269, 273–4, 278 non-prototypical 454–7 phrase level 452–3 in spoken language 661 vs. written language 666 vs. subordination 439–40, 457–60 syndetic vs. asyndetic 454–5 copula 252 ellipsis 333–4 pseudopartitives 351n Core Syntax (Adger) 45 Coronal Lenition rule 518 corpora American English (AmE) see Brown family corpora approaches to research 65–8 ARCHER corpus 433 Bank of English™ corpus 66, 71 baselines and alternation 80–1 bottom-up generalization algorithms 76–8 British Component of the International Corpus of English, see ICE-GB British English (BrE) see Brown family corpora British National Corpus (BNC) collocation analysis 64 complements 139–45 exclamatives 393 negation 589, 618, 623 n-grams 77 non-prototypical coordination 454, 456 passive constructions 363n phonological analysis 515 semi-modals 433, 600 sentence structure 126, 127, 130 size 658, 680 spoken vs. written English 660, 667 subordinating conjunctions 100 valency 147–8, 150 word classes 298 word order 670–1 Brown family corpora 80, 583, 589, 596–8, 600 B-Brown 596–7 B-LOB 596–7 Page 10 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index Brown 61, 62, 586, 597, 658, 669 FLOB 589, 597, 669 Frown 586, 589n, 597, 669 LOB 596–7, 663, 669 Centre for Lexical Information (CELEX) 515 COBUILD project (Collins COBUILD English Grammar) 66, 71, 100, 185–6, 495n COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English) agentivity 668 complements 140, 145, 356 compounds 265, 267 modals 581, 593, 595 non-prototypical coordination 454–9 pronouns 35 pseudopartitives 349 size 658 spoken vs. written English 660, 662 valency 147–8 COHA (Corpus of Historical American English) 71, 115, 593–4 Collins Corpus, see COBUILD project (p. 805) corpora (cont.)collocations 76 collostructions 77–8 concordancing tools 70–1 Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) 620 Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (CLMET) 592, 594 Corpus of Online Registers of English (CORE) 661 DCPSE (Diachronic Corpus of Present-Day Spoken English) 14n, 81, 583, 596n, 600 disadvantages 41 evidence gained from 61–5 experimental corpus linguistics 78–82, 83 factual evidence 61, 62–3 frequency evidence 61–2 Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (HC) 586 ICE (International Corpus of English) 14n, 31n, 402n, 599 ICE-AUS 599 ICECUP 73, 75, 76 ICE-GB 680 anaphora 556–7 clefting 480 collocations 70–1, 74, 75 distributional analyses 62, 63, 64, 81–3 exclamatives 393 modals 428, 599 postponement 476–8 spoken language 73, 559–66 transitivity 66 interaction evidence 62, 63–5, 79, 81–2, 83 lexicons 76 London-Lund Corpus (LLC) 14–16, 61, 185 see also Survey of English Usage Page 11 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (LGSWE) 185, 495n, 558, 570, 600, 660, 661, 668 n-grams 76–7 natural language 59–60 NOW Corpus 35, 36 Old Bailey Proceedings (OBP) 593, 595–6 Oxford Children’s Corpus 593 parsed (treebanks) 59–60, 63, 71, 72–5, 80 Quirk Corpus see Survey of English Usage sampling 79–80 spoken discourse 558, 559–66 Standard Corpus of Present-day Edited American English, see Brown Corpus studies of genre 658 Survey of English Usage (Quirk Corpus) 14, 61, 70, 185, 680 tagged 59, 71 Time Magazine 593 tools and algorithms 68–78 Wellington Corpus of Written New Zealand English (WWC) 598n word sketches 78 Corpus of American English (AmE) see Brown family corpora corpus-based linguistics 65, 66 vs. usage-based approach 185–7 Corpus of British English (BrE) see Brown family corpora Corpus of Contemporary American English see COCA corpus-driven linguistics 65–6, 67–8 Corpus of Early English Correspondence 620 Corpus of Historical American English see COHA Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (CLMET) 592, 594 corpus linguistics, role in grammar and lexis 495–7 Corpus of Online Registers of English (CORE) 661 CorpusSearch tool 69–70n, 73 corpus stylistics 679–80 corrected treebanks 72 see also treebanks Correspondence Principle 151n counterfactuality 404 cranberry morphs 245 creoloids 636n Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) 566–7, 571 Critical Linguistics 566–7 cross-linguistic studies 13 negative concord 620 typology 197–200 vs. variation studies 607 c-structure 493 Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, The (Haddon) 685 cyclic methodology 68 D (p. 806) data collection 583 Page 12 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index data sources 11–12, 14, 40 see also acceptability judgements; corpora; electrophysiology data; haemodynamic responses; reading time data Dative (D) case 146 dative movement 476–7 DCPSE see Diachronic Corpus of Present-Day Spoken English de-accenting 510 de-adjectival derivation 259 nouns 235 verbs 238 declarative clauses 377, 381, 386–7 identifying 394 declarative speech acts/performatives 375, 380n, 382, 387, 402, 539, 540–1 declaratives 420 deduction vs. induction 22–3 Deep-Syntactic Dependency 134n defamiliarization 675 defectiveness 224 definite descriptions, and pronouns 552 definite determiners 97 degree words 326–7 deictic shift theory 678 deixis, in tense 398, 404 deletion, indefinite and contextual 142 Delta Π 501 demonstrations 402 demonstrative adjectives 33–7 denominal derivation 259 deontic modality 425, 426, 428–9, 431, 436–7, 590, 594, 599 dependent-auxiliary analysis xxii dependency clauses, unbounded 317–22 dependency grammar 124–31, 151–2, 203, 360–1, 363, 365, 367 and constituency analysis 137 vs. constituency view 302 in constructionist frameworks 149–51 long distance dependencies 134–7 types of dependency according to Mel’čuk 133–4 dependency relations 125 in Word Grammar 131–3 dependents, nouns vs. pronouns 25, 26 deranking 448–9 derivational approaches 138, 153 derivational morphology 224, 226, 244, 248, 257–60 vs. inflectional morphology 232–8 theoretical approaches 237–8 descriptive adjectives, vs. limiting adjectives 33–7 descriptive categories vs. comparative categories 295 determinatives 209, 218–19 Determiner function 209 Page 13 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index determiner phrases (DPs) 156n determiners 97 functionalist approach 196 as head of noun phrase xxii indefiniteness constraint 112 deverbal derivation 259 deviation 675 Devon English 621 Diachronic Corpus of Present-Day Spoken English (DCPSE) 14n, 81, 583, 596n, 600 diachronic studies 78 diachrony of modal verbs 429–35, 587–94 diagraphs 189 dialects 199, 607 double negatives 13 in literature 681–2 plural inflections on pronouns 26 pronunciation of reflexives 609–10 see also regional varieties of English Dialogic Syntax (Du Bois) 189 dialogue systems 559 digital communication 664–5 digital genres 661 dimonotransitivity 63, 66 direct interpretation, vs. indirect interpretation 531–3 directional interaction evidence 64 directive speech acts 380, 389, 391 Discontinuous clefts 480 discourse definitions 554 effect on grammar 571–7 (p. 807) role of grammar 566–71 vs. grammar 182–4 discourse contexts 214–16 discourse markers 562, 573–6 regional varieties 607 discourse-pragmatic criteria for headedness 344–5 discourse referents 552 mental representations 464–6 discourse structure model 677 disjunctions 453 disjunctive coordination 392 Distributed Morphology (DM) 222, 225, 230n, 233, 239, 275–6, 294, 491–2 distribution of word classes 25 distributional analysis 296, 297–8, 299 distributional fragmentation 599 distributionalism 285, 290, 291 ditransitive constructions 63, 113, 114–16, 122, 132, 150, 500n regional varieties 623–5 without subordinators 443 Page 14 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index divergent grammar 673, 682, 683–9 DM see Distributed Morphology do-support 589 Dominion Post, The 264 donkey pronouns 552n double dependency 133n double-head analysis 361–2 double negatives Chomsky’s generative grammar 19 cross-linguistic comparison 13 Jespersen’s Modern English Grammar 12–13 Murray’s English Grammar 7 Quirk et al.’s CGEL 15 Sweet’s New English Grammar 10 treatment of 4 see also multiple negation double-object constructions 258 DP-hypothesis 338–9 ‘Droplets’ (Rumens) 684 D-structure 488–9 dual-system theories 486, 496, 501 dummy subjects 157 duration 412–13 dynamic modality 423–4 Dynamic Model of the development of Postcolonial Englishes 644 dynamic semantics 530n, 551–3 dynamic syntax theory 559 dynamicity 412–13 E Early Immediate Constituents principle 472 early left anterior negativity (ELAN) 52–3 Early Modern English modality 433–4 multiple negation 620 East African Englishes 631 East Anglia English 614, 620–1, 622, 627 echo questions 389–90 economy (ontological simplicity) 23–9 electroencephalography (EEG) 51–5 electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English (eWAVE; Kortmann and Lunkenheimer) 630 electrophysiology data 51–5 elegance (syntactic simplicity) 23, 24, 29–37 Éléments de syntaxe structurale (Tesnière) 124, 126n, 129, 145 eliciting conditions of ERPs 52–5 ellipsis in coordinate structures 329n and corpus annotation 73 of head nouns in noun phrases 345–8, 667 in spoken language 565–6, 661 Page 15 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index elliptical clauses 322–4, 333–4 embedded inversion, regional varieties 626 emergent grammar 497 emphasis of auxiliaries 252 of modals 588 end-focus 470–1 end-weight 189, 471–2 endocentric compounds 268–9, 273 endocentric structures, vs. exocentric structures 359 endonormative stabilization 644 English Grammar (Givón) 198 English Grammar (Murray) 5–7 English Reader (Murray) 5 entailments 541n, 547 entrenchment 186, 499 (p. 808) epistemic modality 426–7, 430, 431, 436, 438, 590, 591, 594 Erlangen Valency Patternbank 144n event-denoting nominalizations 258 event-related fields (ERFs) 52, 55 event-related potentials (ERPs) 52–5 evidence, from corpora 61–5 evoked activity and induced activity 51–2 exceptional case marking clauses 306 exclamative clauses 377, 383–4, 393–4 exclamatory adjectives 33 exemplar-based model 497–8 Exemplar Theory 520 exhaustification operator 550–1 existential modality 424 existential there construction 475–6, 670 exocentric compounds 268–9, 273, 277 exocentric structures, vs. endocentric structures 359 exonormative stabilization 644 experimental corpus linguistics 78–82, 83 explanatory grammars 8–9 expletive insertion 244n, 264 explicature/free enrichment 549–50, 552 explicitness, loss of 576 exploration cycle 75 expressive speech acts 380 Extended Projection Principle (EPP) 157 external deviation vs. internal deviation 675 External Merge 162 extraordinary balanced coordination (EBC) 456 extraposition 181, 477–8 eye-tracking data 48–51 F Page 16 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index factual evidence 61, 62–3 ‘false grammar’ 7 see also grammatical errors FDG see Functional Discourse Grammar features of input 88 felicity conditions 539 feminism 683 fictional genres 664, 667 filler-gap dependencies 49–50 fillers and gaps 318–20 finite subordinate clauses 442–6 Finnish, inflection 234 Fisher’s exact test 77 flapping 518 FLOB corpus 669 Fluid Construction Grammar 121 focus 193–4, 468–70 end-focus 470–1 movement 470, 474 prosodic 510 foregrounding 675–6 form–meaning pairings (schemas) 107, 110–11, 118, 119, 228 form of noun phrases 338 formal-generative grammars, phonology 511, 516–19 formal judgement experiments 45–8 formal semantic approaches to speech acts 380–4 formalist vs. functionalist approach 121, 606, 671 forward slash rule 537 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Langacker) 88 FrameNet project 147, 524n frames 146–7 frameworks, different approaches xxii free enrichment/explicature 549–50, 552 free indirect speech 683 free morphemes, as markers of tense 398 free relatives 321–2 French adjectives 545 reflexivity 199 stress patterns 506 subjunctive 198 frequency effects 184, 573 frequency evidence 61–2, 78 fronting operations 159–60, 163, 474–5 FROWN corpus 669 FTFs see Fuzzy Tree Fragments function 204 and content 182 vs. form 121, 606, 671 Page 17 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index and structure 181 function fusion 218–19 function words, as clitics 231–2 functional approaches to discourse 555 to language change 583 (p. 809) functional-cognitive grammars, phonology 511 Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG; Hengeveld and Mackenzie) 121, 183, 191–2, 340n, 482 information structure 192–5 Functional Grammar (FG; Dik) 183, 191 functional heads 225–6 functional interpretation of ERPs 52–5 functional linguistics 180–2, 336, 493–5 corpus-based vs. usage-based approach 185–7 grammar–discourse interface 182–4 hierarchical structure 189–92 information structure 192–5 language processing 187–9 and language typology 197–200 noun phrases 195–6, 340–1 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) 55–7 Functional Sentence Perspective 461, 471 functional structure 528 functional typology, on word classes 295–7 future-projecting categories of modals 425 future tense in English 408–9 Fuzzy Tree Fragments (FTFs) 73–5, 80, 82, 83 G G&B see Government and Binding (G&B) theory gapping 324, 627 gaps and fillers 318–20 garden-path sentences 53, 54 gender, pronominal 611–12 gender distinctions, nouns vs. pronouns 25, 26 gender mismatch effect 50 generalized conversational implicatures (GCIs) 541, 543, 544 Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG) 162, 217, 302, 309, 313, 314, 330 generative approaches 153, 370, 488–93 to language change 583–4 generative grammar xxii, 17–20, 107, 153, 182, 335–6, 363n, 443n, 516–19 binary Merge 155–67 c-command 162–7 hierarchical structure 154–6, 164 reflexives 167–74 VP ellipsis (VPE) 174–8 on word classes 291–4 Generative Lexicon model 237 Generative Linguistics 505 Page 18 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index Generative Semantics xxii, 528, 540 Generative Syntax (GS) 338–40, 344, 351, 355 generative transformational grammar 127 generic modality 424 genitive case 195–6, 246–7 nouns vs. pronouns 26 role of genre 656 genre 654–6 agile vs. uptight 656–7 spoken language 660–2 vs. written language 658–60, 665–71 studies of variation 656–8, 665–71 written language 662–5 German 139, 142–4 interrogatives 395 reflexivity 199 Germanic languages de-accenting 510 philology 8 gerund 250–1 vs. present participle 27–9 in subordinate clauses 446 gerund-participles 362, 368, 370–3 get-passive constructions 256–7 given-before-new principle 471, 472 givenness, vs. newness 462–6, 467n, 480–1 Givenness Hierarchy 465n glottal replacement rule 518 Glue Semantics 531, 537–8 go and V construction 458–9 government 134 Government and Binding (G&B) theory 309, 487, 488–92, 496, 530 governors 127–8 GPSG see Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar gradient grammar 605 gradient phonetic effects 508 grammar–discourse interface 182–4, 555–66, 658–60, 665–71 (p. 810) grammar and lexis 485–8, 501–3 continuum in Construction Grammar 107–8 functional models 493–5 generative models 488–93 role of corpus linguistics 495–7 usage-based theories 497–501, 503 Grammar of Speech (Brazil) 187–8 grammarians 3–20 definitions of word classes 281–91 grammars, traditional 202–3 grammatical argumentation see syntactic argumentation Page 19 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index grammatical complexity 666–7 grammatical errors 234 exercises in identifying 7 in literature 6–7 grammatical metaphor 100 grammatical priming 65 grammaticality acceptability judgements 41–8 and sentence processing speed 49 grammaticalization 419n, 424, 459, 572–7, 584, 590 and modality 429–35, 590–4 see also language change grammemes 133n grounding (anchoring) 96–8, 342, 389, 442, 449, 464–5, 471, 479 GS see Generative Syntax Gullah variety 618 H habitual aspects, regional varieties 616 (had) better modal construction 592–4 haemodynamic responses 55–8 hashtags 665 head inflection 236, 260 Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG; Pollard and Sag) 162, 164n, 204–5, 217, 294, 302, 306, 309, 313, 314, 320–1, 330–1, 360, 492, 496, 528, 529, 531 headedness of clauses 332, 359–64 of compounds 273–4 in noun phrases 342–53 relational vs. non-relational nouns 353–7 hearer-oriented vs. speaker-oriented approach 472 Heart of Darkness (Conrad) 677–8 Heavy Noun Phrase Shift 509 Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (HC) 586 hierarchical structure 154–6, 164, 189–92 hierarchy of individuation 612, 613 ‘Highwayman, The’ (Noyes) 675–6 holistic views of language 486 hortatives 390–1 host words 232 How do you do? construction 93n HPSG see Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar human language processing 559 hyponyms 268, 273 hypotheses 23, 30n testing with experimental corpus linguistics 78 hypothesis-falsification approach 23 I ICE (International Corpus of English) 14n, 31n, 402n, 599 ICE-AUS 599 Page 20 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index ICECUP 73, 75, 76 ICE-GB 680 anaphora 556–7 clefting 480 collocations 70–1, 74, 75 distributional analyses 62, 63, 64, 81–3 exclamatives 393 modals 428, 599 postponement 476–8 spoken language 73, 559–66 transitivity 66 iconicity 686 identifiability 465 Identity Function Default 227 idiomatic constructions 110–13 defining nouns in 285 modal (had) better 592–4 idiomatic expressions 91, 93, 108–9 as constructions 110–13 idiosyncratic constructions 333 illocutionary acts 539–40 (p. 811) illocutionary force 375, 379–80, 384–6 immediate observer effect 670 imperative mood 420 in Aviation English 658 clauses 377, 378, 382–3, 390–2, 395 let 256 implicational/conditional universals 608–9 implicature theory 538, 541–5 impoverishment 226 inalienable possession 199 increments 187 indefinite adjectives 33 indefinite deletion 142 indefinite determiners 97 independent reference, nouns vs. pronouns 25, 26 indeterminacy 188, 524n indexicals 548 indexing of corpora 76 Indian English, de-accenting 510 indicative mood (factual modality) 419, 420 indirect interpretation, vs. direct interpretation 531–3 indirect licensing 565 indirect object shift 476–7 indirect observations 67 indirect speech acts 385, 392 induced activity and evoked activity 51–2 induction vs. deduction 22–3 Page 21 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index inferential-realizational models 227 infinitives contraction of to marker 254–5, 256 perfect forms 71 vs. V-ing 657 infixes 244n, 264 Inflection Phrases (IPs) 359 inflectional attrition 246 inflectional category 133n inflectional morphology 224, 244–57 vs. derivational morphology 232–8 inflectional paradigms 226–7 informatics 461 information given and new 462–6, 467n new, accenting 510 information structure 117–19, 192–5, 461–2, 473–81 approaches 481–2 definition 461–2 focus 468–70 ordering principles 470–2 syntactic form 470–3 topic 466–8 informational asymmetry 461 Informative-presupposition it-clefts 480, 481 inherent endpoints 415 inheritance hierarchies 492 Inheritors, The (Golding) 684–5 inner circle Englishes 605, 631 Instrumental (I) case 146 intensifying adjectives 33, 36n interaction evidence 62, 63–5, 79, 81–2, 83 interactional linguistics (IL) 558–9 interjections 287 internal deviation vs. external deviation 675 Internal Merge 162–3 International Corpus of English see ICE International Corpus of English Corpus Utility Program see ICECUP interpretation, direct vs. indirect 531–3 Interpretive Composition 530, 534–6 Interpretive Progressive 403n interrogative clauses 377, 381, 387–90 identifying 394–5 interrogatives 315, 317–19, 420 adjectives 33 and constituent noun phrases 38 ellipsis 323–4 functional approach 185 Page 22 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index identifying 378 open vs. closed 381–2, 387–8 types 376 see also questions intersubjectivity 436 intonation 511 inversion 479 of auxiliaries 252 embedded, regional varieties 626 modals 588 inverted T-model 517 Invited Inferences Theory of Semantic Change (IITSC) 432 Irish English 605, 615, 616–17, 626, 628, 631 reflexives 611 (p. 812) irrealis 404n, 420, 421 see also subjunctive mood island constraint violations 53, 54 island effects 46–8 islands 161 it-clefts 118–19, 480–1 it-extraposition 477–8 Italian, multiple negation 620 J junction 128–9 K Key Word In Context (KWIC) 70–1, 496 KISS (Keep It Short and Simple) principle 23 knowledge of language 87, 91, 107 identifying idiomatic language 112–13 KWIC see Key Word in Context L L1 Englishes vs. L2 Englishes 631–9 Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen Corpus (LOB) 663, 669 landmarks 479 and trajectors 91–2, 95, 364 language acquisition 88, 89 according to Chomsky 17–19 Construction Grammar in 121–2 distributional cues for identifying word class 297 lexical categorization 293, 512, 514 written language 663 language change 573, 581–3 according to Otto Jespersen 11 according to Henry Sweet 9 approaches 583–4 catastrophic 584, 590 incremental 584, 590 mandative subjunctive 595–7 modality 582, 585, 586–95, 597–601 mood 582, 585–6, 594–7 see also grammaticalization Page 23 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index language contact 198, 597, 617, 636n Language Faculty 18–19, 293 language processing, in functional linguistics 187–9 language typology 197–200, 497n, 606–7 language universals 607–9 Latin 202, 227 learnability 19 left anterior negativity (LAN) 52, 53 left dislocation 118, 474–5 in spoken language 561, 661 legal texts 657 lesion mapping 57 let-imperative 256 Level Ordering (Stratal Ordering) 229 lexeme-based models of morphology 224, 228, 235 lexeme formation, vs. word creation 233–4, 245 lexeme individuation problem 235 lexeme-and-paradigm models 226, 239 lexemes 226 lexemic relatedness 232–8 lexical categories xxii, 94–5 assignment 24–7 changed in literature 684 in Cognitive Grammar (CG) 341–2 of compounds 276–9 definitions 281–91 implicational connections 608 language acquisition 293, 512, 514 morphology 246–57 phonological cues 520–1 phonology 511–16 reconceptualization 29–32 structuralist analysis 298–300 tagging tools 679–80 theories 291–8 as valency carriers 147–9 lexical decision experiment 496, 506 Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG; Bresnan et al.) 162, 164n, 204–5, 217, 220n, 302, 306, 314, 330, 493, 496, 527n, 528, 529 lexical-grammatical searches 71 lexical integrity 228 lexical opposition 525–7 Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky) 229, 507–8 lexical relatedness 230, 231, 257, 259, 524–7 lexical retention 435 lexical semantics 523, 524–7 (p. 813) lexicalist hypothesis 491 lexicalist theories 528–9 Page 24 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index lexicalization, of compounds 274–6 lexicon 76, 489, 492–3 models without 491 lexicon–grammar interface 527–9 in Construction Grammar 107–8 lexis and grammar 485–8, 501–3 functional models 493–5 generative models 488–93 role of corpus linguistics 495–7 usage-based theories 497–501, 503 lexis, simple vs. complex 487 LFG see Lexical-Functional Grammar LGSWE see Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English limiting adjectives vs. descriptive adjectives 33–7 linear order vs. hierarchical structure 154–5, 164 vs. structural order 127–8 linear structure 184 Linear Unit Grammar (Sinclair and Mauranen) 188–9 linearization process 57 Linguistic Inquiry (LI) journal 43, 45 literal force hypothesis 385 literary language 658, 689–90 approaches 674–8 corpus stylistics 679–80 difference from everyday language 674–5 nominal vs. verbal grammar 686–7 non-standard forms 680–2 spoken forms 682–3 ungrammaticality 683–6 verbal delay 687–9 live reports 402 LOB see Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen Corpus localization of grammatical operations 56 locutionary acts 539–40 Logical Form Semantics 530, 536, 537n logogenesis 183 London-Lund Corpus 14–16, 61, 185 see also Survey of English Usage long distance dependencies 134–7 long distance dependency clauses see unbounded dependencies Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (LGSWE) 185, 495n, 558, 570, 600, 660, 661, 668 lumping adjective classes 32–7 vs. splitting 25–7 M MACHINE metaphor 517 magnetoencephalography (MEG) 51–2, 55 Page 25 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index Mainstream Generative Grammar 528 Major Phonological Phrase (MaP) 507 Mandarin Chinese, interrogatives 394 mandative subjunctive 595–7 manipulation verbs 369–70 manner maxim 542, 543 Manx language 13 mapping 528, 531–2 Mapping Theory 527n ‘Margaret in the Garden’ (Davidson) 689 marking future tense 408–9 progressive aspect 400–3 tense 403–7 matching conditions 175, 188 maxims, conversational 542 meaning 523–4 argument structure 527–9 boundary issues 545–53 compositional semantics 529–38 lexical semantics 523, 524–7 pragmatics 538–45 measure-noun (MN) constructions 349–50, 352 medial vs. conceptual approach to written/spoken distinction 659–60 medial object perfect 615 medical language 657, 658, 667 spoken 662 mental lexicon 341 mental representations of discourse referents 464–6 Merge operation 155–67, 490–1 (p. 814) metaphor, and modality 431–2 metonymy 269 and modality 432 Middle English double negatives 10 modality 433, 591 mood marking 586 negative prefixation 10 mimesis 686 mind-style 684–5 minimal type theory 533 Minimalist framework 302, 306, 307–9, 313–15, 319, 326, 328, 331–3, 363n Minimalist Program (MP) 19n, 153–67, 490, 530 Minimalist syntax, and Distributed Morphology 225 misfires of performative speech acts 539 Mismatch Negativity (MMN) 502 mobility vs. stackability of adjuncts 366 modal auxiliary constructions 116–17, 120, 252–3 Page 26 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index modal source 427–9 modal verbs 422–3 diachrony 429–35, 587–94 frequency data 80–1 future tense 408–9 performativity 428–9 in tag questions 389 modality 418–19 adverbs and adjectives 421–2 aspect 402 conceptualization 103–4 conditional as 407–8 deontic 425, 426, 428–9, 431, 436–7 in discourse analysis 569, 570–1 dynamic 423–4 epistemic 426–7, 430, 431, 436, 438 existential/generic 424 and grammaticalization 429–35, 582, 585, 586–95, 597–601 and constructionalization 590–4 grounding 97–8 movement 434–5 non-epistemic 425–6, 430 root 425 subjectivity 435–7 model theory 531–3 Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles (Jespersen) 11–13 modification 134 modifiers vs. complements 92, 354–7, 365, 441–2 in compounds 264–5 of nouns 207–9 subordinate clauses as 212, 214 see also adjuncts modularity 517, 519 modularity hypothesis 485–6, 488 moment of speech (MoS) 397, 398, 401–7, 416 Montague Grammar 537 Montague Semantics 529–30n, 532 mood 376, 418, 419–22 grammatical change 582, 585–6, 594–7 Morpheme Structure Conditions (MSCs) 519 morphological constructions 119–20 morphological dependency (Morph-D) 133–4 morphology 222–3, 502 alternative models to the classical approach 224–8 in Cognitive Grammar 499–500 definitions 223–4 derivational vs. inflectional 232–8 different types 230–2 Page 27 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index Distributed Morphology (DM) 491–2 lexical vs. syntactical 487 vs. syntax in compounding 263–5, 267, 275–6 theoretical approaches 237–8 word classes 246–57 word structure 229–30, 244–6 morphomes 227 morphomic stems 249–50 morphosemantic mismatches 236, 259–60 morphosyntactic criteria for headedness 343–4 morphotactics 223 MoS see moment of speech Move operations 490–1 movement 159–62 movement test for constituency 37–8 moving window self-paced reading tasks 48 (p. 815) multiple negation 619–20 see also double negatives multiword expressions (MWEs) 108–9, 222n, 231, 235 mutual dependency 133n mutual entailment 525 N N400 effect 52, 53–4 naïve falsification 67 narrative language 657, 658, 664, 667, 670–1, 682–3 layers 677–8 Narrative Mode (Smith) 414 narrow focus 470 National Curriculum Glossary 299 natural language corpora 59–60 natural language processing (NLP) 72 negation of auxiliaries 207, 252 contractions 12 double see double negatives historical context 9–10 of imperative clauses 390–1 of modals 588 regional varieties 618–20 of tag questions 81–2, 83 Negation in English and Other Languages (Jespersen) 13 negative concord 619–20 see also double negatives NeighborNet 632, 643, 645 neo-classical compounding 245, 262 neologisms 233–4 ne-prefixation 9–10 Network Morphology 227n, 237 neuroscientific approaches 502 never as negator 619 Page 28 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index New English Dictionary on Historical Principles 12 New English Grammar, Logical and Historical, A (Sweet) 8–10 New Zealand English 509, 617, 631 Newfoundland English 612, 614, 615, 618, 627 newness vs. givenness 462–6, 467n, 480–1 news writing 567–9 vs. academic prose 663–4 genre 657 vs. personal letters 667 n-grams 76–7, 679 NICE (Negation, Inversion, Code/Context, Emphasis) properties of auxiliaries 251–2, 255–6, 423, 587–8 nominal phrases see noun phrases nominalization 258, 568–9, 576 in literary language 686–7 suffix -er 119–20 non-argumental compounds 269–72 non-compositional meaning 120 non-finite subordinate clauses 446–51 non-relational nouns vs. relational nouns 353–7 nonsense words 297–8 non-sentential units (NSUs) 562–6 North of England variety 613, 614, 626, 627 alternative double object construction 623–4 Northern Subject Rule 621–2 noun clauses 213 noun phrases 308–13, 335 appositive 576 complexity 666–7 as constituents 37–8 different analyses xxii ellipsis in 667 functionalist approach 195–6, 340–1 gaps 318–19 headedness 342–53 internal structure 337–42 in spoken discourse 572 substituted by pronouns 38 nouns classed alongside pronouns 25–7 as compounds 276–7 de-adjectival 235 definitions 202–3, 284–5, 288–9, 335–7 denominalization 228 gerunds vs. present participles 27–9 grounding 97 inflection 246–7 mass vs. count 94 Page 29 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index as modifiers 207–9, 576 plural morphology 223, 227 (p. 816) pronouns as subclass 206 relational vs. non-relational headedness 353–7 as valency carriers 147–8 novel grammatical events, in corpora 63 novel words, in corpora 62 NOW Corpus 35, 36 null hypotheses 30n number agreement 246 and linear vs. hierarchical structure 154–5, 164 numbers ordinal 236 numeral adjectives 33 O object control vs. subject control 362n object words 296 see also nouns objectification and subjectification 101–4 Objective (O) case 146 obligatoriness vs. optionality of adjuncts 365–6 obligatory bound roots 245 observations, indirect 67 Occam’s Razor, Principle of 23, 24, 30 Old Bailey Proceedings (OBP) corpus 593, 595–6 Old English 434 development into Modern English 9 double negatives 10 gerunds 29 modality 429–30, 432, 438, 587–8, 590–2 mood marking 585–6 negative prefixation 9–10 reflexivity 610 word order 197 onomasiological approach 237 ontological simplicity (economy) 23–9 open propositions 464, 469 Optimality Theory (OT; Prince and Smolensky) 225n, 493n, 517, 518–19 optionality 139, 141–2 vs. obligatoriness of adjuncts 365–6 ordering principles 470–2 ornamental rule complexity 642 orthography, of compounds 265 outer circle Englishes 605, 631 overdifferentiation 224, 249 overgeneration 225n Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (Hornby) 152 Oxford Children’s Corpus 593 Oxford English Dictionary (OED) 62n Page 30 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index Oxford University 8 Ozark English 617 P P300 effect (P3b) 54 P600 effect (syntactic positive shift) 52, 53, 54–5 Pakistani English 631 Pamphlet for Grammar (Bullokar) xxi Pāṇinian Determinism 227 paradigm-based models of morphology 239 Paradigm Function Morphology (PFM; Stump) 222, 225, 226–7 paradigmatic atrophy 598 paralinguistic communication 659 Parallel Composition 531, 536–8 parallelism 675–6 parsability 229 parsed corpora (treebanks) 59–60, 63, 71, 72–5, 80 parsimony principle 23 parsing stage 57 parsing units 560 part-noun (PN) constructions 349 partially schematic constructions 499 participant roles 139 particles 31n particularized conversational implicatures (PCIs) 541, 542–3 partitives 573 parts of speech see word classes passive construction 305–6, 478–9 in academic writing 668–70 get 256–7 imperative clauses 391 valency 142, 144 passivization of constituents 37 (p. 817) past tense, regional variation of to be 622 Pattern Grammar (Hunston and Francis) 186, 495n pedagogy, written language 663 perfect periphrasis 398 perfect tense/aspect 405–7 regional varieties 615–16 performance vs. competence, in generative grammar 18 performative hypothesis 540–1 performatives/declarative speech acts 375, 380n, 382, 387, 402, 539, 540–1 performativity in modal verbs 428–9 periphrasis 231, 255–6 perlocutionary acts 539, 540 person distinctions, nouns vs. pronouns 25, 26 personal letters, vs. news writing 667 Personal Nouns 259–60 personification 674 Page 31 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index perspective, in narrative text 658 PFM 233 philology 8 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 664 Phonetic Implementation Rules 508 phonetics, contributions of Henry Sweet 8 phonological dependency 133 phonological representations 88–9 phonology 504–5 compositionality 95 hierarchical structure 189–90 in lexical categorization 297–8 as part of a grammar 516–21 sentence-level 508–11 and word classes 511–16 word-level 505–8 phonotactic cues 506–9 phrasal categories 203–4 phrasal/constructional theories 528–9 phrasal verbs, as compounds 278–9 phrase structure 301–4, 358 adjective phrases 325–7 branching 330–2, 333 components 332–4 coordination 328–30, 452–3 headedness 342–53 nominal phrases 308–13, 337–42 prepositional phrases 327–8 rules (PSRs) 489, 492 syntax 203 verb phrases 305–8 violations 52–3, 54 phrases, phonological boundaries 508 Phrases in English website 77 pidgins and creoles 631, 644–6 Pincher Martin (Golding) 685 pitch contours 511 plain text corpora 59 plural inflections, nouns vs. pronouns 25, 26 pluralization 223, 227 poetry 658, 682, 684, 686–9 polar questions 376–8, 382, 386, 387–8 polarity emphasis of auxiliaries 252 polarity tags 388–9 polyfunctional properties of modal verbs 422 polysemy 524n Position-of-Subject Constraint 621 possessive adjectives 33–7 Page 32 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index possessive inflection 246–8 possessives 209 prenominal 98 postponement 475–8 ‘Potatoes’ (Sansom) 686–7 poverty of the stimulus 17–18 pragmatic approaches to speech acts 379–80 pragmatics 523, 538–45 pragmatics–semantics interface 546–7 Prague Linguistic Circle 181, 183 Prague School 126, 466, 471 predicate-focus 469–70 predicative adjectives vs. attributive adjectives 572 prefixation, negatives 9–10 prenominal possessives 98 Prenucleus function 215, 218 prepositional complements 144–5 prepositional phrases 327–8 as adjuncts 140 as clause fragments 563 as complements and modifiers 365 as modifiers 576 and pseudopartitive constructions 348–9 (p. 818) prepositional verbs, constraints 112 prepositions ambiguity 95 use in apposition 92 atemporal relations 94 classified separately from subordinating conjunctions 29–32 as compounds 279 definitions 209–11 on 91–2 subordinate clauses as 212–13 taking clauses as complement 316 as valency carriers 148 prescriptivism 202, 284 present participles vs. gerunds 27–9 present perfective paradox 402n presuppositions 544–5, 546–7, 552 vs. assertions 463–4 preterite present verbs 429, 434, 587n, 588 priming 188–9, 678 Principle of Compositionality 530 Principle of End Focus 117, 119 Principle of End Weight 117–18 Principle of Unmarked Temporal Interpretation (Declerck) 414 Principles and Parameters (P&P) theory 488, 528, 530 problem of induction 22 Page 33 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index problem of quantifier domain restriction 547–8, 550 pro-forms interrogative 394–5 in substitution tests 38 progressive aspect 250, 256, 397, 400–3 and Aktionsart 413–14, 415 regional varieties 617–18 Progressive of Affect 403n, 411 prohibitives 390–1 Projection Principle 489 projection problem 547 promiscuous attachment 232, 246–7 pronominal systems, regional varieties 609–14 pronominalization test 354–7 pronouns case 613–14 classed alongside nouns 25–7 coreference 50 and definite descriptions 552 dropping 584 exchange 613–14 gender 611–12 inflection 247–8 resumptive 627–8 as subclass of nouns 206 substituting constituent noun phrases 38 weak and strong 507 proper adjectives 33 property words 296 see also adjectives; modifiers propositional acts 296 propositional synonymy 525 propositions 463, 469 Prosodic Bootstrapping hypothesis 508–9 prosodic constraints 506–8, 509–10 Prosodic Hierarchy 509 Prosodic Word (PWd) 507 prosody, word class alternations 511 prototypes 524n pseudo-clefts 321 see also wh-clefts pseudo-coordinative constructions 458 pseudopartitives 196, 348–53 pseudo-passive constructions 306 psycholinguistics, identifying word classes 297–8 psychological realism 296 punctuation, separation of clauses 557 Q quality maxim 542 quantifier domain restriction 547–8, 550 Page 34 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index quantifier-noun (QN) constructions 349–50, 352 quantity maxim 542 questions echo 389–90 intonation 511 polar 376–8, 382, 386, 387–8 speech acts as 384–5 tag 81–2, 83, 388–9 see also interrogatives ‘Queue’s Essentially, The’ (Dunmore) 688 Quirk Corpus see Survey of English Usage R (p. 819) raising 362 vs. control 363n rank scales 190 reading time data 48–51 Readjustment Rules 226 reconceptualization of word classes 29–32 recursion 530n reference point, cognitive 98–101 Reference point, tense 405–6, 407 referential dependencies 164–7, 171 referential index 293 reflexives 167–74, 199, 248 in regional varieties 609–11 role of genre 657 regional varieties of English 598n, 599, 604–6 aspect marking 616–18 clause structure 623–8 distance between areas 634 double negatives 13 in literature 680–2 negation 618–20 plural inflections on pronouns 26 pronominal systems 609–14 relative clauses 626–8 subject–verb agreement 620–3 tense marking 614–16 typological approach 606–9 World Englishes 630–2, 650–3 angloversals 637, 639–40 distinctive and diagnostic features 646–50 morphosyntactic variation 632–9 variety types 640–6 register 655 see also genre relation/relevance maxim 542 relational grammar 204 relational nouns vs. non-relational nouns 353–7 relative adjectives 33 Page 35 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index relative clauses 56, 445 regional varieties 626–8 Relevance Theory 542n, 549 repairs (afterthoughts) 477 repetition 675–6 representative speech acts 380, 381, 387 research bias 66 restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses 445 result nominalizations 258 resultative constructions 114 Resultative Imperfective 403n resumptive pronouns 627–8 Rhetorical Structure Theory 183 Richness of the Base 517, 519 right dislocation 477, 561 in spoken language 661 Rising Principle 135–6 Role and Reference Grammar 121, 183, 190–1, 340n, 443n, 482, 527 Romance languages de-accenting 510 subjunctive mood 421 root modality 425, 590, 600 roots 225 rule-to-rule hypothesis 531 Russian irregularities in inflection 234 segmentation 230 Russian formalism 674, 675 S sampling 79–80 sampling frame 59 Sapir–Whorf hypothesis 683 scalar implicature 550–1 scale structure 526–7 schema-instance relations 90–1 schemas (form–meaning pairings) 228, 501, 502 schematic constructions 108–9, 499 nominal constructions 92–4 Science journal 664 scientific language 575–6, 658, 668–70 scope 191 Scottish English 615, 617, 618, 626, 627, 628 scrambling 56, 197 S-curve model of language change 583 second language acquisition, Construction Grammar 121–2 Segmentation Problem 229–30, 246 self-paced reading data 48–51 Semantic Coherence Principle 151n Page 36 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index semantic dependency (Sem-D) 133, 134 (p. 820) Semantic Function Hierarchy 494 semantic maps 609 semantic primitives 237–8 semantic representations 88–9 semantic violations 54–5 semantics, of compounds 268–72 semantics–pragmatics interface 546–7 semantics–syntax interface 530–1 semi-auxiliaries 255, 256 semi-modals 422, 434, 587, 589 language change 594–5, 596, 597, 599–601 Semiotic Grammar 183n sentence-focus 469–70 sentence hierarchy 127–8 sentence phonology 508–11 sentence processing Broca’s area 56–7 and grammaticality 49 sentence radicals 378n sentences 555 in spoken language 562, 661 sentential meaning, effect of tense and aspect 410–12 sentential negation 618–19 Separation Hypothesis/Separationism (Beard) 225, 227 Sequence of Tense 404 sequential scanning vs. summary scanning 294–5 serial verb construction 197, 198 SFG see Systemic Functional Grammar Shetland English 613, 615 Short Introduction to English Grammar (Lowth) 6 Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG) 121, 222n similarity relations 90 simple catenative constructions 448, 451 Simpler Syntax Hypothesis (Culicover and Jackendoff) 23 simplicity 23–37 Single Competence Hypothesis (Marantz) 40 single-system models 486, 496–7, 501 Singlish 636n situation types (Aktionsart) 396–7, 400, 412–17 situation-type shift 415 SketchEngine 77–8 SLASH feature 162 small clauses 306 social class 6 social varieties, in literature 680–2 Southeast of England variety 613, 614, 619 Southwest of England variety 611, 613–14, 617, 627 Page 37 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index Spanish inalienable possession 199 multiple negation 620 speaker-oriented vs. hearer-oriented approach 472 specifiers 307, 311 in X-bar theory 304 speech acts 375, 538–41 illocutionary force 375, 379–80, 384–6 meaning 378–84 speech-making, parallelism 676 Spell-Out function 225 splitting vs. lumping 25–7 spoken language 557–66, 660–2 data for spontaneous speech 16 represented in literature 682–3 vs. written language 182–4, 658–60, 665–71 spontaneous speech 16 S-structure 488–9 stackability vs. mobility of adjuncts 366 stance 570–1 Standard Average European 198–9 Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, see Brown Corpus Standard English 631n definition 604–5 Stanford Parser 72, 137 States 397, 413–16 statistical inference 65 statistical universals 608 stative verbs 402 storage 497–8 storytelling 670–1 stranding 202 Stratal Optimality Theory 508 Stratal Ordering (Level Ordering) 229 stratified samples 79 (p. 821) stress in compounds 267 patterns 506–8, 509–10 and word classes 520–1 stress shift, triggered by affixes 229 Stressed-focus it-clefts 480 strict ellipsis account 565–6 strong lexicalism 523 structural order vs. linear order 127–8 structuralist approach to word classes 298–300 structure, and function 181 structured inventory of units 90–2 stylistics Page 38 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index approaches 674–80 corpus approach 679–80 subcategorization 211, 364, 370–3 subject 360–4 complements 362 control 451 vs. object control 362n gapping 627 semantic roles 581 Subject Island Constraint 50 subject–verb agreement regional varieties 620–3 test 343, 349 subjectification and objectification 101–4 subjectivity 420, 571 absent in dynamic modality 424 in modality 435–7 subjectless clauses 100–1 subjunctive mood (non-factual modality) 198, 419, 420–2, 438 grammatical change 585–6 mandative 595–7 subordinating conjunctions, classified separately from prepositions 29–32 subordination 134, 212–14 vs. coordination 439–40, 457–60 finite subordinate clauses 442–6 genre variation 666 modification vs. complementation 441–2 non-finite subordinate clauses 446–51 subordinative compounds 269, 278 substitution 356 of head nouns in noun phrases 346–7 test for constituency 38–9 summary scanning vs. sequential scanning 294–5 superadditive effects 48 superiority effect 394 superlatives 248 supplementation 562 suppletive derivation 244–5 suprasegmental constraints 506–8, 509–10 Surface-Syntactic dependency (SSynt-D) 134n surface syntactic dominance criteria 134 Survey of English Dialects (Orton) 607 Survey of English Usage 13–64, 185, 680 Quirk Corpus 61, 70 suspended affixation 232 suspensions 188 Sydney School (Systemic Functional Grammar) 340 syllable onset requirement 95 Page 39 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index symbolic units 88–90 syncretism 224, 226, 249 syndetic vs. asyndetic coordination 454–5 synonymy 524–5 syntactic argumentation 21, 63 constituency 37–9 general principles 22–37 syntactic dependency (Synt-D) 131–2, 133, 134 syntactic island constraints 50 syntactic positive shift (P600) 52, 53, 54–5 syntactic representations 217–20 syntactic simplicity (elegance) 23, 24, 29–37 syntactic tense and aspect 410–12 syntactic tests, modifiers vs. complements 354–7 syntactic violations 52–3, 54 syntax according to Henry Sweet 9 structured inventory of units 91–2 symbolic units 89–90 vs. morphology in compounding 263–5, 267, 275–6 syntax-driven models of morphology 239 syntax–semantics interface 530–1 synthetic approach to word classes 297–8 (p. 822) Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG; Halliday, Sydney School) 183, 190, 340–1, 347, 351, 443n, 494–5, 556 Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) 571 T tabular function 536 tag questions 81–2, 83, 388–9 tagged corpora 59, 71 tagmemics 204 Tasmanian English 612 taxonomy building 21 telicity 396, 412–13 templates 529 Temporal Discourse Interpretation Principle (Dowty) 414 tense 397–9, 400 and Aktionsart 413–14 conditional as 407–8 deictic (absolute) vs. anaphoric (relative) 407n effect on sentence properties 410–12 in finite subordinate clauses 442 future in English 408–9 grounding 97 marking, regional varieties 614–16 movement 414–15 past vs. non-past 403–5 perfect 405–7 Page 40 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index Text World Theory 678 texture 183 TG see Transformational Grammar that-clauses 136–7, 143, 316 thematic roles 528 theme–rheme structure 181, 466 theory-driven linguistics 66–8 theta-roles 361n theticals 562 TigerSearch 73 timeless truths 423–4 to-contraction 254–5, 256 tone 511 topic 192–3, 466–8 it-clefts and wh-clefts 481 Topic-Familiarity Condition 468n topicalization 56, 118, 215–16, 321, 474–5 of constituents 37 traditional grammar 360–1 trajectors 451 and landmarks 91–2, 95, 364 transfer 128–9 Transfer-Caused-Motion construction 476n transformational approaches 138, 153 transformational component 488 transformational framework 19n transformational-generative grammar 217 Transformational Grammar 204–5, 274, 302, 303 transitive phrasal verbs 31n transitivity framework 63, 66 transpositional lexemes 231 transpositions 224, 230–1, 248–9n, 258n tree fragments 73–5 treebanks (parsed corpora) 59–60, 63, 71, 72–5, 80 triangulation 67–8 truncations 236 truth conditions, synonymy 525 try and V construction 457–8 turn-taking analysis 184, 558 two-component theory of aspect 415 type-driven translation 531 Type-Logical Grammar 530 type-specifying functions 342 Type-of-Subject Constraint 621 type theory 533–4 typological approach, regional varieties 606–9 U Unaccented anaphoric focus clefts 480 Page 41 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index unarticulated constituents 549 unbounded dependencies 204–5, 216, 317–22 undergoer and actor 527 Universal Grammar 18 universal statements, truth of 22 universals 607–9 ‘Unprofessionals, The’ (Fanthorpe) 688 usage-based approach 181 vs. corpus-based approach 185–7 to language change 583 phonology 520 theories 497–501, 503 (p. 823) usage events 89 utterance-type meanings 385 V vagueness 524n valency alternations 230 Valency Dictionary of English (VDE; Herbst et al.) 138, 144, 147n valency grammar 360–1, 364 Valency Realization Principle 151n valency theory 124, 129–31, 137–47, 567–8 in constructionist frameworks 149–51 valency carriers 147–9 variation studies vs. cross-linguistic studies 607 variationist approach 656 varioversals 639 velar softening 507 verb phrases 305–8 as constituents 38 substituted by pro-forms 38 verbs argument structure 114–16 auxiliary 206–7, 251–7 categorization difficulties 255–7 complements 198 vs. adjuncts 364–7 hierarchy of 367–70 as compounds 266, 272, 278–9 de-adjectival 120, 238 definitions 285–6 delayed in literary language 687–9 dependency relation with subjects 360 in finite subordinate clauses 442 gerunds vs. present participles 27–9 inflection 249–51, 581 in literary language 686–7 modal 422–3 diachrony 429–35 Page 42 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index grammatical change 582, 585, 586–95, 597–601 performativity 428–9 morphology 224, 226 nominalization suffix -er 119–20 present progressive 120 preterite present 587n, 588 progressive aspect 397, 400–3 raising 362 semantic links 157 serial construction 197, 198 temporal relations 94 tense 397–9, 400 to go 102–3, 108 transitives without objects 685 transitivity 370 valency 124, 129–31, 137–47, 567–8 view from the periphery 116 viewing arrangements 101–4 visibility 411 voice alternations 230 VP ellipsis (VPE) 174–8, 324 W was-levelling 622 WAVE see World Atlas of Varieties of English Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 208, 361 weight distribution 471–2 well-formedness 533–4, 556 Wellington Corpus of Written New Zealand English 598n Welsh English 618, 626 were-levelling 622 West Coast Functionalism 181, 340n, 558 wh-clefts 118–19, 480–1 in spoken language 661 wh-dependencies 49 wh-exclamatives 383, 393 wh-forms, introducing subordinate clauses 444 wh-islands 161 wh-movement 46, 53, 55, 56 wh-phrases free relatives 321–2 in reflexives 169 wh-questions 108–9, 317–19 answering in discourse 564–5 ellipsis 323–4 information structure 193 whether-island violation 46–8 White South African English 617, 634n whole-part relations 90 Page 43 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Subject Index word classes xxii, 94–5 assignment 24–7 changed in literature 684 in Cognitive Grammar (CG) 341–2 of compounds 276–9 definitions 281–91 implicational connections 608 language acquisition 293, 512, 514 morphology 246–57 phonological cues 520–1 phonology 511–16 reconceptualization 29–32 structuralist analysis 298–300 tagging tools 679–80 theories 291–8 as valency carriers 147–9 word creation, vs. lexeme formation 233–4, 245 word formation processes 119 Word Grammar (Hudson) 131–3, 139n, 302, 361–2, 443n dependency and valency 149 word order canonical vs. non-canonical 56 declarative clauses 386 in discourse contexts 215–16 in English 581 genre variation 670–1 identifying clause types 377–8, 394–5 implicational universals 608–9 information packaging constructions 473–81 language typology 197 and modality 433 regional varieties 623–4 statistical universals 608 word-and-paradigm models 226 word phonology 505–8 word sketches 78 word structure 229–30, 244–6 WordNet 524n WordSmith tool 70, 76 World Atlas of Varieties of English (WAVE; Kortmann and Lunkenheimer) 606, 632–52 World Atlas of Varieties of English, electronic (eWAVE; Kortmann and Lunkenheimer) 630 World System of (Standard and Non-Standard) Englishes 632, 650–2 written language 662–5 vs. spoken language 182–4, 658–60, 665–71 wug study (Berko) 297 X X-bar theory 203, 301, 303–4, 338, 359n, 360, 489–90 (p. 824)

Page 44 of 44

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics

Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics   The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova Print Publication Date: Nov 2019 Subject: Linguistics Online Publication Date: Mar 2020

Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics The Oxford Handbook of African American Language Edited by Sonja Lanehart The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics Second edition Edited by Robert B. Kaplan The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics Edited by Jonathan Owens The Oxford Handbook of Case Edited by Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics Edited by William S-Y. Wang and Chaofen Sun The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Edited by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax Edited by Gugliemo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality Edited by Markus Werning, Wolfram Hinzen, and Edouard Machery The Oxford Handbook of Compounding Page 1 of 5

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics Edited by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics Edited by Ruslan Mitkov The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar Edited by Thomas Hoffman and Graeme Trousdale The Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology Edited by Jacques Durand, Ulrike Gut, and Gjert Kristoffersen The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology Edited by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics Edited by Jeffrey Lidz, William Snyder, and Joe Pater The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis Edited by Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Tanja Temmerman The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages Edited by Kenneth L. Rehg and Lyle Campbell The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar Edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie, and Gergana Popova The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity Edited by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa deMena Travis The Oxford Handbook of Event Structure Edited by Robert Truswell The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality Edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics Edited by Chris Cummins and Napoleon Katsos The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization Edited by Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine Page 2 of 5

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology Edited by Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons The Oxford Handbook of the History of English Edited by Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics Edited by Keith Allan The Oxford Handbook of Inflection Edited by Matthew Baerman The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure Edited by Caroline Féry and Shinichiro Ishihara The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics Edited by Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology Edited by Abigail C. Cohn, Cécile Fougeron, and Marie Hoffman The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law Edited by Peter Tiersma and Lawrence M. Solan The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society Edited by Ofelia García, Nelson Flores, and Massimiliano Spotti The Oxford Handbook of Language Attrition Edited by Monika S. Schmid and Barbara Köpke The Oxford Handbook of Language Contact Edited by Anthony P. Grant The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution Edited by Maggie Tallerman and Kathleen Gibson The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning Edited by James W. Tollefson and Miguel Pérez-Milans The Oxford Handbook of Lexicography Page 3 of 5

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics Edited by Philip Durkin The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis Second edition Edited by Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork Edited by Nicholas Thieberger The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces Edited by Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism Edited by Cedric Boeckx The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology Edited by Jae Jung Song The Oxford Handbook of Lying Edited by Jörg Meibauer The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood Edited by Jan Nuyts and Johan van der Auwera The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory Edited by Jenny Audring and Francesca Masini The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming Edited by Carole Hough The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics Edited by Anousha Sedighi and Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis Edited by Michael Fortescue, Marianne Mithun, and Nicholas Evans The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics Edited by Yan Huang The Oxford Handbook of Reference Page 4 of 5

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020

Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics Edited by Jeanette Gundel and Barbara Abbott The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics Second Edition Edited by Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron, and Ceil Lucas The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language Edited by Keith Allan The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect Edited by Robert I. Binnick The Oxford Handbook of The Word Edited by John R. Taylor The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies Edited by Kirsten Malmkjaer and Kevin Windle The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar Edited by Ian Roberts The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes Edited by Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, and Devyani Sharma

Page 5 of 5

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 04 December 2020