10. When insubordination is an artefact (of sentence type theories)
-
Volker Struckmeier
Abstract
In this paper, we discuss the basic foundation of research on insubordination. We argue that some clause types should, in fact, not be classified as insubordinated which have been taken, in the literature, to constitute examples of insubordination. We argue that an illusion of subordination can be brought about by sentence type theories which define subordination on an empirical basis that is simply too narrow to do justice to the sentence type inventory of a language under discussion. Thus, the sentence type theory mislabels sentences as subordinated which are, demonstrably, not subordinated at all (and may never have been). Since non-subordinated sentences, of course, do not behave like subordinated clauses, the consecutive mistake in insubordination research then is to mislabel the non-subordinated sentences as insubordinated. As a consequence, typologically oriented descriptions of insubordination phenomena exist which, upon closer examination, turn out simply to be based on inadequate descriptions of individual languages. Given empirically adequate sentence type theories for the individual languages, the misanalysis of subordination and the consequential misanalysis of insubordination are avoided from the start. As an example of the problem at hand, we discuss the case of German, which according to Evans (2007) displays insubordinated sentences. We show that his analysis is misguided, in that the alleged subordination of the sentence types in question is an artefact of (well-established, but still empirically inadequate) sentence type theories, not a property of the clauses themselves. Note that we do not argue that insubordination does not exist. However, we submit that insubordination research must be carried out with extreme empirical caution and must involve the careful and delicate analysis of individual languages - not by making statements about languages the insubordination researcher simply has not investigated carefully enough.
Abstract
In this paper, we discuss the basic foundation of research on insubordination. We argue that some clause types should, in fact, not be classified as insubordinated which have been taken, in the literature, to constitute examples of insubordination. We argue that an illusion of subordination can be brought about by sentence type theories which define subordination on an empirical basis that is simply too narrow to do justice to the sentence type inventory of a language under discussion. Thus, the sentence type theory mislabels sentences as subordinated which are, demonstrably, not subordinated at all (and may never have been). Since non-subordinated sentences, of course, do not behave like subordinated clauses, the consecutive mistake in insubordination research then is to mislabel the non-subordinated sentences as insubordinated. As a consequence, typologically oriented descriptions of insubordination phenomena exist which, upon closer examination, turn out simply to be based on inadequate descriptions of individual languages. Given empirically adequate sentence type theories for the individual languages, the misanalysis of subordination and the consequential misanalysis of insubordination are avoided from the start. As an example of the problem at hand, we discuss the case of German, which according to Evans (2007) displays insubordinated sentences. We show that his analysis is misguided, in that the alleged subordination of the sentence types in question is an artefact of (well-established, but still empirically inadequate) sentence type theories, not a property of the clauses themselves. Note that we do not argue that insubordination does not exist. However, we submit that insubordination research must be carried out with extreme empirical caution and must involve the careful and delicate analysis of individual languages - not by making statements about languages the insubordination researcher simply has not investigated carefully enough.
Chapters in this book
- Frontmatter I
- Preface V
- Contents VII
- Insubordination: Central issues and open questions 1
- 1. Sources and mechanisms 29
- 2. Insubordination and the contextually sensitive emergence of if-requests in Swedish and Finnish institutional talk-in-interaction 55
- 3. Adverbial semi-insubordination constructions in Swedish: Synchrony and diachrony 79
- 4. On illusory insubordination and semiinsubordination in Slavic: Independent infinitives, clause-initial particles and predicatives put to the test 107
- 5. Delimiting the class: A typology of English insubordination 167
- 6. Patterns of (in)dependence 199
- 7. Two constructions, one syntactic form: Perceptual prosodic differences between elliptical and independent <si + V indicative> clauses in Spanish 240
- 8. Does structural binding correlate with degrees of functional dependence? 265
- 9. Optative and evaluative que ‘that’ sentences in Spanish 291
- 10. When insubordination is an artefact (of sentence type theories) 320
- 11. Apparent insubordination as discourse patterns in French 349
- Index 384
Chapters in this book
- Frontmatter I
- Preface V
- Contents VII
- Insubordination: Central issues and open questions 1
- 1. Sources and mechanisms 29
- 2. Insubordination and the contextually sensitive emergence of if-requests in Swedish and Finnish institutional talk-in-interaction 55
- 3. Adverbial semi-insubordination constructions in Swedish: Synchrony and diachrony 79
- 4. On illusory insubordination and semiinsubordination in Slavic: Independent infinitives, clause-initial particles and predicatives put to the test 107
- 5. Delimiting the class: A typology of English insubordination 167
- 6. Patterns of (in)dependence 199
- 7. Two constructions, one syntactic form: Perceptual prosodic differences between elliptical and independent <si + V indicative> clauses in Spanish 240
- 8. Does structural binding correlate with degrees of functional dependence? 265
- 9. Optative and evaluative que ‘that’ sentences in Spanish 291
- 10. When insubordination is an artefact (of sentence type theories) 320
- 11. Apparent insubordination as discourse patterns in French 349
- Index 384
