Precautioning purpose constructions in typological perspective: a functional trade-off between clause-linking devices and tense–aspect–mood (TAM) marking

Jesús Olguín Martínez

doi:10.1515/jwl-2025-0050

Artikel Open Access

Precautioning purpose constructions in typological perspective: a functional trade-off between clause-linking devices and tense–aspect–mood (TAM) marking

Jesús Olguín Martínez

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 15. Dezember 2025

Veröffentlicht von

Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Manuskript einreichen Informationen für Autor*innen

Aus der Zeitschrift Journal of World Languages

Abstract

The present study explores precautioning purpose constructions in a sample of 71 languages. Languages may use non-specialized clause-linking devices to express precautioning purpose relations, e.g. positive purpose clauses with simply a negative marker being added to the basic proposition (e.g. I said it so that the child would not touch it). Moreover, languages may display a specialized clause-linking device (e.g. she helped the child lest he be sick). Here it is shown that when precautioning purpose clauses are encoded with a specialized clause-linking device, they will tend to appear with no TAM or with actualized tense–aspect–mood (TAM) markers (e.g. past tense). This stems from the fact that there is no need to have other morphosyntactic material aiding in the meaning of the construction. The specialized clause-linking device is the main feature that helps to evoke the precautioning purpose semantics of the construction. On the other hand, when precautioning purpose clauses are formed with a non-specialized clause-linking device, they will tend to occur with non-actualized TAM markers (e.g. irrealis). In this scenario, a non-actualized TAM marker and a non-specialized clause-linking device work in concert in the expression of the adverbial relation holding between clauses.

Keywords: adverbial clause; complex sentence; purpose clause; precaution

1 Introduction

One adverbial clause construction that has received little attention in cross-linguistic perspective is that of negative purpose constructions or precautioning purpose constructions (e.g. put the food there so that the ants do not eat it). This construction has been explored for the most part in individual languages (e.g. Angelo and Schultze-Berndt 2016 on Kriol; Lichtenberk 1995 on Toqabaqita; Smith-Dennis 2021 on Papapana; Vuillermet 2018 on Ese Ejja), in specific language families (e.g. Daniel and Dobrushina forthcoming on East Caucasian), and in specific macro-areas (e.g. Luk 2023 on Australia), but not from a broad, cross-linguistic perspective. This stems from the fact that samples of various typological studies usually do not contain enough information on this type of adverbial clause construction. For instance, Hetterle (2015: 52) points out that negative purpose clauses do not play a role in her study due to the scarcity of data in her sample.

An exception to this lack of typological studies is Schmidtke-Bode (2009: 130). He mentions that, cross-linguistically, languages may use a non-specialized clause-linking device (e.g. conjunctions or converbs) to express negative purpose, i.e. positive purpose clauses with simply a negative marker being added to the basic proposition, as in Example (1). However, languages may also display a specialized clause-linking device to express negative purpose (a conjunction or converb that is only used in the expression of precautioning purpose), as in Example (2) (see also Kuteva et al. 2019: 863). Precautioning purpose constructions, regardless of whether they are formed with a specialized or non-specialized clause-linking device, convey the idea that a certain situation is performed in order to prevent another one from occurring.

(1)

Huasteca Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan; huas 1257)
yoyon-paka-k	para	amo	poyewi-skia	que	tsopilo-tl.
clothes-wash-pfv	so.that	neg	stink-irr	like	vulture-abs
‘He washed her clothes so that she wouldn’t stink like a vulture.’
(Authors’ fieldwork)

(2)

Jamiltepec Mixtec (Oto-Manguean; jami 1235)
chahan	ñā	vēhē	tyīñō,
go.compl	3sg.sbj	house	work
‘She went to the town hall,
kōtō	tyāa	ra	kwātyi	chaha	ñā.
lest	put	3sg.sbj	sin	back	3sg.poss
lest he accuse her.’
(Johnson 1988: 133)

The studies mentioned before have advanced our theoretical understanding of precautioning purpose constructions. In particular, they have provided important insights regarding the balancing and deranking status of the precautioning purpose clause, the argument-structural configurations of the precautioning purpose constructions (Schmidtke-Bode 2009: 131), and the key semantic components of precautioning purpose constructions (Lichtenberk 1995), among others.

One issue of precautioning purpose constructions that has not received a lot of attention in the literature is the following. Non-actualization is the main feature of precautioning purpose clauses since it is a consequence of the fact that the adverbial clause invokes an undesired world that can be avoided by the situation described in the main clause (Verstraete 2006: 204–205). Given that precautioning purpose situations are non-actualized, they are expected to favor tense–aspect–mood (TAM) values that harmonize with this meaning, such as irrealis, as in Example (3), in which the precautioning purpose clause appears with the irrealis marker ka-. However, there are languages that do not show this pattern. In Sochiapan Chinantec, precautioning purpose clauses must appear in the remote past tense, as in Example (4). The question is: why do precautioning purpose clauses appear with non-actualized or actualized TAM markers? While this issue has been explored in specific macro-areas (e.g. Australia; Verstraete 2006), it has not been investigated in broad cross-linguistic perspective. The present research attempts to fill this gap by exploring the interaction of TAM in precautioning purpose clauses marked with specialized and non-specialized patterns in a variety sample of 71 languages. The data consist of (sketch) grammars, book chapters, articles, as well as primary data.

(3)

Pisaflores Tepehua (Totonacan; pisa 1237)
an	siiwaan	Ɂan-ɬi-c̆a	lii	maa-haantu	ka-laɁin-t’i.
det	Juan	go-pfv-compl	so.that	evid-neg	irr-go-2sg.sbj
‘Juan left so that you could not see him.’
(MacKay and Trechsel 2010: 277)

(4)

Sochiapan Chinantec (Oto-Manguean; soch 1239)
bíhᴴ	kaᴸ-hoᴸ
aff	rem.pst-dig.trans.inan.3sg
‘He dug it (the hole),
kíᴴˆnïᴹˆlïᴴ	*kaᴴ* -chanhᴹᴴ.
lest	rem.pst-arrive.home.trans.inan.3pl
lest they (the witches) arrive home.’
(Ana Martinez personal communication)

The fact that precautioning purpose clauses appear with non-actualized or actualized TAM could be dismissed as random and arbitrary. However, here it is proposed that whether the clause-linking device is specialized or non-specialized is key to this puzzle. When precautioning purpose clauses occur with a specialized clause-linking device, they will tend to occur with no TAM or with actualized TAM markers (e.g. past tense) given that there is no need to have other morphosyntactic material aiding in the meaning of the construction (see Section 3.1). On the other hand, when precautioning purpose clauses appear with a non-specialized clause-linking device, they will tend to appear with non-actualized TAM markers (e.g. irrealis) that aid in the expression of the precautioning purpose relation holding between clauses (see Section 3.2).

The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 2 introduces terminological and theoretical background. Section 3 describes the method and sample used in the present study. It also explores the interaction of clause-linking devices and TAM markers in precautioning purpose constructions. Section 4 situates the results of the present study with respect to other studies: Verstraete (2006) and Schmidtke-Bode (2009). The conclusions in Section 5 provide a summary of the study and suggest avenues for further research.

2 Theoretical preliminaries

This section provides the theoretical and methodological background of this research. In the first part, special attention is paid to precautioning purpose constructions and TAM markers, and, in doing so, we delimit the domain of investigation and establish a conceptual and terminological framework for the entire study. The second part describes the sample used to explore the interaction of clause-linking devices and TAM markers in precautioning purpose constructions and how the sample of the present study was built.

2.1 Comparative concepts

Any typological survey requires strict and clear definitions. Accordingly, the present study necessarily requires the adoption of comparative concepts for the definitions of precautioning purpose constructions and TAM markers (cf. Haspelmath 2010). In what follows, we provide comparative concepts of these phenomena.

2.1.1 Precautioning purpose constructions

Precautioning purpose constructions express preventive situations to avoid the consequences of an undesirable situation. This definition is merely semantic. However, as is well-known in the typological literature, comparative concepts must be based on conceptual-semantic notions and structural concepts. The following is the definition of precautioning purpose constructions adopted here:

Precautioning purpose constructions are complex sentence constructions in which the adverbial clause explicitly describes a situation which the speaker considers to be unpleasant/undesirable, and which would have occurred unless the evasive action of the main clause is undertaken. Put another way, if the precaution expressed in the main clause is heeded, the unpleasant/undesirable outcome of the adverbial clause is avoided.

Several formal, semantic, and pragmatic issues can be highlighted from this definition: unpleasant/undesirable situation, explicitness, and evasive action of the main clause. Each of the three aspects of the comparative concept adopted here has a history in typological research and thus comes with a large amount of previous literature. To delimit the scope of the present investigation, some comments on these issues follow here.

First, as was mentioned above, the adverbial clause in a precautioning construction describes a situation which the speaker considers to be unpleasant/undesirable and that should be avoided, as in Example (5). This is related to deontic modality. From a traditional perspective, it has been proposed that deontic modality must be defined in terms of the concepts of obligation and permission (Lyons 1977: 823–841; Palmer 1986: 96–115; van der Auwera and Plungian 1998: 81). The speaker imposes an obligation on the hearer (deontic necessity, e.g. you must do it) or the speaker grants permission to the hearer to carry out an action (deontic possibility; e.g. you may go) (Lyons 1977: 832). Put another way, deontic modality involves “a general authority asks a proxy authority to act” (Timberlake 2007: 329). However, it has been shown there are constructions that cannot encode the supposedly central deontic meanings of obligation or permission (e.g. we deplore that a person not involved in the affairs of this club gave advice to the player; Nuyts et al. 2010: 18). Rather than imposing an obligation or granting permission, it merely describes the degree of (un)desirability for a situation to take place (Van linden and Verstraete 2011: 153; Verstraete 2001, 2005). The fundamental difference between the two is that deontic meanings involving (un)desirability are “attitudinal, with a primary function in the domain of qualifications of situations, while the traditional notions of obligation and permission are illocutionary, with a primary function in the interactional system of language” (Van linden and Verstraete 2011: 155).

(5)

Maybrat (Maybratic; maib 1239)
ratau	m-akuoh	ratau	tkief	sfot	anu	p-haf,
ratau	3pl-scrape	ratau	divine	strengthen	poss	1pl-belly
‘Ratau, they scraped ratau, they divined and strengthened our bellies,
re	p-kai	mes	fe.
in.order.to	1pl-meet	blood	neg
so that we wouldn’t bleed.’
(Dol 1999: 280)

Second, the criterion of explicitness excludes semantically non-specific types of clause-linkage, such as asyndetic coordinate clauses and syndetic (e.g. conjunctive) coordinate clauses from which a particular precautioning purpose relation can be inferred. There are languages that convey precautioning purpose relations with coordinating constructions. In the Garrwa example in Example (6), a precautioning purpose situation is inferred from clauses coordinated with baki ‘and’. To convey a situation that is (highly) possible and undesirable, languages may also use asyndetic constructions, that is, two clauses without any structural element linking them. In the Alamblak example in Example (7) there is no explicit device used in the expression of a precautioning purpose relation. Rather, this sematic relation is inferred from the context (Bruce 1984: 313).

(6)

Garrwa (Garrwan; gara 1269)
nurr=ili	baki	yalu	kadijba	kingkarri	wada-yurri.
1pl.excl.nom=hab	and	3pl.nom	sneak.away	up	food-all
‘We (would watch them) lest they (might) sneak away up to the food.’
(Mushin 2012: 365)
Alamblak (Sepik; alam 1246)

(7)

waitwa	tekko	ninho	yënr	yëhniahr.
go	to.the.river	your	child	go.down.into.will.he
‘Go to the river lest your child fall in.’
(Bruce 1984: 313)

This means that languages that only employ clause-linking devices (e.g. conjunctions, converbs) are considered here (Verstraete 2006: 195). Conjunctions are free morphemes which mark the precautioning purpose clauses for their semantic relationship to the main clause, and do not fulfil a syntactic function (e.g. subject, object) in the clause over which they operate (Kortmann 1997: 72). A converb is a special verb form that does not appear in independent declarative clauses (Cristofaro 2003: Ch. 3) and that marks the semantic relations holding between clauses. In the present study, we classify clause-linking devices as specialized and as non-specialized. Specialized clause-linking devices are conjunctions or converbs that can only be used in the expression of precautioning purpose. For instance, the Korean marker anhtolok (see Example 8) and the Movima marker kaː (see Example 9) are clause-linking devices that can only be used to indicate precautioning purpose. On the other hand, non-specialized clause-linking devices are conjunctions or converbs that express not only precautioning purpose, but also other semantic relations (e.g., positive purpose). For instance, non-specialized clause-linking device may be accompanied by a negative marker to indicate precautioning purpose, as in Example (10). When the negative marker is omitted, the meaning of the construction changes (i.e. positive purpose), as in Example (11). This suggests that the negative marker in the precautioning purpose clause lexically contributes to negation.

(8)

Korean (Koreanic; kore 1280)
kay	ka	naka-nikka	kule-ci	anhtolok	mukk-e	twu-sey-yo.
dog	sbj	go.out-so	do.so-nmlz	lest	bind-inf	keep-sh-pol
‘The dog may go out, so keep it on a leash lest it should do so.’
(Sohn 2009: 311)

(9)

Movima (Isolate; movi 1243)
chon	iń	joy-cheɬ	n-os	jaːmiː-wa,
hab	intrans	go-refl.rec	obl-art	fetch.water-nmlz
‘I went to fetch water,
*kaː*	n-os	de-wawaj-wa	is	juyeni	n-os	roːya.
lest	obl-art	see-inv-nmlz	art.pl	person	obl-art	house
lest the people in the house see me (play the harmonica).’
(Haude 2006: 547)

(10)

Tetun (Austronesian; tetu 1245)
milisia	sira	sai	bá	hamrík	iha	lurón	né	nakonu,
militia	pl	exit	go	stand	loc	road	this	full
‘The militia stood over the road,
*para*	kareta	la	vele	lui.
conj	vehicle	neg	irr	pass
so that the vehicles couldn’t pass.’
(van Klinken 1999: 112)

(11)

ami	né	tenki	koali	Portugés	né,
1pl	this	must	speak	Portuguese	this
‘(At school), we had to speak Portuguese,
*para*	ami	bele	hatene	lai-lais.
conj	1pl	irr	know	rdp-quick
so that we would learn quickly.’
(van Klinken 1999: 112)

Third, a key formal characteristic of precautioning purpose constructions is that they must occur with a main clause indicating the evasive situation. It has been shown that the evasive situation may take the form of a (negative) imperative, as in Example (12) (Schmidtke-Bode 2009: 135). It indicates that X must be carried out to avoid the unpleasant consequences expressed in the precautioning purpose clause situation. (Negative) imperatives have been the subject of much cross-linguistic research (e.g. Aikhenvald 2010; Jary and Kissine 2016; Mauri and Sansò 2012; Van Olmen 2021; Xrakovskij 2001). However, most of these do not provide an exhaustive characterization of this construction. A (negative) imperative provides the addressee(s) with a reason (not) to act “and that is at least suitable for the performance of directive speech acts where the speaker wants and attempts to get the addressee(s) to do something” (Van Olmen 2024: 215).^[1] Put another way, positive and negative imperatives fulfill similar specific functions but contrast in their fundamental orientation of action and non-action (Van Olmen 2021: 526–528).

(12)

Kaluli (Nuclear Trans New Guinea; kalu 1248)
a-yoː	de-yaː	n-abaːnaːki,	tog-o	asiba!
house-top	fire-erg	eat-lest	door-top	imp
‘Close the door lest the fire burn the house.’
(Grosh and Grosh 2004: 61)

In other cases, the main clause may indicate a situation in which the speaker just mentions a course of action that could be useful in their view and that the addressee is free to take or not, e.g. advice/suggestions, as in Example (13) (Schmidtke-Bode 2009: 135). The function of advice-giving precautioning purpose constructions is based on the speaker’s confidence and personal (emotional) experience about the benefits of the advice for the advisee (see Nuyts 2015: 110 for similar claims with respect to other constructions).

(13)

San Dionisio del Mar Huave (Huavean; sand 1278)
ngu=mi	sa=n-a-jants	par	ngu=tsontsok-om.
neg=nom.prs	1sg=irr-tv-wash	conj	neg=wrinkled-irr
‘I wouldn’t wash it (if I were you) so that it won’t wrinkle.’
(Salminen 2017: 218)

There are other scenarios in which the evasive situation of the main clause is neither a (negative) imperative nor an advice/suggestion. Rather, it just indicates the evasive situation that will be undertaken to avoid a potential unpleasant/undesirable situation (Schmidtke-Bode 2009: 135), as in Example (14):

(14)

Togo Kan (Dogon; togo 1254)2
ɛ́mɛ́	gìr ⁿ ì-ká ⁿ	mòtǎm	gǒ:-lé	g-î	dè	sɔ́gɔ́-jú.
1pl.sbj	house-mouth	scorpion	go.out-proh	say-pfv	conj	lock-ipfv
‘We will lock the door lest the scorpion be able to get out.’
(Heath 2015a: 388)

2
Language not included in the sample.

The forms shown above have been documented for precautioning purpose constructions with future temporal reference (disregarded from the present research). As for precautioning purpose constructions showing past temporal reference, they occur neither with a (negative) imperative nor an advice/suggestion in the sample. Instead, they appear with main clauses which state the evasive situation that was undertaken to avoid a potential unpleasant/undesirable situation, as in Example (15):

(15)

Mapuche (Araucanian; mapu 1245)
amu-n	wariya-mew	ñi	ngilla-tu-al	kofke	mi,
go-ind	town-instr	1sg.poss	buy-trans-irr	bread	2sg.poss
‘I went to buy bread,
entri-we-nu-a-m.
get.hungry-ps-neg-irr-cvb
so that you wouldn’t be hungry anymore.’
(Smeets 2008: 352)

Before we leave the present subsection, mention should be made of the following strategic restriction. First, it is a well-known fact that same-subject and different-subject purpose clauses may be realized with different morphosyntactic make-up in the languages of the world (Thompson et al. 2007: 244). However, this is an area that was not possible to analyze in the languages in the sample given that most sources only contain information on different-subject precautioning purpose clauses, as in Example (16). Accordingly, the present research only considers this type of construction.

(16)

Tamil (Dravidian; tami 1289)
Kumaar	kuzantai	az-aa-mal	paarttukkon-t-aan.
Kumar	child	cry-neg-cvb	look.after-pst-3sg.m
‘Kumar took care so that the child didn’t cry.’
(Lehmann 1993: 117)

Second, the present study only considers precautioning purpose constructions with past temporal reference given that most sources only provide information on this type of construction (see Section 2.2). Accordingly, the present study only considers different subject precautioning purpose clauses with past temporal reference.

Such delimitation reflects a broader methodological tendency in linguistic typology, which typically advances by examining specific features of linguistic phenomena rather than attempting to capture their full range of variation at once. In other words, the scope of typological research is often constrained, and in many cases directly shaped, by the descriptive information available in grammars and related sources. As Round and Corbett (2020: 489) observe, “linguistic typology is part of a wider intellectual undertaking, in which we can benefit from the successes of others”. Accordingly, as linguistic documentation expands to include more languages from diverse regions, it is expected that other researchers will be able to assess whether the findings of the present study extend to other types of precautioning purpose clauses (e.g. constructions with future temporal reference and same subject).

2.1.2 Tense–aspect–mood (TAM)

It has been shown that TAM markers may be predetermined by different types of adverbial clauses. For instance, Hetterle (2015: 76–77) shows that, cross-linguistically, temporally subsequent constructions (e.g. after she left, I ate) tend to appear with past or perfective marking in the adverbial clause. This stems from the fact that after-clauses tend to be past-oriented and the proposition that they convey precedes the proposition of the main clause, and it is completed at the onset of the main clause situation. In a similar fashion, because-clauses tend to appear with past or perfective marking. This is not surprising given that “causes precede the consequence in the logical order of events, and they are typically realized (completed) at the onset of the consequence” (Hetterle 2015: 75). Before-clauses also show systematic patterns. Before-clauses express a situation that takes place posterior to the main clause situation. Put another way, the situation expressed by the before-clause is not yet realized at the time of the main clause situation (Olguín Martínez 2023). In many languages around the world, the semantics translates directly into the coding properties of this adverbial clause in that before-clauses tend to occur with future tense markers (Hetterle 2015: 77). In while constructions, two situations are fully or partially happening at the same time. Because of this, in many languages around the world, while-clauses take imperfective aspect (Thompson et al. 2007: 188). What this seems to indicate is that there are systematic cross-linguistic correlations between TAM marking and the meaning of adverbial clauses. Accordingly, TAM markers should be considered an important constructional property of adverbial clauses in many languages around the world.

As was discussed in Section 2.1.1, precautioning purpose clauses describe a situation which would have occurred. In the present study, it is expected that these clauses will appear with non-actualized TAM. This is a term that groups together markers whose semantics indicates situations “that are not actualized in the real world in some way” (Roberts 1990: 372–373), such as “potential”, “conditional”, “contrary-to-fact”, “irrealis”, “non-realized”, “optative”, “subjunctive”, “dubitative”, and “hypothetical (Olguín Martínez 2024a). Put another way, non-actualized TAM markers indicate that a given situation is presented as not grounded in perceivable reality (Verstraete 2005: 250). This means that constructions marked with non-actualized TAM belong to the realm of the imagined or hypothetical, and as such they constitute a potential or possible situation “but it is not an observable fact of reality” (Elliott 2000: 66–67). One comment on imperfective aspect should be mentioned here. There are a number of languages in the sample in which precautioning purpose clauses appear with imperfective aspect. For instance, in Sidaama, precautioning purpose clauses are realized with the imperfective -anno, as in Example (17). It has been proposed that imperfective marking may be an important grammatical feature of positive purpose, conditional, counterfactual constructions (Mauri et al. 2023: 182; Schmidtke-Bode 2009: 43–44). It is worth noting that imperfective aspect has been considered an aspectual value typically associated to actualized situations (Comrie 1976: 30). However, here imperfective aspect is considered a non-actualized TAM pattern. To explain the connection between imperfective aspect and non-actualized situations, it has been shown that imperfective aspect has an indirect link with potentiality. For positive purpose clauses, it has been proposed that imperfective aspect marking underlines or re-emphasizes the inherent potentiality of purposive situations (Schmidtke-Bode 2009: 43–44). Accordingly, the use of imperfective aspect in precautioning purpose clauses is perfectly harmonious with its inherent non-actualization.

(17)

Sidaama (Afro-Asiatic; sida 1248)
faras̆s̆-u	ful-ø-anno-kki-gede,	hutt’a	hutt’-u-mm-o.
horse-nom	exit-3sg.m-ipfv-neg-so.that	fence	create.fence-pfv-1sg-m
‘So that the horse would not go out, I made a fence.’
(Kawachi 2007: 442)

Actualized TAM can also appear in precautioning purpose clauses. By actualized TAM is meant TAM markers whose semantics does not align with the meaning expressed by precautioning purpose clauses, such as past tense and perfective marking. An example illustrating this pattern is found in Sochiapan Chinantec (repeated here for convenience). In this language, kíᴴˆnïᴹˆlïᴴ ‘lest’ clauses occur in the past tense (see as in Example 18). In all languages in the sample, the authors of the sources consulted for the present study define past tense as a form that refers to a point in time previous to the point of speech and/or reference (Comrie 1985). On the other hand, perfective is defined as a form that refers to a single situation conceived as one complete unit. The situation described by a verb is seen as a completed whole (Comrie 1976) and is by default interpreted as referring to the past.

(18)

Sochiapan Chinantec (Oto-Manguean; soch 1239)
bíhᴴ	kaᴸ-hoᴸ
aff	rem.pst-dig.trans.inan.3sg
‘He dug it (the hole),
*kíᴴˆnïᴹˆlïᴴ*	*kaᴴ* -chanhᴹᴴ.
lest	rem.pst-arrive.home.trans.inan.3pl
lest they (the witches) arrive home.’
(Ana Martinez personal communication)

Languages may also contain precautioning purpose clauses that do not display any TAM. In Moskona, precautioning purpose clauses are deprived of TAM marking, as can be seen in Example (19).

(19)

Moskona (East Bird’s Head; mosk1236)
efer	no-ma-i	et	ariawunun	jug	esirn(a).
child	deic.nmlz-far-giv	eat	medicinal.treatment	lest	sick
‘The child took the medicine lest (he) be sick.’
(Gravelle 2010: 353)

2.2 Methodology and sample

In the present study, we consider a sample of 71 languages based on the Genus-Macroarea method proposed by Miestamo (2005). In particular, the bottom-up variant of the method is adopted here. In this method, the primary genetic stratification is made at the genus level, and the primary areal stratification at the level of macro-areas. The languages of the sample are shown in Table 1.

Table 1:

Languages in the sample.

Macro-area	Languages
Africa	Ben Tey, Hausa, Jenaama Bozo, Kikuyu, Logba, Lumun, Mursi, Sheko, Sidaama, Southern Gumuz, Tamashek, Uduk
Australia	Gamilaraay, Gangalidda, Gurr-Goni, Kalkatungu, Waray, Wardaman, Yawuru
Eurasia	Armenian, Basque, Hungarian, Icari Dargwa, Japhug, Khwarshi, Korean, Koroshi, Lezgian, Mandarin, Maithili, Spanish, Tamil, Turkish, Tundra Nenets
North America	Central Alaskan Yup’ik, Choctaw, Cora, Cupeño, Francisco Leon Zoque, Garifuna, Huasteca Nahuatl, Jamiltepec Mixtec, Ottawa, Papantla Totonac, San Dionisio del Mar Huave, San Cristóbal Lachirioag Zapotec, Slave, Sochiapan Chinantec, Yaqui
Papunesia	Abau, Balantak, Ilocano, Kaluli, Lewo, Maybrat, Menya, Moskona, Ternate, Tetun, Tulil, West Coast Bajau
South America	Macushi, Mamainde, Mapuche, Movima, Paraguayan Guarani, Paunaka, Piapoco, Urarina, Yagua, Yine

While an ideal language sample would also be areally balanced, it is difficult to come up with a sample that is both genetically and areally balanced, for the simple reason that some macro-areas have more genera than others. Furthermore, some macro-areas are better represented than others because of the availability and quality of the sources. As is shown in Table 2, Eurasia is somewhat overrepresented in comparison to the other macro-areas. Our coding of the data and the references consulted for each language are included in the Appendix of this article.

Table 2:

Number of genera per macro-area included in the sample.

Macro-area	Number of genera	Number of genera in the sample	Coverage
Africa	77	12	15.58 %
Australia	43	7	16.27 %
Eurasia	82	15	18.29 %
North America	95	15	15.78 %
Papunesia	136	12	8.82 %
South America	110	10	9.09 %

In what follows, we explain the structure and motivations behind the selection of the languages in the sample. In the first stage, an attempt was made to find one language from each of genera proposed by Dryer (2013) (543 genera) for which the authors of sources used the label “negative purpose”. In order not to a priori exclude languages whose grammatical descriptions do not feature the term “negative purpose clause”, but that may have constructions with a similar function, we also paid attention to the following labels: “precautioning”, “apprehensive”, “admonitive”, “evitative”, “avoidance”, “preventive”, “avoidance”, “warning”, “monitory”, “prohibitive”, “lest”, and “avertive”. By following this process, we were able to form a sample of 212 languages.

In the second stage, we investigated whether precautioning purpose constructions appeared with or without a clause-linking device (i.e. conjunction or converb). Those languages without clause-linking devices (e.g. asyndetic construction) were not considered in the sample (see Section 2.1.1 for this strategic restriction). As for the remaining languages, we explored whether markers were specialized or non-specialized. By following this process, we reduced the sample from 212 languages to 112 languages.

In the third stage, we determined whether the remaining sources contained information regarding the temporal reference of precautioning purpose clause constructions. For 71 languages we found information on constructions with past temporal reference, for 30 languages we found information on constructions with future temporal reference, and for 11 languages we identified information on both types of temporal reference. Given that most sources only contain information on constructions with past temporal reference, this is the main reason why the present investigation is based on constructions with this temporal reference.

All in all, the sample for the present study aims at broad genetic and geographical coverage of the world’s languages. The sample is thus well-suited to exploring cross-linguistic variation in the encoding of precautioning purpose constructions.

Before we leave the present section, mention should be made of the following issue. There are languages in the sample that may contain more than one specialized clause-linking device used in the encoding of precautioning purpose constructions. In such cases, we have taken into account all the relevant clause-linking devices when the sources for these languages do not explicitly specify which of them functions as the primary or most frequent clause-linking device. For instance, Mandarin Chinese contains the following specialized clause-linking devices: yĭmiăn (以免, ‘lest’), miănde (免得, ‘lest’), and shĕngde (省得, ‘lest’) (Li and Thompson 1981: 655; Yip and Rimmington 2004: 343). Of these clause -linking devices, the sources do not indicate which is most frequently used. However, in cases where the authors provide explicit information regarding which clause -linking device is the primary, we have followed their assessment.

3 Precautioning purpose constructions: results

This section explores the interaction of clause-linking devices and TAM markers in precautioning purpose clauses (see Appendix). We demonstrate that when precautioning purpose clauses occur with a specialized clause-linking device, they will tend to appear with no TAM or with actualized TAM (e.g. past tense). This stems from the fact that there is no need to have other morphosyntactic material aiding in the meaning of the construction. The specialized clause-linking device is the main feature that helps to evoke the precautioning purpose semantics of the construction. Put another way, the clause-linking device in this scenario is the primary formal cue that guides the listener’s interpretation of a complex sentence construction (Bates and MacWhinney 1989). Accordingly, non-actualized TAM are not necessary in this scenario given that their appearance would over-specify the meaning of the construction. It has been argued that semantic over-specification constitutes a disadvantage to speakers, who have to invest more time and energy into their utterance, and to hearers, who have to process more forms while not necessarily gaining more information (Dahl 2004; Trudgill 2011: 4). On the other hand, when precautioning purpose clauses appear with a non-specialized clause-liking device, they will tend to occur with non-actualized TAM markers. In this scenario, a non-actualized TAM marker, a non-specialized clause-linking device, and a negative marker work in concert in the expression of the adverbial relation holding between clauses. This should be characterized as an instance of compositional encoding, i.e. the various ways in which specific constructional properties of a clause combine to dictate a particular adverbial relation (Verstraete 2010). A similar situation has also been attested for other clause-linkage constructions. For instance, it has been shown that when before clauses are formed with a non-specialized conjunction or converb and a negative marker, they will tend to appear with a non-actualized TAM marker (e.g. irrealis marker; Olguín Martínez 2023, 2024b).

3.1 Specialized clause-linking devices and TAM

In this section, we first discuss the interaction of specialized clause-linking devices and TAM markers in precautioning purpose clauses. The resulting values are presented in Table 3 and several observations can be gleaned from this table.

Table 3:

Interaction of specialized clause-linking devices and TAM markers in precautioning purpose clauses.

Interaction of specialized clause-linking devices and TAM markers	Languages
Languages with specialized clause-linking device and with non-actualized TAM	Paunaka, Slave
Languages with specialized clause-linking device and no TAM	Balantak, Cora, Francisco Leon Zoque, Garifuna, Huasteca Nahuatl, Ilocano, Jamiltepec Mixtec, Kalkatungu, Kaluli, Khwarshi, Korean, Lewo, Macushi, Mamainde, Mandarin, Maithili, Menya, Moskona, Movima, Paraguayan Guarani, Piapoco, Ternate, Tulil, Tundra Nenets, Uduk, Urarina, Wardaman, West Coast Bajau, Yagua, Yine
Languages with specialized clause-linking device and with actualized TAM	Abau, Central Alaskan Yup’ik, Gangalidda, Sochiapan Chinantec

Specialized clause-linking devices tend to appear with either no TAM or with actualized TAM markers (Table 3). An example illustrating the former pattern is found in Cora. In this language, precautioning purpose constructions with past temporal reference are formed with the specialized conjunction tɨ‘ihkai, as in Example (20). Clauses introduced with this conjunction must not occur with any TAM (Casad 1984: 437). Another example can be found in Garifuna. In Example (21), the precautioning purpose clause is introduced by the conjunction luwey. This clause does not appear with any TAM marking (Haurholm-Larsen 2016: 271). A look-alike scenario is attested in Macushi, in which precautioning purpose clauses realized with namai are deprived of TAM markers, as in Example (22).

(20)

Cora (Uto-Aztecan; elna 1235)
*tɨ‘ihkai*	ha’atɨ	wá’a-seihra	me-ta’an-ta-kúuna-n.
lest	someone	3pl.obj-see	3pl.sbj-distr-on.across-be.hollow-ptcp
‘They closed the door lest someone see them.’
(Casad 1984: 437)

(21)

Garifuna (Arawakan; gari 1256)
aban	l-adówru-n-i	wügûri	lé	l-áru=tì=buga	duna	lé
then	3.m-block-unspec-3.m	man	dem	3.m-path=top=pst	water	dem
t-uwéy	irahü	tó	*luwey*	t-ábürügù-n.
3.f-from	child	dem	lest	3.f-land-unspec
‘The man blocked the girl’s way out of the water lest she escape.’
(Haurholm-Larsen 2016: 271)

(22)

Macushi (Cariban; macu 1259)
i-tîrî-pî-i-ya	paaka	emowî	namai .
3sg-put-pst-3sg-erg	cow	enter	lest
‘He put it (there) lest the cows enter.’
(Abott 1991: 60)

Constructions in which specialized clause-linking devices occur with actualized TAM markers can be found in Sochiapan Chinantec. In this language, the conjunction kíᴴˆnïᴹˆlïᴴ is specialized and can only be used for expressing precautioning purpose relations (see Example 18). This clause can only occur with actualized TAM, i.e. past tense (Foris 2000: 323).

There are only two languages in the database that must be rated as a counterexample to the tendency shown above (see Table 3).

3.2 Non-specialized clause-linking devices and TAM

The discussion now turns to non-specialized clause-linking devices and their interaction with TAM in precautioning purpose clauses.

As can be seen in Table 4, non-specialized precautioning purpose clauses tend to appear with non-actualized TAM markers. A discussion of some selected manifestations of this pattern follows here.

Table 4:

Interaction of non-specialized clause-linking devices and TAM markers in precautioning purpose clauses.

Interaction of non-specialized clause-linking devices and TAM markers	Languages
Languages with non-specialized clause-linking device and with non-actualized TAM	Armenian, Balantak, Basque, Ben Tey, Choctaw, Cupeño, Gurr-Goni, Hausa, Huasteca Nahuatl, Hungarian, Icari Dargwa, Japhug, Kikuyu, Koroshi, Lezgian, Lumun, Maithili, Mapuche, Mursi, Ottawa, Papantla Totonac, San Cristóbal Lachirioag Zapotec, San Dionisio del Mar Huave, Sheko, Sidaama, Spanish, Tamashek, Tetun, Turkish, Waray, Yaqui, Yawuru
Languages with non-specialized clause-linking device and no TAM	Gamilaraay, Maybrat, Southern Gumuz, Tamil
Languages with non-specialized clause-linking device and with actualized TAM	Jenaama Bozo, Logba

In Kikuyu, precautioning purpose constructions with past temporal reference are realized with the conjunction nĩgetha and the negative marker nd-, as in Example (23). The conjunction is non-specialized in that it can also be used for expressing positive purpose. Note that this adverbial clause must appear in the subjunctive in this language.

(23)

Kikuyu (Atlantic-Congo; kiku 1240)
ũ-kĩ-ak-ĩr-wo	ũ-kĩ-thi-ũrũr-ũr-ĩk-i-o
sbj-seq-built-appl-pass	sbj-seq-go-intens-revers-middl-trans-pass
na	ma-higa	*nĩgetha*	atĩ	nd -ũ-ka-gũ- e .
with	nc-stone	conj	comp	neg-sbj-prs-fall-sbj
‘The tree was built for and encircled with stones so that it apparently would not fall.’
(Englebretson and Wa-Ngatho 2015: 165)

A look-alike pattern is found in Ottawa. In this language, the clause-linking device -g along with the negative marker bwaa- and the irrealis marker ji- are used in the expression of precautioning purpose relations, as in Example (24). When the precautioning purpose clause occurs without the negative marker bwaa-, the construction indicates positive purpose.

(24)

Ottawa (Algic; ojib 1241)
n-gii-gkidmaw-aa	ziizbaakdoons-an,
1sg.ind-pst-hide.from-1sg.3sg.ind	candy-inan.pl
‘I hid the candies from him,
*ji-bwaa* -gdaa- g .
irr-neg-eat.up-cnj
lest he ate them all up.’
(Valentine 2009: 210)

A similar pattern is attested in Lezgian. In this language, precautioning purpose is signaled with the non-specialized clause-linking device -wal along with the irrealis marker -da, and the negative marker t-, as in Example (25). The marker -wal is polyfunctional in that it expresses a different adverbial relation when the dependent clause shows positive polarity (i.e., positive purpose).

(25)

Lezgian (Nakh-Daghestanian; lezg 1247)
stxadi	jawas̆-diz	Nadjadi	q’at’u-n	t-iji-da-j-wal
brother.erg	quiet-adv	Nadja.erg	perceive-per	neg-do-irr-ptcp-purp
z̆uzu-naː	im	wuz̆	ja?
ask-aor	this.abs	who	cop
‘My brother asked, quietly so that Nadja wouldn’t hear him: who is it?
(Haspelmath 1993: 393)

There are six languages that do not align with the interaction shown above in that non-specialized clause-linking devices occur in clauses with no TAM (i.e. Gamilaraay, Maybrat, Southern Gumuz, Tamil) or in clauses with actualized TAM (i.e. Jenaama Bozo, Logba). In Southern Gumuz, precautioning purpose clauses are formed with the non-specialized clause-linking device -n and the negative marker bats’-, as in Example (26). Note that this adverbial clause does not appear with a non-actualized pattern. Instead, this clause is deprived of TAM marking.

(26)

Southern Gumuz (Gumuz; sout 3236)
ká-m- *bats’* -úâ- n	ma-ɗáb-amá,
dat-nmlz-neg-3pl.trans-dep	nmlz-find-obj
‘So that they wouldn’t find him,
b-á-kál-agá	b-á-baats’-agá-ts.
aff-3sg.intrans-say-nom.fut	aff-3sg.intrans-hide-nom.fut-body
he hid himself.’
(Ahland 2012: 375)

4 Discussion

In this section, we situate the results of the present study with respect to other studies: Verstraete (2006) and Schmidtke-Bode (2009). First, Verstraete (2006) investigates, based on a sample of 20 Australian languages, the role of mood markers in different types of complex sentence constructions, such as conditionals, counterfactual conditionals, positive purpose clauses, and precautioning purpose clauses, among others. As for precautioning purpose clauses, Verstraete (2006: 215) finds out that precautioning purpose clauses formed with a non-specialized clause-linking device (semantically vague relational marker) tend to occur with mood markers (e.g. irrealis). In this scenario, mood serves to pick out a semantic category from a larger range of categories covered by a semantically vague relational marker. On the other hand, when precautioning purpose clauses are formed with a specialized clause-linking device (semantically specific relational marker), they also tend to occur with mood markers. However, unlike constructions formed with a semantically vague relational marker, “the modal feature added by the mood does not serve to pick out a semantic category from a larger range of categories covered by a vague relational marker, but can instead be regarded as co-specifying the semantics of the complex sentence construction together with a specific relational marker” (Verstraete 2006: 216). The findings of the present study partially align with Verstraete’s findings. The fact that Australian precautioning purpose constructions realized with a semantically vague relational marker tend to occur with mood markers is also a strong tendency in our cross-linguistic study (i.e. non-specialized clause-linking device and non-actualized TAM; see Section 3.2). However, the pattern: mood as co-specifier with a semantically specific relational marker, attested in Verstraete’s research, is almost non-existent in our typological study. There are only two languages in the sample of the present research in which precautioning purpose clauses occur with a specialized conjunction and irrealis markers, i.e. Paunaka and Slave (see Section 3.1). We argue that these cases of semantic over-specification may be dispreferred cross-linguistically given that they would constitute a disadvantage to speakers, who have to invest more time and energy into their utterance, and to hearers, who have to process more forms while not necessarily gaining more information (Dahl 2004; Trudgill 2011: 4).

Second, Schmidtke-Bode (2009: 130), in his typological study of purpose clauses, finds out that 19 out of 80 languages in his sample contain precautioning purpose clauses formed with a specialized clause-linking device. Of these 19 languages, almost half of them contain balanced precautioning purpose clauses, i.e. the adverbial clause has fully inflected verbs identical to verbs of ordinary main clauses (Schmidtke-Bode 2009: 132). This contrasts with the picture of the present study in that precautioning purpose clauses formed with a specialized clause-linking device tend to be deprived of TAM (see Section 3.1). Given that the specialized clause-linking device is the main feature that helps to evoke the precautioning purpose semantics of the construction, there is no need to have other morphosyntactic material aiding in the meaning of the construction.

5 Conclusions

We have presented the largest systematic worldwide survey of precautioning purpose constructions. We have shown that when precautioning purpose clauses occur with a specialized clause-linking device, they will tend to occur with no TAM or with actualized TAM markers. On the other hand, when precautioning purpose clauses appear with a non-specialized clause-linking device, they will tend to appear with non-actualized TAM markers. What are the next steps? In a sense, the next steps follow quite naturally from everything discussed above. First and most obviously, it remains to be investigated whether same subject precautioning purpose clauses align with the tendencies uncovered for different subject precautioning purpose clauses.

The next major kind of follow-up would be to explore whether both precautioning purpose clauses and preventive constructions (e.g. her mother prevented her daughter from falling) are realized with the same clause-linkage pattern in the languages of the world. For instance, in Sidaama, both constructions are formed with the same clause-linkage pattern (Kawachi 2007: 442–443). The fact that both constructions occur with the same marker suggest a diachronic connection. Preventive constructions belong to the semantic category of force dynamics. This is a category that refers to how entities interact with respect to force and has proved useful for the description of a variety of linguistic constructions, such as causatives (Talmy 1988, 2000) Preventive constructions must be characterized as constructions involving a blocking force (Wolff 2007). In the example her mother prevented her daughter from falling, the preventee (i.e. her daughter) was about to experience an unpleasant/undesirable situation (i.e. falling). However, the preventer (i.e. her mother) serves as the blocking force of the unpleasant/undesirable situation (i.e. her daughter’s fall). A typological comparison between precautioning purpose clauses and preventive constructions is a very promising area for future research.

Third, the present study only takes into account precautioning purpose constructions with past temporal reference. It remains to be explored whether constructions with future temporal reference occur with the same clause-linking device and TAM. There are languages in which precautioning purpose clauses appear with the same morphosyntactic make-up (i.e. same clause-linking device and same TAM) regardless of their temporal reference. For instance, in Mapuche, both past and future precautioning purpose clauses are formed with the clause-linking device -m, the negative marker -no, and the irrealis marker -a, as in the Examples (27) and (28). On the other hand, there are languages in which both constructions appear with different morphosyntactic patterns. In Piapoco, the conjunction ipíchaná can only occur in precautioning purpose constructions with past temporal reference, as in Example (29). This clause-linking device cannot be used for encoding future precautioning purpose constructions, as in Example (30). Instead, they must be encoded with the clause-linking device -cáicha. A morphosyntactic comparison between precautioning purpose constructions with past and future temporal reference is open to future research.

(27)

Mapuche (Araucanian; mapu 1245)
amu-n	wariya-mew	ñi	ngilla-tu-al	kofke	mi,
go-ind	town-instr	1sg.poss	buy-trans-irr	bread	2sg.poss
‘I went to buy bread,
entri-we- *no-a-m* .
get.hungry-ps-neg-irr-inv
so that you wouldn’t be hungry anymore.’
(Smeets 2008: 352)

(28)

fiy	kweida-nie-fi-y-iñ	ta-yiñ	nũke,
that	take-care-prog.ps-obj-ind	the-1sg.poss	mother
‘We’ll take care of our mother,
kutran-ka-w-küle- *no-a-m* .
illness-fact-refl-stat-neg-irr-ivn
so that she won’t suffer.’
(Smeets 2008: 463)

(29)

Piapoco (Arawakan; piap 1246)
i-chùnìa-ca	capìi	i-báiná	ipíchaná	unía	i-úwàa	wía.
3-fix-decl	house	3-leaves	lest	rain	3-fall	us
‘He fixed the house (roof) leaves lest the rain fall upon us.’
(Klumpp 2019: 322)

(30)

pi-chùulìa-cué	na-chanàa	pi-rí	pi-yáa-piná,
2-order-incl	3pl-cook	2-to	2-eat-fut
‘You will order them to cook your food,
máapi- *cáicha* -cué	pía.
hungry-lest-incl	you
lest you all be hungry.’
(Klumpp 2019: 322)

Fourth, three languages in the sample contain both specialized and non-specialized precautioning purpose constructions (i.e. Balantak, Huasteca Nahuatl, and Maithili). Languages with more than one construction are an ideal test case for the overall findings of this paper (a tendency for specialized precautioning purpose clauses to occur with no TAM and a tendency for non-specialized precautioning purpose clauses to appear with non-actualized TAM). Given that the present study only contains three languages in which specialized and non-specialized precautioning purpose constructions co-exist, future studies can pay close attention to this domain by forming a sample with languages containing both types of constructions.

Fifth, in a number of languages in the sample, precautioning purpose clauses encoded with specialized clause-linking devices occur with expletive negation. Expletive negation corresponds to cases in which a negative formative is used in a main or subordinate clause (e.g. adverbial and complement clauses) without providing any truth-conditional contribution to interpretation (Delfitto 2020; Espinal 1992: 49; Jin and Koenig 2021; Olguín Martínez 2024b, 2024c, 2024d). Put another way, expletive negation refers to the presence of a negative marker that does not give a negative sense to the utterance. For instance, in Maithili, the specialized conjunction kəhĩ is used to express precautioning purpose relations. Clauses introduced with this conjunction also occur with the expletive negative marker nəi, which is optional and can be omitted without affecting the semantic relation holding between clauses (Yadav 1996: 368). Expletive negation in this type of construction is unexplored territory and open to future research.

This research only offers a first look at the cross-linguistic landscape of precautioning purpose constructions. Future research into a wider range of languages should help to verify, extend and, if necessary, amend the picture presented here.

Abbreviations

1: first person
2: second person
3: third person
abs: absolutive
adv: adverbial
aff: affirmative
all: allative
aor: aoristic
appl: applicative
art: article
cnj: conjunct
comp: complementizer
compl: completive
conj: conjunction
cop: copula
cvb: converb
dat: dative
decl: declarative
deic: deictic
dem: demonstrative
dep: dependent
det: determiner
distr: distribution
erg: ergative
evid: evidential
excl: exclusive
f: feminine
fact: factual
fut: future
giv: given
hab: habitual
imp: imperative
inan: inanimate
incl: inclusive
ind: indicative
instr: instrument
intens: intensive aspect
intrans: intransitive
inv: inverse
ipfv: imperfective
irr: irrealis
ivn: instrumental verbal noun
loc: locative
m: masculine
middl: middle
nc: nounclass
neg: negation
nmlz: nominalizer
nom: nominative
obj: object
obl: oblique
pass: passive
per: perlative
pfv: perfective
pl: plural
pol: polarity
poss: possessive
prog: progressive
proh: prohibitive
prs: present
ps: persistence
pst: past
ptcp: participle
purp: purpose
rdp: reduplication
refl: reflexive
rem: remote
revers: reversive aspect
sbj: subject
seq: sequential
sg: singular
sh: subject honoric suffx
stat: stative
top: topic
trans: transitive
tv: thematic vowel
unspec: unspecified

Corresponding author: Jesús Olguín Martínez, Department of Linguistics, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, China, E-mail: jfolguinmartinez@gmail.com

Research ethics: Not applicable.
Informed consent: Not applicable.
Conflict of interest: The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Data availability: The author confirms that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Appendix

Figure: Interaction of clause-linking devices and TAM markers in precautioning purpose constructions with past temporal reference in the languages in the sample.

References

Abbott, Miriam. 1991. Macushi. In Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, 23–160. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Suche in Google Scholar

Ahland, Colleen. 2012. A grammar of Northern and Southern Gumuz. Oregon: University of Oregon PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Angelo, Denise & Eva Schultze-Berndt. 2016. Beware bambai − lest it be apprehensive. In Felicity Meakins & Carmel O’Shannessy (eds.), Loss and renewal: Australian languages since colonization, 255–296. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614518792-015Suche in Google Scholar

Bartholomew, Doris A. & Ralph Engel. 1987. Gramática Zoque. In Ralph Engel & Mary Engel (eds.), Diccionario Zoque de Francisco León, 329–416. Mexico: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Suche in Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth & Brian MacWhinney. 1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In Elizabeth Bates & Brian MacWhinney (eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing, 3–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Beam, Mary, Betty Cridland & Paul Rasha Angwo. 1963. Gwon this ki ’twam pa mo [Uduk New Testament]. Suda: Sudan Interior Mission.Suche in Google Scholar

Blake, Barry J. 1979. A Kalkatungu grammar. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Suche in Google Scholar

Broadwell, George Aaron. 2006. A Choctaw reference grammar. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Bruce, Les. 1984. The Alamblak language of Papua New Guinea (East Sepik). Canberra: Australian National University.Suche in Google Scholar

Campana, Mark. 1996. The conjunct order in Algonquian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 41. 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008413100016406.Suche in Google Scholar

Casad, Eugene. 1984. Cora. In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar vol. 4: Southern Uto-Aztecan grammatical sketches, 151–459. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Suche in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165815Suche in Google Scholar

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.71Suche in Google Scholar

Daniel, Michael & Nina Dobrushina. forthcoming. Apprehensives in East Caucasian. In Marine Vuillermet, Eva Schultze-Berndt & Martina Faller (eds.), Apprehensional constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective. Leipzig: Language Science Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Delfitto, Denis. 2020. Expletive negation. In Viviane Déprez & Maria Teresa Espinal (eds.), The Oxford handbook of negation, 255–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198830528.013.9Suche in Google Scholar

Dol, Philomena Hedwig. 1999. A grammar of Maybrat: A language of Bird’s Head, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Leiden: Leiden University PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Dorvlo, Kofi. 2008. A grammar of Logba (Ikpana). Utrecht: Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Genealogical language list. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Suche in Google Scholar

Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/loall.14Suche in Google Scholar

Early, Robert J. 1994. A grammar of Lewo, Vanuatu. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Eberhard, David M. 2009. Mamaindê grammar: A Northern Nambikwara language and its cultural context. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Elliott, Jennifer. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalization of reality. Linguistic Typology 4(1). 55–90.10.1515/lity.2000.4.1.55Suche in Google Scholar

Englebretson, Robert & Wambũi Mũringo Wa-Ngatho. 2015. A basic sketch grammar of Gĩkũyũ. Houston: Rice University.Suche in Google Scholar

Espinal, Maria Teresa. 1992. Expletive negation and logical absorption. The Linguistic Review 9(4). 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1992.9.4.333.Suche in Google Scholar

Estigarribia, Bruno. 2020. A grammar of Paraguayan Guarani. London: UCL Press.10.2307/j.ctv13xpscnSuche in Google Scholar

Foris, David P. 2000. A grammar of Sochiapan Chinantec. Dallas: SIL International and the University of Texas at Arlington.Suche in Google Scholar

Galvez Rubino, Carl Ralph. 1997. A reference grammar of Ilocano. Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Giacon, John. 2014. A grammar of Yuwaalaraay and Gamilaraay: A description of two New South Wales languages based on 160 years of records. Canberra: Australian National University PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Göksel, Asli & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish, a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203340769Suche in Google Scholar

Gravelle, Gloria J. 2010. A grammar of Moskona: An East Bird’s head language of West Papua, Indonesia. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Green, Rebecca. 1995. A grammar of Gurr-Goni. Canberra: Australian National University PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Grosh, Andrew & Sylvia Grosh. 2004. Grammar essentials for the Kaluli language. Unpublished manuscript.Suche in Google Scholar

Guerrero, Lilian. 2017. On purpose and causal adverbial clauses in Yaqui. International Journal of American Linguistics 83. 679–718. https://doi.org/10.1086/692976.Suche in Google Scholar

Hanson, Rebecca. 2010. A grammar of Yine (Piro). Melbourne: LaTrobe University doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Harvey, Mark. 1986. Ngoni Waray Amungal-Yang: The Waray language from Adelaide River. Canberra: Australian National University MA thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110884210Suche in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021.Suche in Google Scholar

Haude, Katharina. 2006. A grammar of Movima. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Haurholm-Larsen, Steffen. 2016. A grammar of Garifuna. Zürich: Universität Zürich PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Hayami-Allen, Rika. 2001. A descriptive study of the language of Ternate, the Northern Moluccas, Indonesia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey. 2005. A grammar of Tamashek (Tuareg of Mali). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110909586Suche in Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey. 2015a. A grammar of Togo Kan. Unpublished manuscript.Suche in Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey. 2015b. A grammar of Ben Tey (Dogon of Beni). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Suche in Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey. 2022. A grammar of Jenaama-Sorogaama of Djenné (Pondo zone): Mande/Bozo language of Mali. Unpublished manuscript.Suche in Google Scholar

Hellenthal, Anneke C. 2009. The morphology of adverbial clauses in Sheko. In Masangu Matondo, Fiona McLaughlin & Eric Potsdam (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 118–127. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Suche in Google Scholar

Hetterle, Katja. 2015. Adverbial clauses in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110409857Suche in Google Scholar

Hill, Jane H. 2005. A grammar of Cupeño. Berkeley: University of California Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Hosokawa, Komei. 1991. The Yawuru Language of West Kimberley: A meaning-based description. Canberra: Australian National University PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110895285Suche in Google Scholar

Jacques, Guillaume. 2021. A grammar of Japhug. Berlin: Language Science Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Jaggar, Phillip J. 2001. Hausa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/loall.7Suche in Google Scholar

Jary, Mark & Mikhail Kissine. 2016. When terminology matters: The imperative as a comparative concept. Linguistics 54. 119–148. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0039.Suche in Google Scholar

Jin, Yanwei & Jean-Pierre Koenig. 2021. A cross-linguistic study of expletive negation. Linguistic Typology 25(1). 39–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2053.Suche in Google Scholar

Johnson, Audrey F. 1988. A syntactic sketch of Jamiltepec Mixtec. In C. Henry Bradley & Barbara E. Hollenbach (eds.), Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages 1, 11–150. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Suche in Google Scholar

Kawachi, Kazuhiro. 2007. A grammar of Sidaama (Sidamo): A Cushitic language of Ethiopia. Buffalo: University of New York at Buffalo PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Keen, Sandra L. 1983. Yukulta. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Blake Barry (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages, vol. 3, 190–304. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Kenesei, István, Robert M. Vago & Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Khalilova, Zaira. 2009. A grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT.Suche in Google Scholar

Klumpp, Deloris A. 2019. A grammar of Piapoco. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Suche in Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110812428Suche in Google Scholar

Kuteva, Tania, Bas Aarts, Gergana Popova & Anvita Abbi. 2019. The grammar of ‘nonrealization’. Studies in Language 43. 850–895.10.1075/sl.18044.kutSuche in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Thomas. 1993. A grammar of modern Tamil. Puducherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.Suche in Google Scholar

Levy, Paulette. 1990. Totonaco de Papantla, Veracruz. México: Centro de Investigación para la Integración Social.Suche in Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520352858Suche in Google Scholar

Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1995. Apprehensional epistemics. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 293–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.32.12licSuche in Google Scholar

Lock, Arnold. 2011. Abau grammar. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: SIL-PNG Academic Publications.Suche in Google Scholar

Luk, Ellison. 2023. Clause linkage in Australian languages. A typological study. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

MacKay, Carolyn J. & Frank R. Trechsel. 2010. Tepehua de Pisaflores, Veracruz. México: Centro de Investigación para la Integración Social.Suche in Google Scholar

Mauri, Caterina, Alessandra Barotto & Simone Mattiola. 2023. Counterfactual conditionals: Linguistic variation in Italian and beyond. In Silvia Ballarè & Guglielmo Inglese (eds.), Sociolinguistic and typological perspectives on language variation, 155–195. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110781168-006Suche in Google Scholar

Mauri, Caterina & Andrea Sansò. 2012. The reality status of directives and its coding across languages. Language Sciences 34. 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.08.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Meng, Chenxi. 2018. A grammar of Tulil. Melbourne: LaTrobe University PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Merlan, Francesca C. 1994. A grammar of Wardaman: A language of the Northern territory of Australia. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110871371Suche in Google Scholar

Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in typological perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110197631Suche in Google Scholar

Miller, Mark T. 2007. A grammar of West Coast Bajau. Arlington: University of Texas at Arlington PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Miyaoka, Osahito. 2012. A grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik: An Eskimo language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110278576Suche in Google Scholar

Mushin, Ilana. 2012. A grammar of (Western) Garrwa. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614512417Suche in Google Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110320640Suche in Google Scholar

Nourzaei, Maryam, Carina Jahani, Erik Anonby & Abbas Ali Ahangar. 2015. Koroshi: A corpus-based grammatical description. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Suche in Google Scholar

Nuyts, Jan. 2015. Subjectivity: Between discourse and conceptualization. Journal of Pragmatics 86. 106–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.015.Suche in Google Scholar

Nuyts, Jan, Pieter Byloo & Janneke Diepeveene. 2010. On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case study of Dutch mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 16–34.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.012Suche in Google Scholar

Olawsky, Knut J. 2006. A grammar of Urarina. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110892932Suche in Google Scholar

Olguín Martínez, Jesús. 2023. Precedence clauses in the world’s languages: Negative markers need not be expletive. STUF-Language Typology and Universals 76. 587–634. https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2023-2018.Suche in Google Scholar

Olguín Martínez, Jesús. 2024a. The interaction of irrealis markers and blocking effects in counterfactual conditionals. Theoretical implications Linguistic Typology 29(2). 361–403.10.1515/lingty-2023-0095Suche in Google Scholar

Olguín Martínez, Jesús. 2024b. Semantically negative clause-linkage: ‘Let alone’ constructions, expletive negation, and theoretical implications. Linguistic Typology 28. 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2022-0066.Suche in Google Scholar

Olguín Martínez, Jesús. 2024c. The interaction of standard negation in clauses of substitution: A typological account. Folia Lingüística 58. 157–190. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2023-2044.Suche in Google Scholar

Olguín Martínez, Jesús. 2024d. ‘Until’ clauses and expletive negation in Huasteca Nahuatl. Studies in Language 48. 753–780. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.22064.olg.Suche in Google Scholar

Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Payne, Doris. 1985. Aspects of the grammar of Yagua: A typological perspective (Peru). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Rice, Keren. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110861822Suche in Google Scholar

Roberts, John. 1990. Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages. Journal of Linguistics 26. 363–401. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700014717.Suche in Google Scholar

Round, Erich R. & Greville G. Corbett. 2020. Comparability and measurement in typological science: The bright future for linguistics. Linguistic Typology 24. 489–525. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2060.Suche in Google Scholar

Salminen, Mikko. 2017. A grammar of Umbeyajts as spoken by the Ikojts people of San Dionisio del Mar, Oaxaca, Mexico. Cairns: James Cook University PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2009. A typology of purpose clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.88Suche in Google Scholar

Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A grammar of Mapuche. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Suche in Google Scholar

Smith-Dennis, Ellen. 2021. Don’t feel obligated, lest it be undesirable: The relationship between prohibitives and apprehensives in Papapana and beyond. Linguistic Typology 25. 413–459.10.1515/lingty-2020-2070Suche in Google Scholar

Smits, Helena J. 2017. A grammar of Lumun, a Kordofanian language of Sudan. Utrecht: LOT.Suche in Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-Min. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in Korean. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), The semantics of clause-linking: A cross-linguistic typology, 285–317. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199567225.003.0012Suche in Google Scholar

Sumbatova, Nina R. & Rasul O. Mutalov. 2003. A grammar of Icari Dargwa. Munich: Lincom.Suche in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12(1). 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2.Suche in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Terhart, Lena. 2024. A grammar of Paunaka. Berlin: Language Science Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra, Robert Longacre & Shin Hwang. 2007. Adverbial clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 22nd edn., Complex constructions, 237–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619434.005Suche in Google Scholar

Timberlake, Alan. 2007. Aspect, tense, mood. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 2: Complex constructions, 2nd edn., 280–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618437.005Suche in Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Valentine, J. Randolph. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in Ojibwe. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology, 193–217. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199567225.003.0008Suche in Google Scholar

Van den Berg, René & Robert L. Busenitz. 2012. A grammar of Balantak: A language of Eastern Sulawesi. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics International.Suche in Google Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2(1). 79–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79.Suche in Google Scholar

van Klinken, Catharina Lumien. 1999. A grammar of the Fehan Dialect of Tetun, an Austronesian language of West Timor. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Suche in Google Scholar

Van linden, An & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2011. Revisiting deontic modality and related categories: A conceptual map based on the study of English modal adjectives. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.031.Suche in Google Scholar

Van Olmen, Daniël. 2021. On order and prohibition. Studies in Language 45(3). 520–556. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19036.van.Suche in Google Scholar

Van Olmen, Daniël. 2024. Specialization and finiteness (a)symmetry in imperative negation: With a comparison to standard negation. Linguistic Typology 28. 205–252. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2022-0007.Suche in Google Scholar

Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2001. Subjective and objective modality. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 1505–1528. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(01)00029-7.Suche in Google Scholar

Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality. Problems in the deontic domain. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 1401–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2006. The role of mood marking in complex sentences: A case study of Australian languages. WORD 57. 195–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2006.11432563.Suche in Google Scholar

Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2010. Focus, mood and clause linkage in Umpithamu (Cape York Peninsula, Australia). In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics, 451–468. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.121.14verSuche in Google Scholar

Vuillermet, Marine. 2018. Grammatical fear morphemes in Ese Ejja: Making the case for a mor-phosemantic apprehensional domain. Studies in Language 42. 256–293. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.00010.vui.Suche in Google Scholar

Whitehead, Carl R. 2004. A reference grammar of Menya, an Angan language of Papua New Guinea. Manitoba: University of Manitoba PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Wolff, Phillip. 2007. Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology 136. 82–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.82.Suche in Google Scholar

Worku, Firew G. 2021. A grammar of Mursi: A Nilo-Saharan language of Ethiopia. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004449916Suche in Google Scholar

Xrakovskij, Viktor S. (ed.). 2001. Typology of imperative constructions. Munich: Lincom.Suche in Google Scholar

Yadav, Ramawatar. 1996. A reference grammar of Maithili. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110811698Suche in Google Scholar

Yip, Po-Ching & Don Rimmington. 2004. Chinese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2025-02-11

Accepted: 2025-11-30

Published Online: 2025-12-15

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2025-0050

Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel

adverbial clause; complex sentence; purpose clause; precaution

Creative Commons

BY 4.0