Startseite Syntax from and for Discourse: Adverbial Clauses as Item-Specific Constructions in Spontaneous Spoken English
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Syntax from and for Discourse: Adverbial Clauses as Item-Specific Constructions in Spontaneous Spoken English

  • Beate Hampe EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 8. Oktober 2015
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

This paper seeks to contribute to a usage- and construction-based approach to the complex sentence. Studying temporal adverbial clauses with before, after, until and once in spontaneous spoken English, it diverges from previous work [Diessel, Holger (2008). “The Iconicity of Sequence. A Multifactorial Analysis of Clause Order in Complex Sentences.” Cognitive Linguistics 19.3, 465–490.] by focussing especially on the functions and usage characteristics of configurations that are highly marked, i.e. on complex sentences in which the respective adverbial clause precedes its matrix and expresses an event-sequence in a non-iconic ordering (before, until). The paper is inspired by two longstanding claims from functionalist syntax and discourse analysis, viz. that discourse should be the starting point for any study of syntax and that initial adverbial clauses present constructions in their own right. It reports the first results of a corpus study (based on the BNC files with spontaneous spoken language) which substantiate the latter claim and also discusses some of the wider implications of these results for construction-based models of the complex sentence.


Corresponding author: Prof. Dr. Beate Hampe, Linguistics Department, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany, e-mail:

Appendix

Table 1

Proportions of initial and final adverbial clauses.

Initial pos.Rel. freqFinal pos.Rel freqTotal
After
 Diessel270.278700.72297
 Hampe820.2912000.709282
Before
 Diessel60.069810.93187
 Hampe1050.1984250.802530
Once
 Diessel770.786210.21498
 Hampe2360.761740.239310
Until
 Diessel50.051940.94999
 Hampe410.1063460.897387

Binary logistic regression (R-squared=0.362, C=0.799, model significance: LR=559.24, df=7, p<0.001): significant differences only in the relative frequencies of initial vs. final before-clauses (p=0.0248*).

Table 2

Total number of true hits, including clauses in mid position.

AfterBeforeOnceUntil
Initial and final positions291530310387
Mid position15 (5.05%)13 (2.39%)7 (2.2%)3 (0.8%)
Total303543317391
Table 3

Discourse functions of constructions with before-clauses.

Sample size: 70Sample size: 105
InitialRel freqFinalRel freqInitialRel freqFinalRel freq
Expository50.071180.25770.067300.286
Narrative160.229280.400210.200450.429
Instructive150.214150.214190.181180.171
Interactive150.21480.114270.257110.105
Metalinguistic190.27110.014310.29510.010
Total701.000701.0001051.0001051.000

Sample size 70: Chi-squared: 28.951, df=4, p=7.999e-06***, Cramer’s V=0.45474. Sample size 105: Chi-squared: 57.913, df=4, p=7.957e-12***, Cramer’s V=0.52515.

Table 4

Discourse functions of constructions with until-clauses.

InitialRel freqFinalRel freq
Narrative90.129250.357
Expository270.386280.400
Instructive40.05760.086
Interactive190.271100.143
Polemical110.15710.014
Total701.000701.000

Chi-squared: 19.074, df=4, p=0.00076***, Cramer’s V=0.36911.

Table 5

Markers of illocutionary force in constructions with before-clause.

Matrix featureInitialFinal
Future65.71%43.81%
Modalized4643.81%2523.81%
Non-declarative1716.19%87.62%
Sample size105105

Chi-squared: 19.697, df=3, p=0.0002***, Cramer’s V=0.30626.

Table 6

Person specification of subject NP in constructions with before-clause.

Matrix featureConstruction with initial adv clauseConstruction with final adv clause
1st prs3331.43%2927.62%
2nd prs3432.38%2019.05%
3rd prs3836.19%5653.33%
Total105105

Chi-squared: 7.3345, df=2, p=0.02555*, Cramer’s V=0.18689.

Table 7

Person specification of subject NP in constructions with before-clause.

Feature of subord. clauseConstruction with initial adv clauseConstruction with final adv clause
1st prs.5754.29%3432.38%
2nd prs.3230.48%2725.71%
3rd prs.1615.24%4441.90%
Total105105

Chi-squared: 19.3036, df=2, p=6.431–05***, Cramer’s V=0.30319.

Table 8

Markers of illocutionary force clause of constructions with until-clauses.

Matrix featureInitialFinal
modalized (incl. future)3347.14%2028.57%
Non-declarative45.71%811.43%
Sample size7070

Chi-squared: 3.3399, df=1, p=0.0676, n.s., Cramer’s V=0.22668.

Table 9

Polarity in constructions with until-clause.

Matrix featureInitialFinal
Strong neg. polarity4970.00%2840.00%
Others2130.00%4260.00%
Total70100.00%70100.00%

Chi-squared: 12.7273, df=1, p=0.0004***, Cramer’s V=0.30151.

Works Cited

Bybee, Joan (2006). “From usage to Grammar. The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language 82.4, 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Suche in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan (2013). “Usage-Based Theories and Exemplar-Based Respresentations of Constructions.” Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 49–69.Suche in Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert (2006). “Particle Placement and the Case for ‘Allostructions’.” Constructions. Special Volume 1–7: Constructions all over: Case Studies and Theoretical Implications. <www.constructions-journal.com>.Suche in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger (2005). “Competing Motivations for the Ordering of Main and Adverbial Clauses.” Linguistics 43, 449–470.10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.449Suche in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger (2008). “The Iconicity of Sequence. A Multifactorial Analysis of Clause Order in Complex Sentences.” Cognitive Linguistics 19.3 (Special Issue: Usage-based approaches to language processing and representation. Ed. by Arne Zeschel), 465–490.10.1515/COGL.2008.018Suche in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger (2015). “Usage-Based Construction Grammar.” Ewa Dabrowska und Dagmar Divjak, eds. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, 296–321.10.1515/9783110292022-015Suche in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger (in press). “Frequency and Lexical Specificity in Grammar.” Heike Behrens and Stefan Pfänder, eds. Experience Counts. Frequency Effects in Language Acquisition, Language Change, and Language Processing. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. <http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~x4diho/Frequency%20and%20lexical%20specificity%20in%20grammar.pdf> (September 1, 2015).Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick and Fernando Ferreira-Junior (2009). “Constructions and their Acquisitions. Islands and the Distinctiveness of their Occupancy.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7, 187–220.10.1075/arcl.7.08ellSuche in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles and C. Baker (2010). “A Frames Approach to Semantic Analysis.” Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 313–340.Suche in Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. (1993). Grammar in Interaction. Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554278Suche in Google Scholar

Givon, Talmy (1990). Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction. II vols. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.50Suche in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions. A Construction-Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago et al.: The University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. (2002). “Surface Generalizations: An Alternative to Alternations.” Cognitive Linguistics 13, 327–356.10.1515/cogl.2002.022Suche in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalizations in Language. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. (2014). “Corpus and Quantitative Methods.” John R. Taylor and Jeanette Littlemore, eds. The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London and New York: Bloomsbury, 279–300.10.5040/9781472593689.ch-016Suche in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan and Anatol Stefanowitsch (2004). “Extending Collostructional Analysis. A corpus-Based Perspective on Alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9, 97–129.10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06griSuche in Google Scholar

Haiman, John (1985). Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.6Suche in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin (2008). “Frequency vs. Iconicity in Explaining Grammatical Asymmetries.” Cognitive Linguistics 19.1, 1–33.10.1515/COG.2008.001Suche in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Herbst, Thomas (2010). “Valency Constructions and Clause Constructions or How, if at All, Valency Grammarians might Sneeze the Foam off the Cappuccino.” Hans-Jörg Schmid and Susanne Handl, eds. Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage Patterns. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 225–256.10.1515/9783110216035.225Suche in Google Scholar

Herbst, Thomas (2014). “Idiosyncracies and Generalizations: Argument Structure, Semantic Roles and the Valency Realisation Principle.” Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, GCLA 2, 253–289.10.1515/gcla-2014-0015Suche in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas (2013). “Abstract Phrasal and Clausal Constructions.” Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford, et al.: Oxford University Press, 307–328.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0017Suche in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Desriptive Application. 2 Vols. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. (2000). “A Dynamic Usage-Based Model.” Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer, eds. Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1–63.Suche in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. (2008). “Subordination in Cognitive Grammar.” Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, ed. Asymmetric Events. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 137–149.10.1075/celcr.11.10lanSuche in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian (1988). “Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage.” John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson, eds. Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 181–225.10.1075/tsl.18.09lehSuche in Google Scholar

McCarthy, Michael (1998). “When does Sentence Grammar become Discourse Grammar.” Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 69–89.Suche in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A (1985). “Grammar and Written Discourse.” Initial vs. final purpose clauses in English. Text 5 (Special Issue: Quantified Studies in Discourse, ed. by Talmy Givon), 55–84.10.1515/text.1.1985.5.1-2.55Suche in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. (1987). “‘Subordination’ and Narrative event Structure.” Russell Tomlin, ed. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 435–454.10.1075/tsl.11.19thoSuche in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. and Robert E. Longacre (1985). “Adverbial Clauses.” Timothy Shopen, ed. Language Typology and Syntactic Description. II vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 171–234.Suche in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2008a). “The Grammaticalization of NP of NP Patterns.” Alexander Bergs and Gabriele Diewald, eds. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 23–45.10.1515/9783110211757.23Suche in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2008b). “‘All that he Endeavoured to Prove was…’: On the Emergence of Grammatical Constructions in Dialogual Contexts.” Ruth Kempson and Robin Cooper, eds. Language Change and Evolution. London: Kings College Publications, 143–177.Suche in Google Scholar

Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (2004). “Initial and Final Position for Adverbial Clauses in English: The Constructional Basis of the Discursive and Syntactic Differences.” Linguistics 42.4, 819–853.10.1515/ling.2004.027Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-10-8
Published in Print: 2015-10-1

©2015 by De Gruyter

Heruntergeladen am 12.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/zaa-2015-0027/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen