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.
Appendix
Proportions of initial and final adverbial clauses.
Initial pos. | Rel. freq | Final pos. | Rel freq | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
After | |||||
Diessel | 27 | 0.278 | 70 | 0.722 | 97 |
Hampe | 82 | 0.291 | 200 | 0.709 | 282 |
Before | |||||
Diessel | 6 | 0.069 | 81 | 0.931 | 87 |
Hampe | 105 | 0.198 | 425 | 0.802 | 530 |
Once | |||||
Diessel | 77 | 0.786 | 21 | 0.214 | 98 |
Hampe | 236 | 0.761 | 74 | 0.239 | 310 |
Until | |||||
Diessel | 5 | 0.051 | 94 | 0.949 | 99 |
Hampe | 41 | 0.106 | 346 | 0.897 | 387 |
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*).
Total number of true hits, including clauses in mid position.
After | Before | Once | Until | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Initial and final positions | 291 | 530 | 310 | 387 |
Mid position | 15 (5.05%) | 13 (2.39%) | 7 (2.2%) | 3 (0.8%) |
Total | 303 | 543 | 317 | 391 |
Discourse functions of constructions with before-clauses.
Sample size: 70 | Sample size: 105 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Initial | Rel freq | Final | Rel freq | Initial | Rel freq | Final | Rel freq | |
Expository | 5 | 0.071 | 18 | 0.257 | 7 | 0.067 | 30 | 0.286 |
Narrative | 16 | 0.229 | 28 | 0.400 | 21 | 0.200 | 45 | 0.429 |
Instructive | 15 | 0.214 | 15 | 0.214 | 19 | 0.181 | 18 | 0.171 |
Interactive | 15 | 0.214 | 8 | 0.114 | 27 | 0.257 | 11 | 0.105 |
Metalinguistic | 19 | 0.271 | 1 | 0.014 | 31 | 0.295 | 1 | 0.010 |
Total | 70 | 1.000 | 70 | 1.000 | 105 | 1.000 | 105 | 1.000 |
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.
Discourse functions of constructions with until-clauses.
Initial | Rel freq | Final | Rel freq | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Narrative | 9 | 0.129 | 25 | 0.357 |
Expository | 27 | 0.386 | 28 | 0.400 |
Instructive | 4 | 0.057 | 6 | 0.086 |
Interactive | 19 | 0.271 | 10 | 0.143 |
Polemical | 11 | 0.157 | 1 | 0.014 |
Total | 70 | 1.000 | 70 | 1.000 |
Chi-squared: 19.074, df=4, p=0.00076***, Cramer’s V=0.36911.
Markers of illocutionary force in constructions with before-clause.
Matrix feature | Initial | Final | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Future | 6 | 5.71% | 4 | 3.81% |
Modalized | 46 | 43.81% | 25 | 23.81% |
Non-declarative | 17 | 16.19% | 8 | 7.62% |
Sample size | 105 | 105 |
Chi-squared: 19.697, df=3, p=0.0002***, Cramer’s V=0.30626.
Person specification of subject NP in constructions with before-clause.
Matrix feature | Construction with initial adv clause | Construction with final adv clause | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1st prs | 33 | 31.43% | 29 | 27.62% |
2nd prs | 34 | 32.38% | 20 | 19.05% |
3rd prs | 38 | 36.19% | 56 | 53.33% |
Total | 105 | 105 |
Chi-squared: 7.3345, df=2, p=0.02555*, Cramer’s V=0.18689.
Person specification of subject NP in constructions with before-clause.
Feature of subord. clause | Construction with initial adv clause | Construction with final adv clause | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1st prs. | 57 | 54.29% | 34 | 32.38% |
2nd prs. | 32 | 30.48% | 27 | 25.71% |
3rd prs. | 16 | 15.24% | 44 | 41.90% |
Total | 105 | 105 |
Chi-squared: 19.3036, df=2, p=6.431–05***, Cramer’s V=0.30319.
Markers of illocutionary force clause of constructions with until-clauses.
Matrix feature | Initial | Final | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
modalized (incl. future) | 33 | 47.14% | 20 | 28.57% |
Non-declarative | 4 | 5.71% | 8 | 11.43% |
Sample size | 70 | 70 |
Chi-squared: 3.3399, df=1, p=0.0676, n.s., Cramer’s V=0.22668.
Polarity in constructions with until-clause.
Matrix feature | Initial | Final | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Strong neg. polarity | 49 | 70.00% | 28 | 40.00% |
Others | 21 | 30.00% | 42 | 60.00% |
Total | 70 | 100.00% | 70 | 100.00% |
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
©2015 by De Gruyter
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Do Constructions make a Difference? Introduction to a Special Issue of ZAA on Aspects of Construction Grammar
- Contrastive Collostructional Analysis: Causative Constructions in English and French
- Cognitive Sociolinguistic Aspects of Football Chants: The Role of Social and Physical Context in Usage-based Construction Grammar
- Syntax from and for Discourse: Adverbial Clauses as Item-Specific Constructions in Spontaneous Spoken English
- Why the Principle of No Synonymy is Overrated
- Book Reviews
- Sprachwissenschaft – Fremdsprachendidaktik: Neue Impulse
- English in Post-Revolutionary Iran: From Indigenization to Internationalization
- A Middle English Medical Remedy Book. Edited from Glasgow University Library MS Hunter 185
- English Historical Linguistics 2010
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Do Constructions make a Difference? Introduction to a Special Issue of ZAA on Aspects of Construction Grammar
- Contrastive Collostructional Analysis: Causative Constructions in English and French
- Cognitive Sociolinguistic Aspects of Football Chants: The Role of Social and Physical Context in Usage-based Construction Grammar
- Syntax from and for Discourse: Adverbial Clauses as Item-Specific Constructions in Spontaneous Spoken English
- Why the Principle of No Synonymy is Overrated
- Book Reviews
- Sprachwissenschaft – Fremdsprachendidaktik: Neue Impulse
- English in Post-Revolutionary Iran: From Indigenization to Internationalization
- A Middle English Medical Remedy Book. Edited from Glasgow University Library MS Hunter 185
- English Historical Linguistics 2010