Band 52, Heft 1 -

This article is about different types of Subject–Verb inversion (nominal, pronominal, and complex inversion) in sentences introduced by ainsi ‘so, in this way’. We first make a distinction between four main interpretations: manner adverb ainsi , quotative ainsi , consecutive ainsi (expressing either an intentional or an unintentional consequence), and illustrative ainsi . On the basis of a corpus study, we show that nominal inversion often (but not always) combines with the manner interpretation, whereas the predominant function of ainsi + pronominal/complex inversion is to introduce an example or a consequence of the preceding discourse context. The data also contribute to the debate about the grammaticalization path of ainsi . Firstly, the unintentional consequence interpretation is argued to be a “bridging context” between manner and unintentional consequence. Secondly, given the preponderance of the illustrative interpretation, we argue that this under-researched interpretation be taken up in future diachronic and synchronic analyses of ainsi and its cross-linguistic counterparts.

Recent studies into the semantics of English gerunds have successfully uncovered meaning differences between nominal and verbal gerunds by adopting a referential perspective on their semantics. Referential research of gerundive nominalizations, however, still struggles with a number of issues, mainly centering around the position of verbal gerunds within the traditionally nominal domain of referentiality. This paper wishes to address these issues by establishing a multilayered model of referentiality which can be applied to both ordinary as well as less prototypical noun phrases. First of all, it disentangles the typically nominal feature of definiteness from the more flexible concept of specificity. Secondly, the model looks at the type of mental space in which the referent is accessed. Specific expressions are often associated with “actual” or realis spaces, whereas non-specific entities are typically linked to “virtual” or irrealis spaces. It is argued here, however, that deverbal nominalizations like gerunds realize specificity independently of the mental space the entity is located in. The multilayered model that is proposed is applied and integrated in a corpus-based analysis of Present-day English nominal and verbal gerunds. Mapping out the interactions between (in)definiteness, (non-)specificity and actuality/virtuality, it will be concluded, allows us to situate the various subtypes of nominal and verbal gerunds more accurately on the cline of functional nouniness.

This paper examines disjunctive clauses marked with o… o ‘either… or’ in Spanish with a view to demonstrating that, in contrast to conventional analyses, o… o -clauses are actually cosubordinate: o… o -clauses are [+dependent, ‒embedded], they generally share clausal operators and they often denote an episode or a sequence of events showing some sort of continuity in space as well as participants. To this end, this paper will describe subordinate and coordinate clauses in accordance with several tests and will go on to outline the properties of o… o -clauses, focusing in particular on their similarities and differences with respect to coordinate and subordinate clauses. Finally, it will describe why o… o -clauses would be better classified as examples of clausal cosubordination.

This study contributes to a better understanding of how constructional models can be applied to discourse-level phenomena, and constitute a valuable supplement to previous grammaticalization accounts of pragmatic markers. The case study that is presented concerns the recent development of the interpersonal epistemic stance construction in Spanish. The central argument is that the expanding use of sabes as a pragmatic marker can best be fully understood by taking into account the composite network of related expressions which Spanish speakers have at their disposal when performing a particular speech act. The diachronic analysis is documented with spoken corpus examples collected in recent decades, and is mainly informed by frequency data measuring the productivity, as well as formal properties of the construction and its instantiations.

Languages differ widely from one another in the extent to which they are transparent, i.e. obey one-to-one relationships between meaning and form. Transparency, in turn, is an important factor in the learnability of languages. This paper first sets out a framework for the study of transparency and subsequently studies cross-linguistic differences in transparency, using the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar as its point of departure. Transparent and non-transparent features of languages are systematically defined using the multi-level architecture of this model of language, representing them as mappings between and within levels. In applying this framework to a sample of 30 languages it is shown that the (non-)transparent features investigated can be ordered into an implicational transparency hierarchy, and that as a result the languages of the sample can be ranked in terms of their degrees of transparency as well. Finally, the consequences of these findings for the learnability of languages are discussed.

Azerbaijani, like many other languages, has a class of negative polarity items denoting minimal measures (along dimensions such as size, length, duration, value, weight etc.), called minimizers. This paper presents an overview of this group of expressions, compares them to minimizers in the western European languages, in particular English and Dutch, identifies the various domains in which these minimizers may be used, and discusses their distribution across polarity-sensitive contexts such as negation, conditional clauses, questions, etc. The distribution we found, on the basis of both corpus data and native speaker judgments, is very similar to that of minimizers in English or Dutch, especially when differences are factored out which are due to the fact that Azerbaijani has strict negative concord, whereas English and Dutch do not. To this end, we distinguish two types of minimizers for Azerbaijani, negated minimizers preceded by heç bir ‘not one’, and minimizers preceded by bir only.

This article presents a discourse approach to the case variation between the nominative and the partitive in Finnish copula complement adjectives. Using video recordings of spontaneous spoken Finnish, I show that the case marking of these adjectives reflects the discourse functions of demonstratives, which constitute the vast majority of copula subjects in the material. I also demonstrate that aspects of stance-taking in interaction are of relevance for the distribution of case in this construction. Based on the results of the present study, as well as on previous discussion in the literature, I analyse Finnish copulative constructions with partitive and nominative adjectives in terms of conversational patterns of subjectivity and intersubjectivity.