1.2ContrastingConceptionsofEnglishGrammar
Thequestionastowhatagrammarbookshouldaimtobeisaninterestingoneand worthconsiderationattheoutsetasitprovidessomecontextforthedescriptiveand theoreticalworkinthefollowingchapters.Grammars,i.e.grammarbooks,are writtenbyasurprisinglywiderangeofpeople:somearewrittenbylinguistsand grammarians(Payne 2011),othersbyliteratureprofessors(Fish 2011),othersby journalists(Truss 2004),creativewriters(Hale 2013)andevenrelationshipexperts (Strausetal. 2014).Quitepossibly,ifapersonweretorandomlysamplefromtheir locallibraryadozenbooksthathadintheirtitle ‘EnglishGrammar ’,theywould likely findavariedcollectionofbooks,manyofwhichhavequitedifferentgoals andapproachesdespitetheirsharedtitles.Someofthesebookswouldbewrittenas pedagogicalgrammars,perhapsforESLlearnerstoassistindevelopingsecond languagecompetence.AnEnglishgrammarforsuchauthorswouldbeabookthat describesasetofrulesand,perhaps,usagepatternsinsuchawaythattheycanbe understoodbylearnersandassistlanguageacquisition.Abookwithsuchapurpose oftenputsotherconsiderationsaside.Forexample,itdoesnotmattermuchwhether adistinctionsuchas ‘simplesubject’ versus ‘completesubject’ offeredtoESL studentsisatruedistinctioninthepsychologicalrepresentationofEnglishgrammar inthemindofspeakersofthelanguage.Itmayormaynotbeanartefactofthe writer ’sanalysis,butthebook’saimtofacilitatelearningisservedregardless. Grammarbookswrittenbyjournalists,editorsandbusinessprofessionalstendto takeasimilarapproachtotheirconceptionofEnglishgrammar.Theyarelittle interestedin,andonesuspectsinsomecasesunawareof,distinctionsbetween grammaticalrulesthatarepropertiesofthesystemandstylisticrecommendations associatedwiththebelleslettresliterarytraditionsandeducationalpracticesofthe English-speakingpeoplesdevelopedoverthepasthundredyearsorso.Insuch grammarbooks,oneislikelytoseeaseamlessmovementbetweendescriptionsof subject–verbagreementinEnglish,whichreflectsapropertyofthelanguage,and other ‘rules’ ofthekindthatoneshouldnotuse ‘ifIwas’ inconditionalclausesbut rather ‘IfIwere’.Thelatteraremoreunacknowledgedprescriptionsbasedon stylisticpreferencesratherthanpropertiesofthelinguisticsystem.
SuchEnglishgrammarsasthosejustdescribed,giventheirgoals,areperhaps finetohavelittleconcernforwhetherthegrammarintheirgrammarbooksare cognitivelyrepresentedinthewaypresentedbyspeakersofthelanguage,and/or whetherlinguistsandcognitivescientistswouldagreewiththedescriptionsbeing offered.Itiseasyenoughtopickonsuchgrammarsasalinguist,evenifallowances aremadefortheirgoals:theworstofthemareinmanywayssimilartothevery well-sellinggenreofself-helpbooksbasedonalayunderstandingofworkthathas beendoneinthe fieldofpsychology.Readerscan findintheworkofeminent linguistGeoffreyPullumoverhiscareermanyhumorousandinsightfulcritiqueson thepopulartraditionofgrammarwriting,pointingoutthatmanywhoclaimtobe writinganEnglishgrammarareinexplicablyunawareofthe fieldoflinguisticsin whichgrammaristheobjectofstudy.ThelinguistStevenPinker ’s(2015)recent
book TheSenseofStyle isalsoanenjoyableworkthatattemptstoinfusesome linguisticsintothepopulartraditionofgrammarandstyleguides.Despitethe humourfoundinsuchwork,someveryseriouspointsaremadebybothPinker (2015)andPullum(2009, 2014),whonotethatsuchpopularcommercialgrammar booksoftenhavesolittleinternalconsistency,orsuchegregiousmistakesintheir analysis,thatthesetextscouldnotpossiblybeeffectiveontheirowntermsofbeing usefulforpedagogyandlanguagedevelopment.
Yet,justbecauselinguistsmightagreethatabookongrammarshouldbebased onthe fieldofresearchdedicatedtoitsstudy,thisdoesnotmeanthatgrammars writtenbylinguistsnecessarilyshareasingleapproachtoEnglishgrammar.What theytendtosharehoweverisusuallyfoundintheopeningofgrammarswrittenby linguists,anditisavariationofthisstatement:theaimofthisbookistodescribe Englishgrammarinascienti ficway.Alternatively,thegoalisframedinsimilar termstowhateverylinguisticsstudentistoldinLinguistics101:thatthestudyof grammaristhestudyofwhatspeakersknowabouttheirlanguage.Theproblemis ofcoursethatdespitebeingthemoststudiedlanguageinthescienceoflinguistics, the fieldhasyettoattainacompletepictureofwhataspeakerknowsabouttheir language.Somelinguistsquestionifthisisevenpossible(Everett 2012)giventhe well-knownaxiom ‘nogrammarisevercomplete’,whichmeanssomethinglikeno finalanalysisofalanguageinallitsdetailscaneverbeproduced.Furthermore, eventhoughlinguistsagreethatgrammarshouldbeanattempttodescribewhatis inthemindofspeakersobjectively,thereissigni ficantdisagreementastowhattype ofcognitivesystemlanguageisandwhatrolegrammarplaysinit.Pinker(2015) andPullum(2014)mayagreethatpopulargrammarbookscanbeimproved throughthescienceoflinguistics,buttheydisagreeonwhatthescienceoflinguisticsis,particularlygrammar,atafundamentallevel.Pinker(2015)believesthat languageinthemind,whichisanotherwayofexpressingtheideaofwhataspeaker knowsabouttheirlanguage,isaUniversalGrammar,aninnatecomputational systemofbinarybranchinggrammaticalpatterns.Pullum(2014)believesthatthis isfalse,andthereisnoinnatesystemofgrammar,soitcannotbetheobjectofstudy inlinguistics.
Oneapproachtoascienti ficdescriptionofEnglishgrammaristopursue whateverconstitutesthemostelegantmodellingofthesystem.Thisisthekindof scientificdescriptionoftenfoundinphysics,andtosomeextentinbiology,wherea modelisdevelopedtoexplainthebehaviourofthenaturalphenomenonbeing studiedwithoutnecessarilyclaimingthatthemodelistherealityofthatphenomenon(Brooks 2008).Forexample,itisdebatedwhethertheuniversehas embeddedinitthemathematicallawsbywhichitcanbedescribed,orwhether thesemathematicallawsareratherartefactsthataregood(perhapsunreasonably goodasthesayinggoes)atmodellinghowtheuniverseworks(Ellenberg 2014). Eitherway,amathematicalmodelthatdescribestheuniversewiththemostprecisionandaccuracy,andaccountsforthewidestrangeofphenomenainthesimplestmanner,isconsideredthemostelegantmodelofasystemand,formost,is sufficientforthescience.Inlinguisticstherefore,thegoalofagrammarbookcanbe toproducethemostelegantdescriptionofthegrammaticalsystem,anditneednot
makeacorollaryclaimthateveryrule,patternorfeaturedescribedinthemodel existsinthebrainasitisarticulatedinthebook.Hence,whataspeakerknows abouttheirlanguagemaybecapturedaccuratelybyamodel,butneednotbe equivalenttoitinanimportantsense.Agrammarthatissurelyacandidateforone ofthemostelegantdescriptionsoftheEnglishlanguageisHuddlestonand Pullum’s(2002) CambridgeGrammaroftheEnglishLanguage.Thisgrammarof EnglishhasbecomeacornerstoneofthestudyofEnglishgrammarandwilllikely besoforcominggenerations.Itwaswrittenbymanyofthemosttalentedlinguists ofthepasthalfcentury.Initone findselegant,oftenbinaryrulestodescribethe patternsofEnglishgrammar,anditemploysarangeofnuancedsyntacticteststo disambiguatethegrammaticalpropertiesthatmakeupthesystem.
Toconsideranexample,HuddlestonandPullum(2002)strictlyseparateform andfunctioninallareasofEnglishgrammar.Thisisaveryelegantmove,andas wewillseeinmoredepthChap. 2,itallowsthelinguiststodefineallcombined clausesinEnglishaccordingpurelytotheirformalfeatures(e.g.tense/aspect morphology, finitesubjects,presenceofsubordinators,etc.),regardlessoftheir participationinanyofthreegeneralfunctions:modifi er,complementoradjunct. However,forthepurposesofthisintroductorychapter,itisperhapseasierto illustratewhatismeantbyanelegantmodel,andhowthisapproachdiffersfrom otherpossibleapproachestoEnglishgrammar,ifwelookatafeaturelesscomplicatedthanaclause,suchthepartofspeech ‘Noun’.ForHuddlestonandPullum (2002),theformalcategory ‘noun’ canbecategoricallydefinedasanywordthat behavessyntacticallyasanoun.Thishaswiderexplanatorypowerthanadefinition ofanounsemanticallyas ‘aperson,placeorthing’,orafunctionaldefinitionthat proposesnounsaretopics,subjects,objectsandsoforth.Suchadefinitionthat emphasizesonlysyntacticbehaviourseemstoaccountforallmembersofthenoun categoryinEnglish,makingotheraspectsofanydefinitiontechnicallyirrelevant. Onecannothelpbutbesympathetictotheideathat ‘person,placeorthing’ isfar lesselegantthanwhatisproposedbyHuddlestonandPullum(2002) astheypoint out, combustion isaprocess,certainlynotathing(seealso,Pullum 2009).Yet,one canstillask:isthenouncategoryofEnglishgrammardivorcedinthemindof Englishspeakersfromsemanticandfunctionaldefinitions?Cognitivegrammarian Langacker(2008:106)wouldsayno.Hesuggeststheabovedefinitionofanounis psychologicallyimplausiblesincegrammaticalcategoriesandsyntacticstructure emergefromuseovertime,andallusehasmeaning.Ifalanguagehasagrammaticalcategoryofnouns,thenthiscategoryexistsbecauseitdevelopedasasetof abstractgeneralizationsacrossasetofwordsconstruedbythemindtoshare similaritiesintheirsemanticanddiscourse-pragmaticbehaviour.Langacker(2008) arguesthatadescriptionofEnglishgrammar,ifitistohavecognitivevaliditywith respecttowhataspeakerknowsabouttheirlanguage,musttakeintoaccountthat thereisacognitiveprototypefornounsinwhichnounsareindeed ‘things’,evenif thisdoesnotapplytoallmembersoftheset.SomemightsaythatLangacker ’s (2008)approachisalesselegantmodelofthesystemthanHuddlestonand Pullum’s(2002);however,itmaybeamorecognitivelyrealdescriptionofwhatan Englishspeakerknowsaboutthegrammaroftheirlanguage.
Anotherapproachthatlinguistshavetakenistofocusondescribinghowlanguageisusedbyspeakers,basedonalargecollectionofattestedlanguagedatain machinereadableform,knownasacorpus.Thecorpus-driven PatternGrammarof English (HunstonandFrancis 2000)isonesuchexampleofanextensivedescription ofEnglishgrammarbasedonusagepatternsfoundinacorpus,andanothersignificantworkisCarterandMcCarthy’s(2006) CambridgeGrammarofEnglish:A ComprehensiveGuide. Boththesegrammarshaveastheirgoalthedescriptionof howlanguageisactuallyusedbyspeakersviaacorpus-drivenmethodology,rather thantoimposeatheoryonthedatathatmightconsistofanalysesinheritedfrom traditionalgrammarsortheoreticallinguistics.Itisundoubtedlyascienti fic approach,objectiveandempirical,andbyrelyingalmostentirelyoncorpusdata, theyhaveauthenticdataratherthanexamplescreatedadhocbythegrammarians themselvestoillustrateapointofgrammar,ortakenfromclassicliteraturewhich wasonceapopulartrendingrammarbooks(Winchester 2004).HunstonandFrancis (2000)derivehundreds(perhapsthousandsdependingonhowonecounts)of recurrentpatternsthatappearinthelanguageuseofEnglishspeakers,andtheir grammarbookprovidesextensivelistsofthesepatterns.Fromrecurrentpatterns, generalizationscanbemadeabouttheclausesystem.Forexample,thepattern Nthat indicatesanounimmediatelyfollowedbya that clause(HunstonandFrancis 2000, p.33).Onemightaskwhy Nthat isnotjustcalledarelativeclause.Thisisbecause HunstonandFrancis(2000,p.45)believethatonlythepatternitselfisobjective. Theyargueevensomethingasseeminglysimpleasthesentence shewalkedfour miles canbeanalyzedbysomelinguistsassubject–verb–objectandbyothersas subject–verb–adjunct,sotheseabstractcategoriesarebestputasideinfavourof empiricalpatternsinadescriptionofEnglishgrammar.SinceEnglishspeakersuse thesepatternsallthetime,onecanarguethatspeakersmustinsomesenseknow thesegrammaticalpatterns.Perhapstheseunderlyingpatternsaresomehowmemorizedasconstructionsthatincludeamixtureofwords,grammaticalrulesandthe discourseusestowhichtheyareput(Aitchison 2001;Sinclair 1991).Indeed,thisis thecentralproposalofaschooloflinguisticsknownasConstructionGrammar (Goldberg 2006;Hilpert 2014),whicharguesthatrecurrentusagepatternsare cognitivelyrepresentedasabstractconstructionsinthemindofspeakers,and grammaticalrulesaresimplygeneralizationsfromtheseconstructions.
SystematicFunctionalLinguisticsaddsanextradimensiontothecomplexityof describingEnglishgrammar,namelythesocialandtextualdimension(Halliday 1985).TheEnglishclausesystemisdescribedinSystemicFunctionalLinguistics asatripartitemodelmadeupofthreemetafunctions.Thesethreemetafunctionsare: ideational,interpersonalandtextual.Briefly,andwithoutdoingthemodelmuch justice,theideationalfunctionoftheclauseistopackageaproposition,the interpersonalfunctionisthespeechactoftheclause,andthetextualfunctionisto createandmaintaincoherenceinitsdiscoursecontext.Itseemsthatthesecategories fordescribingtheEnglishclausearecertainlytrueinthesensethatonecanapply themsystematicallytotheEnglishclausesinnaturallyoccurringdata.Theyindeed accomplishallthesethreemetafunctions.Whatisunclearishowmuchofthis descriptioninSystemicFunctionalGrammarisinthemindofspeakers,orrather
representsawayforlinguiststoexamineEnglishclausesandcommunicatehow theyfunctionacrossdifferentdomains,i.e.anartefactofthescience.Sincespeakers useclausestogetpeopletobehaveincertainways,andtomaintaindiscourse coherence,onemightholdtheviewthatspeakershaveacognitivegrammarin whichthethreemetafunctionalcategoriesaretiedtotheirmentalrepresentationof theclausesystem.Anotherview,thatwhichHuddleston(1984, 1988a, b)would perhapsagreewith,isthattheideational,interpersonal,textualdimensionsof grammararereallyonlythemetalanguageforthisparticularschooloflinguistics andnotpropertiesofthesystemofEnglishgrammaritself.
Thisbookcannotsettlealloftheissuesthathavebeenraisedintheaboveas theygototheheartoflinguisticsasascience.Butitisimportanttomakeclearhow thecurrentworkapproachesitstaskasabookonanaspectofEnglishgrammar. First,sinceitiswrittenbyalinguist,itsharestheaimsofallothergrammarswritten bylinguists:topresentapictureofgrammarthatisbasedonempiricalevidence, supportedbythescientifi cmethod,andthatattemptstoultimatelygainsome insightintowhataspeakerknowsabouttheirlanguage.However,thechoicethat hasbeenmadeinthisbookistotrytodescribeandexplaincertainaspectsofclause combinationfrommoreofacognitivestandpoint,andwhensensibletolink propertiesofthegrammartotheirpotentialfunctionandrepresentationincognition.Inthissense,itiscloserinspirittotheapproachesabovesuchasCognitive Grammar(Langacker 2008)andConstructionGrammar(Goldberg 2003, 2013).It iscorpus-basedratherthancorpus-driven,soitdoesnotgoasfarasHunstonand Francis(2000)andwillusefairlywell-knowngrammaticaltermsthroughout;nor, ontheotherhandwillitreachtheeleganceoftheworkofHuddlestonandPullum (2002)asthebookismorecomfortablewitha ‘fuzzy’ grammarthenthey.Thisis notinanywayaclaimthattheotherapproachesarelessvalid,andinfactthework oftheseothergrammarsaredrawnonextensivelyinthisbookastheyofferawealth ofdetailsandexcellentanalysesofEnglishgrammar.Thecognitiveorientationto grammartakenbythisbookislargelybecausetheprincipalworkinlinguisticsthat hasmotivateditisthatofGivón(1979, 2001, 2002, 2012)andhis cognitive-functional AdaptiveApproachtoGrammar.Thisapproachtogrammar arguesthatthegrammaticalpatternsthatlinguistsshouldaimtodescribearethe correlatesofpsycholinguisticprocesses.Thus,forGivón(2001),thegrammatical propertiesoftheclausesystemrepresentasystemofcuesfortheprocessingof languagebythemind.Givenitsimportancetotherestofthebook,theremainderof thechapterunpacksthisclaimandoffersacomprehensivereviewoftheAdaptive ApproachtoGrammar.
1.3TheAdaptiveApproachtoGrammar
TheAdaptiveApproachtoGrammarisatheoryofgrammarthathasbeenextensively,andprimarily,developedbyGivón(1979, 2012, 2015).Severalaspectsof Englishclausegrammarthatwillbedescribedandexploredinthisbookhave
1.3TheAdaptiveApproachtoGrammar9
theoreticalsignificanceinthecontextoftheAdaptiveApproachtoGrammar,and severalofthehypothesesthataretestedinthefollowingchaptersinmultiple corporaaretakenfromitstheoreticalframework.Inhisbodyofworkoutliningthe AdaptiveApproach,Givón(1979, 2009, 2012, 2015)hasregularlymadetwo claimsthatwillbeofrecurrentinterestinthisbook.Toputtheseclaimssuccinctly:
1:Grammarisaconventionalizedsystemforsignallingthecoherencerelationsbetween multiplediscoursepropositions.
2:Thereexistsageneraltendencyinlanguageforaconsistentdiachroniclinguisticdriftin clausecombination.Thislinguisticdriftmanifestsincombinedclausesdevelopingalonga hierarchicaltrajectoryovertimefrom ‘looser ’ constructions(e.g.paratacticcoordination)to ‘tighter ’ combinedclauses(e.g.embeddednon-finiteclauses).
TheAdaptiveApproachisafunctional-cognitivemodelofgrammar,ratherthan aformal(i.e.generative)approachinwhichgrammaticalstructuresreflectinnate cognitiveproperties(Chomsky 2016).TheAdaptiveApproachproposesthat grammaticalconstructions,i.e.theirformalpropertiessuchaswhethertheyare finiteornon-finite,embedded,lacksubjectsandsoforth,systematicallyreflecttheir functionsinmanagingdiscoursecoherence.ThepropertiesofaclauseinEnglish, oranylanguageforthatmatter,arenotonlyfeaturesthatconnectthewordswithin thatclause;theyaresignalsofhowtheclause fitsintoanongoingstretchof discourseandhowthepropositionwhichthatclausepackagesistobeprocessedin relationtoitssurroundingpropositions.
Whilethetwoclaimsabovecanbeexploredseparatelyandframedasdiachronic andsynchronicmodelsofgrammar,akeyideaoftheAdaptiveApproachisthat theyareinfactinseparable.IncontrasttoDeSaussure’s(1959)earlydistinctionin linguisticsthatthesynchronicsystemcanbemodelledindependentlyofhistorical principles,theAdaptiveApproachseesgrammar,atanypointintimethatone examinesit,asinseparablefromongoinghistoricalchange(Givón 2015).One cannotfullyexplainthepropertiesofagrammaticalformanditsfunctionswithout exploringthediachronicprinciplesthatunderpinit.Thetheoryconceivesof grammarastheresultofhistoricalprocessesinwhichgrammaticalpatternsare adaptedtotheirfunctionofcodingmulti-propositionalcoherence;forexample,a highlycohesivepropositioninEnglishispackagedinhighlyintegratedembedded clauses,becauseofhistoricalprocessesthatfavourisomorphismbetweenformand function.Thisconceptionofgrammarasasystemofconventionalizedcodingfor discourse-pragmaticcoherenceisacoreconceptthroughoutthebookandunpacked inarangeofstudiesfromavarietyofangles.
Givón’s(2012,p.13)conceptionofgrammarintheAdaptiveApproachisonein whichagrammaticalconstruction,suchasanEnglishclausetype,isprimarilyshaped byitsdiscourse-pragmaticfunctions.Further,theprimarydiscourse-pragmatic functionofanygrammaticalconstructionistomanagemulti-propositionaldiscourse coherenceinaparticularway.Thus,grammarisacognitivesystemthatoperatesasan internalized ‘code’ forsignallingthediscourserelationshipsbetweenpropositionsin communication,anditadaptsovertimetofulfilthisfunctionasefficientlyaspossible, withingeneralcognitiveconstraints(Givón 2012,p.37).
AlanguagesuchasEnglishhasasetofdifferentgrammaticalpackagesfor combiningrelatedpropositionsindiscourse.ThisistheEnglishclausesystem,or morespeci ficallythesetofEnglishcombinedclauses,thatcontainscategoriessuch astherelativeclause,coordinateclause,infinitivalclauseandsoforth.Theclauses haveacombinationofspeci ficandsharedgrammaticalpropertieswhichdefine them,andthesepropertiesarenon-arbitrarilyrelatedtotheirprototypicalcommunicativefunction.Arelativeclause,forexample, ‘looks’ likeitdoesbecauseit hasgrammaticalfeaturesthatactaspsycholinguisticprocessingcuesforits inter-clausalcoherencefunction.Thisismorethanthetrivialobservationthatforms haveaprototypicalfunctioninthegrammar,suchasthecommondescriptionofthe functionofrelativeclausesasmodifyinganounthatone findsinanybookon Englishgrammar.Rather,thegrammaticalpropertiesofaclausearemeaningfulin thattheycanbecorrelatedwithquitespeci ficdiscourse-pragmaticaccomplishments.Toillustrate,considerareducedrelativeclausemadeupofapost-nominal non-finitepresentparticiple.Thisclausecontainsprogressiveaspectualmorphology becauseitsignalstemporalcontinuityandsimultaneityoftheprocessintherelative clausewiththesurroundingdiscourse.Thelackof fi nitenessinsuchclausesalso tendstosignalaboundedtemporaleventwithinalargerprocesssignalledbythe mainclausewithinwhichitembeds.Further,unlikea finiterelativeclause,the subjectofsuchaclausecanbeelidedbecauseitsfunctionistosignalparticipant continuityinthediscourse.Thus,thegrammaticalfeaturesaremeaningfuland motivatedbyfunction.
Whatisdeemphasised,thoughnotignored,isthetraditionaldefinitionof grammarasasystemofsyntacticrulesgoverningtheconfigurationofwords, morphemesandconstituents,whichallowsthepropositioninaclausetobe grammaticallyacceptableintheEnglishlanguage.Rather,Givón(2012)arguesthat thegrammaticalpropertiesofaclausearemuchmoreaboutdiscourse-pragmatic connectionsthanaboutpropositionalsemanticsandgrammaticalacceptability.In otherwords,agrammaticalfeaturederivesitsprimaryvalueviaitsrelationstothe surroundingpropositions.Onecanbetterunderstandthismodelofgrammarby analogytotheEnglishpronoun.Apronounisawordformwhichlacks lexical-semanticcontentunlesstheformisassignedavalueinrelationtoother referentsinthediscoursecontext.Thevalueofthepronounistherefore discourse-pragmatic:itsinterpretationisaccomplished pragmatically dependingon the discourse context.Toexplainthemeaningofapronounindiscourse,onemust considertheanaphoric(orcataphoric)nountowhichitrefersindiscourseinorder togiveitvalue.Thisthenistrueofgrammaringeneral:ithasamulti-propositional coherencefunction.Letususeonceagaintheexampleofaspectualmorphologyin non-finitepresentparticipleclauses.Inaclauselike studentswerestudying grammar, thismorphologysignalsanincompleteactioninanisolatedproposition (i.e.apropositionalsemanticfunction).However,inthecombinedclause the teachersawthestudentsstudying grammar,theparticiplemorphologysignalsa relationshipoftemporalcohesionwiththepropositionofthepriorclause(i.e.a discourse-pragmaticcoherencefunction).
Therearearangeofdiscourse-pragmaticcoherencefunctionsthatclause grammaraccomplishesinEnglish.Someofthesemaybeassociatedwithspeci fic constructions,whileothersmaygeneralizeacrossmultipleconstructions.They includereferenttracking,topiccontinuity,thematicandtemporalsequenceor simultaneity,eventandstateintegration,andtheinformationstatusofthepropositionbeingcommunicatedsuchaswhetheritisbackgroundinformationornot (Givón 2001,pp.32–36).Manyofthesearediscussedindetailinfollowing chapters,asthecombinedclausesystemofEnglishisexplored.Essentially,however,thesecoherencerelationsareachievedthroughdifferentconfi gurationsof threebasicelementswhichtogetherconstitutegrammar:morphology,wordorder andintonation.Howthesethreeelementsarecombinedreflectspeakers’ and interlocutors’ cognitiveawarenessofparticipantsalience,temporalcontexts,event sequences,thegoals(e.g.speechacts)ofthelanguageuser,andevenstylistic aspectsofcoherencemanagement(e.g.thepre-posingofadverbialclauses).Givón (1993,p.25)combinesthesemultiplefunctionsofgrammarunderthegeneral conceptof communicativeintent andclaimsthat “itisthecommunicativecoherence requirementsofmulti-propositionaldiscourse… thatmotivatespecifi cgrammatical packaging” (Givón 2009,p.25).
Letusconsidersomeexamplesin(1)adaptedfromGivón(2001),startingfrom basicpropositionstomorecomplexconfi gurations. (1)(a)MarlahitHenry.
(b)HenrywashitbyMarla.
(c)MarlahitHenrytoletoutheraggression.
(d)HenrysawMarlahittinghim.
(e)MarlahitHenryandsodidJane.
In(1a)and(1b),Givón(2001)arguesthepropositionalsemanticsremainrelativelystable,withbothhaving Mary astheagent, hit astheactionand Henry asthe patient.However,thevariationinwordorderofthetwoclauses,themorphological changesintheirverbalelements,andtheprepositionmarkingof(1b),arecorrelates ofdifferentdiscourse-pragmaticfunctions.Thepropositionin(1a)ispackagedasan informative,declarative,activeclauseandemphasizes Marla’sactionbymakingher thegrammaticalsubjectandthereforetopicoftheproposition.In(1b)however,the samelexemesarepackagedasapassiveclause,whichdemotestheagentfrom subjecttoanadjunctconstituent,refocusingtheproposition’stopicas Henry by placingthisparticipantinsubjectposition.Thefocusisalsoshiftedonto Henry’s stateviamorphologicalchangesintheverbalelement,whichmakes(1b)moreofa stative-adjectivalpropositionthantheactive-transitiveof(1a).Givón’s(2001)point isthatthedifferencesbetween(1a)and(1b)reflectmorethananarbitrarymapping offormandfunctionintheactive>passivetransformation,andratherthedifferences indicatethatpassivesarediscourse-pragmaticallymotivatedgrammaticalconstructionsusedforchanginginformationfocus,suppressingagentsandtopicalizing referents.Theconstructionitselfismeaningful(Goldberg 2003),anditwasto accomplishdiscourse-pragmaticfunctionslikethoseoutlinedabovethatthepassive
clausedevelopeditsgrammaticalpropertiesovertime(seeGivón 1979,p.85for multiplecross-linguisticexamplesofpassiveclausedevelopmentdiachronically).
Theclausesillustratedin(1c),(1d)and(1e)areclauseswhichcombinemultiple propositions,andsinceclausecombinationisthefocusofthisbook,theydeservea littlemoretimethanpassiveclauses.Thegrammaticalfeatureswhichdistinguish themasaninfi nitival,participleandcoordinateclausearealsosignalsofdifferences intheirinter-clausalpropositionalcoherence.Forexample,intheconstruction(1c) boththemainclauseandtheinfi nitivalclausehavethesamesubject Marla,yetthe cohesionofparticipantsacrosstheclausesisnotexplicit.Itisaccomplishedviaan abstractgrammaticalrelationcommonlyreferredtoassubjectcontrol,inwhichthe subjectofthemainclauseislogicallyunderstoodtobethesubjectoftheinfinitival. Thelackofagrammaticalsubjectpositionininfinitivalclausesis,accordingtothe AdaptiveApproach,areflectionofthembeingclausepackagesforhighlycohesive propositionswithatendencyforparticipantcontinuity.Infinitivalclausesalsolack verbalinflectionfortense–aspect–mood(TAM)andnumber,andinconsequence thetemporal-aspectualframeoftheprecedingclausehasscopeovertheinfinitival. Thus,in(1c),theproposition[Marla] letoutheraggression occursatthesametime as MarlahitHenry inthemainclause.Thesemorphologicalproperties,coupled withtheembeddingoftheconstituent,alsosignalthatthetwoactionsofthe combinedpropositionsareessentiallynon-distinctevents:theinfi nitivalclause’s lettingoutofaggression isnotaseparateoccurrencefromthe hit eventinthemain clause.
In(1d),thegrammaticalpropertiesoftheparticipleclausealsocodespeci fic inter-clausalcoherencefunctions,butthesearesomewhatdifferentfromthose codedin(1c).Thisclausecombinationpresentstwopropositionswhichonecould paraphraseinacoordinateparatacticconstructionas HenrysawMarla/shewas hittinghim.Whilethesepropositionsarecertainlymoredistincteventsthanthosein theinfinitivalclause(1c),theyarestillhighlycohesiveeventssincethepropositions sharetheirparticipantsandtemporalframe.Therefore,ratherthanpackagethese propositionsinaparatacticconstruction,thepresentparticipleclauseoffersamore efficientconstructionforthemulti-propositionalcoherencerelation.Theparticiple clause’slackofperson,numberandtense,anditsmaintenanceofthecontinuous aspectmorphological-ing,aregrammaticalfeatureswhichindicatebothtemporal continuity(hitting issimultaneouswith seeing)andeventincorporation(hitting and seeing areaunifiedoccurrence).Participantcontinuityismaintainedintheconstructionbyhaving Marla functionasbothobjectofthemainclauseandimplied subjectofthesubordinateparticipleclause.Also,thehierarchicalconstituencylevel ofsubordinationsignalstheinformationoftheconstituentisbackgroundtothe mainclauseproposition.
Finally,considerthecoordinateclausein(1e).Twodistincteventsarepresented withneitherofthepropositionsbeingascohesiveasthosein(1d)or(1c).In(1e) thepropositionshavedifferentparticipantscompletingseparateactions.The increasedindependenceofthepropositionsin(1e)correlateswiththembeing packagedinsyntacticallyindependentclausesratherthaninhierarchicallysubordinatedclausesaswiththepreviousexamples.However,thesepropositionsarestill
cohesiveandshareseveralcoherencerelationsincludingtheparticipant Henry and theaction hit.Thus,theyarepackagedascoordinatedindependentclausesrather thancompletelyseparatediscourseunitssuchasindividualsentences.Theparticipantcohesionismanagedbywordorderinversionandtheconnector so inthe secondclause,whiletheactioncontinuityissignalledbythepro-verb did.
Notethatifonelooksbackfromthecoordinateclause(1e)throughtothe infinitivalof(1c),thebeginningsofahierarchyofclausecombinationemerge.The argumentthatthisisafundamentalpropertyoftheEnglishclausesystemisthe focusofthenextchapter,andtooffersupportforitspsychologicalrealityispartof theaimofthisbookthroughout.Fornow,theobservationtobemadeinthe preliminaryexamplesaboveisthatclausesareeithermoreorlessgrammatically integratedconstructionsandthisreflectswhethertheyareprototypicallymoreor lesscohesivepropositions.AsGivón(1995,p.343)putsit: “thegrammarofclause combininginconnecteddiscourse,markingvaryingdegreesofcross-clausalsyntacticdependency,isnothingbutthesystematicreflectionofthedegreetowhich twoeventsorstatesarejointlyframed”.Inotherwords,grammaticalhierarchyisa reflectionoftheinter-clausalcohesivenessofdiscoursepropositions.
Considernowanextendedstretchofdiscourse,ratherthanisolatedclauses,such assampleoftextin(2)fromGivón(2009,p.25).
(2) Multi-propositionaldiscoursecoherenceandgrammaticalrelations
(a)Eventually the policeconcludedthat, (b)havingbeen driven insane
(c) bythe director ’s lewdpropositioning, (d) the dancer shot himwith a gun.
Eachoftheclausesin(2)canbeunderstoodasanatomicsemanticunitwhere thegrammaticalfeaturesoftheclausecodetheindividualpropositionwithinit.In (2a),thewordorderandtensecombinetosignalthat thepolice atapointpriorto thisclause’sarticulationformeda conclusion.However,andthisistheimportant point,oncethestretchofdiscourseisunderstoodasamulti-propositionalunit,the grammaticalcode(broadlythoseelementsmarkedinbold)arelessaboutcoding atomicsemanticpropositionsthantheyareaboutcodingtherelationsbetween them.Indeed,Givón(1993,p.26)statesthattheAdaptiveApproachconsidersthat the “bulkofthesyntacticcode” isusedtomanagemulti-propositionaldiscourse coherenceratherthanpropositionalsemantics.Wordorderandpasttensemorphologyin(2a)isnotprimarilyforsignallingthat thepolice atapointpriortothis clause’sarticulationformeda conclusion,butforsituatingthispropositionas temporallyanteriorandsuperordinateinrelationtothesubsequentdiscourse.
Theclausein(2a)isnotfollowedimmediatelybythepropositionmostcohesive withit;namelywhatthepoliceactuallyconcluded.Thisisnotarticulateduntil(2d). Arangeofgrammaticalcuessignalthattheproposition(2a)ismoredirectly cohesivewith(2d),ratherthanequallycohesivewiththeimmediatelyfollowing clauses(2b)and(2c).Theseincludethepresenceofthecomplementizer that andan intonationcontourresetapproximatedbythecommaimmediatelyafter.Whatthese 1.3TheAdaptiveApproachtoGrammar13
propertiessignalisthatacomplementclauseisgoingtobeproduced,butsome backgroundpropositionsaretooccur first.Thebackgroundinformationstatusof (2b)isreinforcedbythefactthattheclauselacksagrammaticalsubjectora completeverbalinflection,havingtheformofapresent(perfect)participleclause. Thesepropertiessignalthatthelogicalsubjectofthe(2b)clauseiscohesivewith thegrammaticalsubjectoftheclausein(2d), thedancer.Further,thetemporal contextofboth(2b) beinginsane and(2c) lewdpropositioning isautomatically cohesivewiththeeventin(2d),onceagainduetotheverbalmorphologyofthe clauseconstructionsused.Whenareader/interlocutorreaches(2d),theyknowthat thisisthepropositionmostcohesivewith(2a)duetotheSOVwordorderandfully finiteverbalelement,whichsignalthisistheexpectedcomplementoftheinitial propositionanditsimmediatesyntacticdependent.Notealsothatthesyntactic dependencyrelationsoftheclausesinthisdiscourseunitarecorrelatedwiththe discourse-pragmaticdependenciesofthedifferentpropositions.Toillustrate,(2c)is asyntacticdependentof(2b),(2b)adependentof(2d),and(2d)adependentof (2a).Intermsoftheircoherencerelations,thepropositionof(2d)ishighlycohesive with(2a)andhighlyinformative;(2c)isanincompletepropositiondependenton (2b)tobemeaningful;andboth(2b)and(2c)arepropositionsdependenton(2d) foracoherentinterpretationsincetheyonlyprovidethecausefortheeventin(2d).
Toconclude,theAdaptiveApproachtoGrammar(Givón 2012)isthecentral theorythatthisbookwillhavereferencetothroughout.Thetheoryhasclause combinationatitscoreandithasthereforeimportantimplicationsforunderstanding theEnglishclausesystem.Beingacognitive-functionaltheoryoflinguistics, grammaticaldescriptionsthatarebasedonthisframeworkaimtodescribehow grammarisrepresentedinthemindandhowitinteractswithotherlinguisticand non-linguisticdomains.Althoughanimportantframeworkforthebook,thisisnot tosaythattheAdaptiveApproachistheonlytheorydrawnuponinthisbook,nor thatitisaccepteduncritically.Indeed,muchofthecombinedclausegrammar exploredanddescribedinthisbookisnottheorydependent.Atseveralpointsin thisbooktheproposaloftheAdaptiveApproachistestedagainstcompetingtheoriesinfalsifiableresearchdesigns.Nevertheless,asGivón(2012,p.48)himself states,eventhoughthisconceptionofclausegrammarmayturnoutto “likelybe onlypartiallyaccurate… thispartialaccuracyisanecessarystepinallscience”.Itis inthisspiritthatthecurrentbookinvestigatestheEnglishclausesystemwithinthe contextoftheAdaptiveApproachtoGrammar.
References
Aarts,Bas.2007. Syntacticgradience:thenatureofgrammaticalindeterminacy.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress. Aitchison,Jean.2001. Languagechange:progressordecay?.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Baker,Paul.2010. Sociolinguisticsandcorpuslinguistics.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversity Press.
Biber,Douglas,StigJohansson,GeoffreyLeech,SusanConrad,andEdwardFinegan.1999. LongmangrammarofspokenandwrittenEnglish.London:Longman. Brooks,Michael.2008. 13ThingsThatDon’tMakeSense.London:RandomHouseInc. Bybee,Joan.2010. Language,usageandcognition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Carter,Ronald,andMichaelMcCarthy.2006. CambridgegrammarofEnglish:acomprehensive guide;spokenandwrittenEnglishgrammarandusage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Chomsky,Noam.2016.MinimalComputationandtheArchitectureofLanguage. Chinese SemioticStudies 12(1):13–24.
DeSaussure,Ferdinand.1959. CourseinGeneralLinguistics.NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary. Ellenberg,Jordan.2014. Hownottobewrong:Thepowerofmathematicalthinking.NewYork: Penguin.
Everett,Daniel.2012.WhatdoesPirahã grammarhavetoteachusabouthumanlanguageandthe mind? WileyInterdisciplinaryReviews:CognitiveScience 3(6):555–563. Fish,Stanley.2011. Howtowriteasentence.NewYork:HarperCollins. Givón,Talmy.1979. Onunderstandinggrammar.NewYork:AcademicPress.
Givón,Talmy.1995. Functionalismandgrammar.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Givón,Talmy.1993. Englishgrammar:Afunctionbasedintroduction.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Givón,Talmy.2001. Syntax:anintroduction,vol.1.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Givón,Talmy.2002. Bio-linguistics:theSantaBarbaralectures.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Givón,Talmy.2009. Thegenesisofsyntacticcomplexity:Diachrony,ontogeny,neuro-cognition, evolution.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Givón,Talmy.2012.TheAdaptiveApproachtogrammar.In TheOxfordhandbookoflinguistic analysis,ed.BerndHeine,andHeikoNarrog,27–51.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Givón,Talmy.2015. Thediachronyofgrammar.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Goldberg,Adele.2003.Constructions:anewtheoreticalapproachtolanguage. Trendsin CognitiveSciences 7(5):219–224.
Goldberg,Adele.2006. Constructionsatwork:Thenatureofgeneralizationinlanguage.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.
Goldberg,Adele.2013.Argumentstructureconstructionsversuslexicalrulesorderivationalverb templates. Mind&Language 28(4):435–465.
Hale,Constance.2013. Sinandsyntax:Howtocraftwickedgoodprose.NewYork:ThreeRivers Press.
Halliday,M.A.K.1985. Introductiontofunctionalgrammar.London:EdwardArnold.
Halliday,M.A.K.2002. Ongrammar: The collectedworksofMAKHalliday.London: Continuum.
Halliday,M.A.K.,andRuqaiyaHasan.1976. CohesioninEnglish.London:Longman. Hilpert,Martin.2014. ConstructiongrammaranditsapplicationtoEnglish.Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversityPress.
Huddleston,Rodney.1984. IntroductiontotheGrammarofEnglish.CambridgeUniversityPress. Huddleston,Rodney.1988a.Constituency,multi-functionalityandgrammaticalizationin Halliday’sFunctionalGrammar. JournalofLinguistics 24(1):137–174.
Huddleston,Rodney.1988b. Englishgrammar:anoutline.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Huddleston,Rodney,andGeoffreyPullum.2002. TheCambridgegrammaroftheEnglish language.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Hunston,Susan,andGillFrancis.2000. PatternGrammar:Acorpus-drivenapproachtothe lexicalgrammarofEnglish.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins. Langacker,Ronald.2008. Cognitivegrammar:Abasicintroduction.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Mann,William,andSandraThompson.1988.Rhetoricalstructuretheory:Towardafunctional theoryoftextorganization. Text-InterdisciplinaryJournalfortheStudyofDiscourse 8(3): 243–281.
Meyer,Charles.2002. Englishcorpuslinguistics:Anintroduction.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Payne,Thomas.2011. UnderstandingEnglishgrammar:Alinguisticintroduction.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.
Pinker,Steven.2015. Thesenseofstyle:Thethinkingperson’sguidetowritinginthe21stcentury. NewYork:Penguin.
Pullum,Geoffrey.2009.LexicalcategorizationinEnglishdictionariesandtraditionalgrammars. ZeitschriftfürAnglistikundAmerikanistik 57(3):255–273. Pullum,Geoffrey.2014.FearandloathingoftheEnglishpassive. Language&Communication 37:60–74.
Quirk,Randolph,SidneyGreenbaum,GeoffreyLeech,andJanSvartik.1985. Acomprehensive grammaroftheEnglishlanguage.London:Longman. Sinclair,John.1991. Corpus,Concordance,Collocation.Oxford:OUP. Sinclair,John.1990. CollinsCOBUILDEnglishgrammar.London:Collins. Straus,Jane,LesterKaufman,andTomStern.2014. Thebluebookofgrammarandpunctuation: Aneasy-to-useguidewithclearrules,real-worldexamples,andreproduciblequizzes.London: JohnWiley&Sons. Taboada,Maite.2004. Buildingcoherenceandcohesion:Task-orienteddialogueinEnglishand Spanish.Amsterdam:Benjamins. Truss,Lynne.2004. Eats,shoots&leaves:Thezerotoleranceapproachtopunctuation.London: Penguin. Winchester,Simon.2004. Themeaningofeverything:ThestoryoftheOxfordEnglishDictionary Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Chapter2 ClauseCombinationinEnglish
2.1Introduction
Asmentionedinthepreviouschapter,mostlanguageuseinEnglishorotherwise, doesnotconsistofisolatedpropositions.Humancommunicationisnotasequence ofindependent,unrelatedclausesmadeupofsimplesubjectsfollowedbysimple predicates.This,ofcourse,haslongbeennoted,despiteacertainbiasremainingin linguisticsforanalysestobefocusedonwhathappensinternallywithinaclause ratherthanacrossclausesandlargerspansofdiscourse(Halliday 1965;Morrisand Hirst 1991).Thepertinentpoint,however,isthatsincehumancommunicationis almostalwaysasequenceofcoherentlyconnectedpropositions,clausecombination isnaturallyacentralfeatureoflanguage.ThisisacknowledgedintheAdaptive ApproachtoGrammar(Givón 2002),buteveninschoolsoflinguisticsfundamentallyopposedtothetenetsoffunctional-cognitivelinguistics,ithasbeenargued thatclausalrecursionistheonlyuniquefeatureofhumancommunicationand thereforethecorecomponentofaninnatelanguagefaculty(Chomsky 2007).This itselfisquiteastrongclaim,rejectedbyotherlinguists(Everett 2012),andisnot reallyheldtointhecurrentbook,butitdoesdemonstratetheimportanceofclause combinationincontemporarylinguisticsregardlessoftheschooltowhichone belongs.1
Inappliedlinguistics,itiswellestablishedthattheknowledgeoftheformsand functionsofdifferentcombinedclausesisoneofthemorecomplexaspectsof understandingEnglishgrammarforESLstudents(Sjolie 2006).Englishclause structuretendstobecomemorecomplicatedinsubordination;forexample,the SVOorderofthelanguagecanswitchtoVSOinsubordinateclausessuchasin I wouldhavesaidsomething,hadIbeenthere.Furthermore,insecondlanguage research,ithasbeenfoundthattheacquisitionofsubjectrelativeclausestendsto precedeotherrelativizationstrategies,likelybecausethestructureisanalogousto
1Aversionofthischapterwas firstpublishedinGreen(2012).
© SpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.2017
C.Green, PatternsandDevelopmentintheEnglishClauseSystem, DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2881-6_2
anSVOmainclause(O’Gradyetal. 2003).Appliedworkdirectedatmappingthe educationaldevelopmentofnativespeakershassimilarlyshownthattheknowledge ofthepatternsofclausecombinationisimportantfordevelopingcommunicative competenceappropriatefordifferentgenresandregisters(Myhill 2009).AsBiber etal.(2004)demonstratesthepatternsofclausegrammarvarysystematicallyacross differentwrittenandspokengenresandregisters,andevenwithinspecificsubcategoriesofagenre,sobothnativeandnon-nativespeakingstudentsneedtolearn this.
Giventhattheclausesystemissuchanimportantobjectofstudy,itmustalsobe animportantenterprisetodescribethepropertiesofclausecombinationinEnglish grammarascompletelyandaccuratelyaspossible.Yet,manygrammarsofEnglish, whetherwrittenfornativespeakersorsecondlanguagelearners,lackanyspecial emphasisontherelationshipbetweenclausesinthesystem,andwhatmakesthema unifiedsystemsetofmoresimilarormoredissimilarconstructions.Furthercomplicatingmattersiswhatwasnotedinthepreviouschapter,namelythatlinguists andgrammariansdonotshareawidelyaccepteddescriptionoftheEnglishclause system.Thischapterreviewsinmoredepthsomeofthesedisagreements,which existonthingsasfundamentalasthenumberofclausetypes,whattheclauses shouldbecalled,howtheyshouldbedefined,andeventheexistenceofsuch commonlyacceptedclausetypessuchastheEnglishadverbialclause.
Thechapteraimstohighlightsomeofthedifficultiesindescribingtheclause systemthathavepreventedwidespreadacceptanceofanysinglemodelofthe Englishclausesystem.Todoso,itwillcompareandcontrasttheclausesystems presentedinsomeofthemostwidelyreferencedgrammarsoftheEnglishlanguage currentlyinuse.Theseinclude: TheLongmanGrammarofSpokenandWritten English (Biberetal. 1999), TheCambridgeGrammaroftheEnglishLanguage (HuddlestonandPullum 2002), TheCollinsCobuildEnglishGrammar (Sinclair 1990)and TheComprehensiveGrammaroftheEnglishLanguage (Quirketal. 1985).Thesegrammarscanbeconsideredsomeofthemostimportantdescriptions ofclausecombinationinEnglishlanguagestudyinthattheyarethemostusedand mostcitedinEnglishlinguistics;theyarethe ‘bestsellers’ andtheweightyreferencetomesininstitutionsandofficeseverywhere.Oncethesegrammarshavebeen describedandcompared,thechapterdevelopsasynthesizedmodeloftheclause systemandorganizesthissystemasahierarchyofconstructions.Thenotionofa clausehierarchyislargelyabsent,oratleastunderspeci fied,inmanyofthemajor referencegrammarsofEnglish,andsothechapter(andindeedthebookingeneral) hopestocontributetoitsacceptanceasfundamentalpropertyoftheclausesystem. Theclausesystemisorganizedmuchmoreaccordingtoahierarchyofdifferent levelsofclauseintegrationthancanbemeaningfullycapturedbyonlythebinary categoriesofsubordinationandcoordination(Payne 2011;Givón 2001).
Tobegin,theabovereferencegrammarscanbedividedintotwocontrasting,and difficulttoreconcile,approachestotheEnglishclausesystem.Oneapproachto describingwhataspeakerknowsabouttheirlanguageistodescribeEnglishclause grammarusinggrammatical form (i.e.whatitlookslike)asastartingpoint,while theotheristotakegrammatical function (i.e.whatitdoes)tobetheprimary
indicatorofaclausecategory.Thisvariationinthestartingpointoftheanalysisis partlywhyawidelyacceptedmodeloftheEnglishclausesystemhaseluded grammarians,linguistsandstudents.TwoofthemajorEnglishgrammarsthatstart theirdescriptionofEnglishgrammarthroughfunctionalcategorizationarethe corpus-based CollinsCobuildEnglishGrammar (Sinclair 1990)and The ComprehensiveGrammaroftheEnglishLanguage (Quirketal. 1985).Anoverviewofthesefunction-firstdescriptionsofEnglishclausecombinationisnow given.
2.2Function- firstDescriptionsoftheEnglish ClauseSystem
2.2.1TheCollinsCobuildEnglishGrammar
TheCollinsCobuildEnglishGrammar(Sinclair 1990)identifiesitselfasa “GrammarofFunctions”,whichitdefinesas “thepatternsoflanguageandthe thingsyoucandowiththem” (p.iv).Itisoneofthe firstcorpus-basedgrammarsin whichentirelyauthenticdataisused,believingthatthere “isnojusti ficationfor inventingexamples” (p.vii).InitsanalysisoftheclausesystemofEnglish,it beginswiththetraditionaldistinctionbetweentwoclausecombinationmethods: coordinationandsubordination,withacorollarybinarydistinctionbetweencoordinateandsubordinateconjunctions.Coordinationisdefinedasthecombinationof independentclauses,whilesubordinationisdefinedasaclausethatisdependenton another.Coordinatingconjunctions,unlikemostotherdescriptivegrammars,area ratherextensivesetinthe CollinsCobuild (Sinclair 1990).Theyinclude and,but, nor,or,yet,then,so,aswellasthecombinations, andalso,andyet,andthen,and so.Thegrammardescribesonetypeofcoordinateclause,andthreetypesofsubordinateclauses:adverbial,relativeandreportedclauses.Becausethesearefunctionalclassi fications,clauseswithdifferentformsmaynonethelessbethesametype ofclauseinthismodelofgrammar.Forexample,alltheaboveclausescanbeeither finiteornon-fi niteandretaintheirprimaryclasscategory.Anadverbialclauseof purposemaybeeither ‘Ireadcontemporary fiction torelaxafterlectures’ or ‘I oftenreadVenusinFurs sothatIcanrelaxafterlectures’.TheCollinsCobuild doesnotethatthereareform-functioncorrespondences,andthatonefunctiontends tobefulfilledbyoneform;forexample,noungroupstendtobesubjectsandtopics. However,withclausecombination,thisone-to-onecorrespondencedoesnotseem tobemaintained.
Letusgothroughthethreetypesofsubordinateclausesindividually.Oneofthe threesubordinateclausesisidenti fiedasthe ‘reportedclause’,whichcanhavea grammaticalformbeginningwith that andbe fi nite,asin ‘shesaid thatshewas eatingherdinner ’,oritmaybeginwithanon-finiteinfi nitive, ‘shesaid toeatyour
dinner ’.Botharereportedclausesbecausetheyfunctionascomplementtoa speci ficverbofsayingorthinkingandreporttherelevantstatementorthought.
Asecondtypeofclauseistherelativeclause,whichinthe CollinsCobuild (Sinclair 1990)maybeanon-finiteform, ‘thegirl readingthebook’,orhavea fi nite structure,suchas ‘thegirl whoisreadingthebook’.Relativeclausesarefurther subcategorizedintoadjectivalfunctions,thosewhichpost-modifyanounphraseas inthepreviousexamples,ornominal,asin ‘thatthelecturecontinuesthrough lunch isaproblem’.Adjectivalrelativesareeitherdefining,asabove,or non-de finingwhenplacedinparentheticalcommas: ‘Isuspectthatlinguists, who I’msuremeanwell,havemanyinterpersonalproblems’ .
The fi nalsubordinateclausetypeinthisgrammaristheadverbialclause.Eight subtypesofadverbialclausesaredescribed:(1)Time,(2)Condition,(3)Purpose, (4)Reason,(5)Result,(6)Concessive,(7)Place,(8)Manner.Thesearedefined semantically,thoughthegrammarnotesthattypicallytheadverbialclauseisformallyassociatedwithaclausethatbeginsafteracommaandcontainsasubordinator oradverb.Thesubtypesofadverbialclausesarealsotypicallyassociatedwithaset ofconnectorsthatsignaltheirfunctioninrelationtothemainclause,suchasin ‘students finishexamsquickly, when/after/beforetheyeat’ (adverbialoftime). Althoughthisparticularexampleis finiteinitsverbalelementandhasagrammatical subjectposition,giventhegeneralfunctionalapproachofthe CollinsCobuild (Sinclair 1990)anadverbialclausecanalsobeanynon-finiteformaslongasit fits intothesemanticclassi ficationsabove.Forexample, ‘students finishexamsquickly togetoutofclassearly’ isanadverbialofpurpose,despitebeinganon-fi nite infinitivalform.Itisalsoworthnotingthatsincethetypesofadverbialclauses describedbythe CollinsCobuild arefunctional-semantictypes,somemayhave exactlythesameform,yethaveadifferentclassification.Forexample, ‘thestudent studiedhard sohereceivedapassinggrade’ maybeanadverbialclauseofpurpose inonecontextofusewiththecommunicativeintentbeingonthereasonwhyhewas studyinghard,while ‘thestudentstudiedhard sohereceivedapassinggrade’ would beanadverbialclauseofresultifthecommunicativeintentwasontheoutcome.
TheclausegrammarofEnglish,asdescribedinthe CollinsCobuild and reviewedabove,mightbesummarizedinthefollowingmanner: CollinsCobuildEnglishGrammar(Sinclair 1990)
Therearefourcentralclausetypes.TheseFUNCTIONALcategoriescanbe fi nite ornon-fi nite:
1.Coordinate
2.Adverbialclauses
3.Relativeclauses
4.Reportedclauses
Thesefourclausefunctionsaredividedintotwocombinationmethods:coordinationandsubordination.When finite(andinsomecasesofnon-finitesubordination), theseclausesaremarkedbyexplicitcoordinateandsubordinateconjunctions:
2.2Function-firstDescriptionsoftheEnglishClauseSystem21
1.Coordinationismarkedbyseveralcoordinators:and,but,nor,or,yet,then,so. Therearealsomulti-wordcoordinators:andyet,andthen,andso
2.Subordinationismarkedbyseveralsubordinators:when,while,that,which,so, because.Therearealsomulti-wordsubordinators:sothat,afterwhich,inorder to,whenever.
Subordinateclauseshavethreetypes,either fi niteornon-finite:Adverbial,Relative andReported.
1.Adverbial:Thereareeightkinds:
1.Time,2.Condition,3.Purpose,4.Reason,5.Result,6.Concessive,7.Place, 8.Manner
2.Relativeclauses:Therearetwokinds,eachwithtwosubcategories:
1.Adjectival:
1 1 De fining
1 2 Non-defining
2.2.Nominal:
2 1.(Fused)relatives
2 2. Wh-clauses
3.Reportedclauses:therearetwokindswhicharespecifi edaccordingtoformand usedprototypicallyasindirectspeechoraspredicativeverbalcomplements:
1.Thatclauses
2.To-in finitivalclauses
Insummary,whatweseeinthe CollinsCobuild (Sinclair 1990)isamodelof EnglishgrammarthatusesthefunctionsofEnglishclausesasthecentralorganizing principleofthesystem.Thegrammarmakesnoclaimthatthisistheorganizing principlewhencognitivelyprocessingandproducingEnglishclausesindiscourse; however,thereisanimplicationfromthewaytheyhaveorganizedtheirdescription oftheclausesystemthatinthenativeEnglishspeaker ’smind,functionisthehigher ordercategoryinwhicharangeofformscanexist.Thebenefitofsuchadescription isthatitexplainsratherneatlywhyanouncanbeeasilymodifiedbya fi niteclause justaswellasbyanon-fi niteclausein,forexample, ‘thebook thatwasbeingread’ and ‘thebook beingread’.Theseareinterchangeableinthesystembecausetheyare thesameclausetype,namelyarelativeclause.
2.2.2AComprehensiveGrammaroftheEnglishLanguage
TheothermajorgrammarofEnglishwithafunction-firstapproachistheseminal A ComprehensiveGrammaroftheEnglishLanguage (Quirketal. 1985).This
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
