Art. 45Linking clauses

WolfgangRaible,Universityof Freiburg i.Br., Germany

Contents

1 What is clauselinking about? 1

2 Maintaining reference 3

3 Hierar chy: downgrading clauses 6

4 The expressionof relations 20

5 Communicativedynamism 22

6 Diachronic aspects 23

7 Overall view and concluding re-marks 25

8 References 29

1 What is clause linkingabout?

Human communicationis primarily basedon utterances,texts, turns in dialogue,noton propositions,sentencesor clauses.Thismakeslinking smallerparts– like clauses–into higher units a basicactivity of speak-ersandhearers.In orderto show theresult-ing complexity of humaninformation pro-cessing,a first examplewill beappropriate.

(1) (CableNewsNetwork [CNN],11.2.1999)

With Clinton’sacquittalonperjuryandobstruction-of-justicechargesvirtuallyassured,and even a formal censureof the presidentseemingunlikely, thebiggestremainingquestionis whethereitherarticlewill geta majority vote.

What will a non-US readerdependentonher/hisknowledgeof ENGLISH understandin, say, 2019?

– that thereis a mainclause:thebiggestremainingquestionis;

– that there is, dependingon this mainclause,a following indirect question:whethereitherarticle will get a major-ity vote;

– that, precedingthe main clause,thereare two nonfinite clauses,headedbythe preposition ‘with’ and coordin-ated by the conjunction ‘and’: WithClinton’s acquittal on perjury andobstruction-of-justicechargesvirtuallyassured,and evena formal censure ofthepresidentseemingunlikely;

– that both of them can be interpretedas nominalized clauseswhich, in amoreexplicit form,couldreadlikethis:“Clinton is certainto be acquittedonthechargesof perjuryandobstruction-of-justice” and“evena formal censureof thepresidentseemsunlikely”;

– that thesehybridsbetweenclauseandnominal may be functionally inter-pretedasadverbials;

– that some RELATION holds betweenthese two adverbials and the mainclause,but that the natureof this re-lation is opento interpretation:while,whereas, since could be candidates,leading,e.g., to “Whilst Clinton’s ac-quittal on perjury and obstruction-of-justicechargesis virtually assured,andevena formal censureof the presidentseemsunlikely . . . ”, thus making therelationthatholdsmoreexplicit;

– that the orderingof theadverbials,themain clauseand the dependentclauseis not fortuitous – on the contrary:it conveys a certainCOMMUNICATIVE

DYNAMISM, starting from somethingthat seemsto be given (the two ad-verbial syntagms),and enhancingthemain clause– where “the biggestre-maining question”underlinesthe im-portance of the concluding indirectquestionwhethereitherarticle will geta majority vote.

1

Analysing this complex sentence, wealreadyfound andexemplifiedthreeof themost important techniquesspeakers usewhenlinking clausesinto largerwholes:

1. The techniqueof creatingSYNTACTIC

HIERARCHY, thusgiving clausesa dif-ferent status (in the above example:main clause,dependentclause,hybridbetweenclauseandnominalsyntagm);

2. the techniqueof GROUNDING, servingtheaimsof acertainCOMMUNICATIVE

DYNAMISM; this techniquemay over-lapwith thefirst one;

3. the techniqueof ESTABLISHING SPE-CIFIC RELATIONS like ‘condition’,‘concessivity’, ‘causality’ etc. amongthepartsor betweenthepartsanda lar-gerwhole.

A fourth linking technique dependslargely on our historicalandencyclopaedicknowledge:In orderto fully understandex-ample (1), we should know that WilliamJefferson Clinton, memberof the Demo-cratic party, was presidentof the UnitedStatesin 1999; that therewas an investig-ation againsthim directedby an independ-ent counsel(KennethStarr); that the 445-pageStarr report,madepublic on Septem-ber11th 1998,contained11 groundsfor im-peachment;that on December9th 1998theHouse of Representatives Judiciary Com-mitteereducedthesegroundsto four articlesof impeachmentagainstthe president;that,asa result,thepresidentwasimpeachedonDecember19th 1998,with anothertwo art-icles of impeachmentvoted down before-hand;thatonJanuary7th 1999theimpeach-menttrial wasopenedin theSenate;that in1999the Senatehad55 Republicanand45Democraticmembersand that a two-thirdsmajoritywasneededto convict oneitherart-icle; that the public was resolutelyon thepresident’ssidethroughoutthewholeaffair,with polls showing “steadydisdainfor thepartisanbickeringover Mr Clinton’s sexualmisdeeds”;and that since– in strictly jur-idical terms– thechargeof perjury(depend-ing onthedefinitionof ‘sexual intercourse’)was not tenable,there was no convictionto be expected,the only openquestionbe-ing whethereitherarticlewouldobtainmorethan50votes.

In additionto this historicalor situationalknowledge,readersshouldbe familiar withlegal text genresandtheir vocabulary. Onehasto know that ‘article’ can have a veryspecialmeaning:as a distinct propositionin a series of such, as in a constitutionor an ‘impeachment’– the latter term be-longing,like its synonym ‘arraignment’andother terms in the samecontext (‘charge’,‘perjury’, ‘acquittal’, ‘trial’, ‘misdemeanor’,‘abeyance’),to the juridical termsinheritedfrom OLD FRENCH (in this caseempes-cher, empeschement, in MODERN FRENCH

empêcher ‘to prevent’). The samecontextgivesfor instancea very specialmeaningto‘count’, too: thatof ‘a separatechargein anindictment’.

This leavesuswith two moretechniquesor factorsin thedomainof clauselinking:

4. MAINTENANCE OF REFERENCE:nounsor nominalelementsthat occurin different parts of the text, buthave the sameor a similar referent:‘Clinton’ � ‘president’; without ourhistorical and legal knowledge weperhapswould never have understoodthat either article in example (1)refers to perjury charge as article�and obstruction-of-justicecharge asarticle� ;

5. theimportanceof thelegal knowledge,legalthinking,andthewholelegalcon-text for the understandingof example(1) suggestsanimportantrole for TEX-TUAL GENRES, too.

With all this supplementaryinformation,the following example will be understoodwithout any problems.This time the newsitem was formulated,oneday later, by theBritish BroadcastingCorporation(BBC). Itis the answerto the questionraisedin ex-ample(1).

(2) (BBC 12.2.1999)

Bill Clinton has been clearedof allchargesin his impeachmenttrial, leav-ing him free to carry on asthe Amer-icanpresident.

In anhistoricvote,prosecutorsfailedtosecureeitherof thetwo countsbroughtagainsthim in the Senatetrial, and

2

couldnot evenmustera simplemajor-ity on the first vote. A two-thirdsma-jority wasneededto convict on eithercharge.

Onthearticleof perjury, senatorsvoted45 guilty, 55 not guilty, with 10 Re-publicansvoting for acquittal.On ob-structionof justice,membersweresplitdown the middle, voting 50 guilty, 50not guilty. Five Republicanscrossedthe aisle to join their Democratcol-leagues.

Example(2) clearlyshows the REFERENCE

MAINTENANCE technique:

(a) Bill Clinton � him � (the AmericanPresident)� him;

(b) all charges � eitherof the two counts� either charge � article of perjury� on [the article of] obstructionofjustice;

(c) prosecutors� Ø;

(d) senators� 10 Republicans� mem-bers � five Republicans � theirDemocratcolleagues,etc.

Specimens(b) with onobstructionof justiceinsteadof on [the article of] obstructionofjustice and (c) with zeroanaphorademon-strate how, in certain contexts, anaphorafunctions even under elliptical conditions.Specimen(d) is a goodexampleof splittingawholethatfunctionsasa referentialframeinto different parts referring to the afore-mentionedtotality.

At the same time, example (2) showsthe COMMUNICATIVE DYNAMISM typicalof newspapergenres:first the mostimport-ant news, then the evaluation,with the de-tails (paragraph3) following at theend.

The following sections will treat: thetechniqueof maintainingreferencein sub-sequentpropositions,togetherwith the roleof textual genresand specific knowledge(§ 2); the techniquesrelying on syntactichierarchy(§ 3), the expressionof relations(§ 4), communicative dynamism(§ 5), fol-lowed by the diachronicaspects,especiallygrammaticalization(§ 6), and concludingremarks(§ 7).

2 Maintaining reference

Thetechniquesof referencemaintenanceorreferencetrackingareextensively treatedinarticle 84 by Andrej A. Kibrik, to whomBernardComrie(1999)canbe added.Thisis why only someadditionsareappropriate.

2.1 Nominal substitution

As hasalreadybeensaid, the maintenanceof referenceby anaphoracrucially dependson encyclopaedic knowledge and at thesametime on a certainfamiliarity with thecorrespondingtextual genres.In the aboveexample(2), wehadto beacquaintedwith alegal usagewheresomelinesof text canbereferredto as‘article’ or ‘count’.

In the following exampleJohnLocke re-sumesfive sentencesby This is matter offact . . . :

(3) (John Locke, An Essay ConcerningHumanUnderstandingIV, x, § 19).

“1For example,my right hand writeswhilst my left hand is still. 2Whatcausesrest in one hand and motionin the other?3Nothing but my will, athoughtof my mind; 4my thoughtonlychanging,theright handrests,5andtheleft handmoves.6This is matterof factwhichcannotbedenied”.

Jens Lüdtke (1984) aptly called suchnouns‘interpretators’since,while resumingan entirepassageof a text, they interpretitat the sametime: as a kind of speechactlike in promise, obligation, injunction, de-fense, statement,assertion,question,guar-antee; asa part in an argumentative whole:premise, conclusion,argument,hypothesis,fact, necessity, possibility; as a componentof a (legal or other)text: paragraph,count,article, impeachment,arraignment,dogma;assomethingtranslatinga ratheremotionalattitude:certitude, doubt,hope, desire, wish.

Such interpretatorsare to a very largeextent productsof discoursetraditions ortextual genrescreatedby literacy. This isshown, amongotherthings,by the fact thataconsiderablenumberof Englishspeechactverbs– i.e.verbscorrespondingto theafore-mentionedspeechacttypes– appearfor the

3

first time in Early Modern English: to ac-knowledge, to advocate, to assert,to con-cede, to remind,to apologize, to question,torequest;or even later: to remark,to retort,to state, to accept,to guarantee, to volun-teer(Traugott1987).

Someof thesediscoursetraditions mayappealaswell to our scientificor technicalknowledge,asin example(4), wheretheen-tire sentence� describinga complex eventisresumedby this high frequency:

(4) SPANISH (Patent specification,citedfrom Raible1972:195)

“1Medianteel reguladorselimita la co-rrienteenelmotordemaneraqueel ve-hículo eventualmenteno podríaarran-car. 2Como aquí la corrientea travésdel motorseencuentraenlasproximi-dadesdel valor máximopermisiblesedesconectay vuelvea conectarel tiris-tor en unasecuenciamuy rápida,bajocircunstancias,variascientosde vecespor segundo.3Estaelevadafrecuenciaseaprovechaparaconectar, enla posi-ción determinadamencionadadel apa-ratodemando,el contactopunteador”.

In a languagelike GERMAN, to a largeextentalsoin ENGLISH, theseinterpretatorsmay be usedasnominal headscataphoric-ally referring to a subsequentcomplementclause:

(5) “Der Gedanke, daß sie ihn besuchenkönnte, versetzteihn in helles Ent-zücken”.

A speakerof SPANISH hasthesamepossib-ility , with onesignificantdifference,though:the elementlinking the complementclauseto theinterpretatorservingasheadis deque:de joins a following nounto the precedingone as in la velocidadde translación‘thevelocity of movement’,andque, si or cómolinks a subordinateclauseto thematrixsen-tence.Thus,whereasde is dueto the nom-inal characterof theheadnoun,theconjunc-tionsque, si,cómomarktheverbalcharacterof thefollowing clause:

(6) SPANISH (El País, 8.11.1989)

“La razónpor la queestetipo deluchatiendea prevalecerennuestrasociedadse debe al hecho de que una nueva

formadepoderpolíticosehadesarrol-ladodemaneracontinuadesdeel sigloXVI.

‘. . . is dueto thefactthat thereemergedanew form of political power.. . ’.

Speakers of languageslike FRENCH areratherrestrictive in this respect.They preferto introduceanadditionalverbalelementinorderto attenuatethecommunicative ‘scan-dal’ of a clausedependingon anoun:this isthe type la questionde savoir si insteadofthetypethequestionwhether.

2.2 Inferential processes

Referencetrackingby nominalsubstitutionneedsan inferential backingbasedon ourencyclopaedicknowledge( � art. 47, § 5).Usually, such processesare triggeredandstimulatedby the presenceof deictic ele-ments(e.g.,“ this high frequency”, “estael-evada frecuencia” in example [4].) Oftendefinitearticleswill do:

(7a) Il y avait unebicyclettedansle jardin.Lesrayonsétaientfaussés.

There was a bike in the garden.Thespokeswerebroken.

(b) Nousnousapprochâmesd’unemaison.La cheminéefumait. (Charolles1999)

We approacheda house.The chimneywassmoking.

The inferential processis moredemandingin caseslike thefollowing ones:

(8) Il y avait unebicyclettedansle jardin.Lemoyeu(or: le rayon) étaitfaussé.

Therewasabikein thegarden.Thehub(or: thespoke) wasbroken.

Theredoesnot seemto be a majorprob-lemin decodingwheneverthepartin thefol-lowing sentenceis an integratedpart of thewholeevokedin thefirst one:asarespokesin thecaseof a bicycle or thechimney withrespectto a house(there are houseswithonly onechimney). But sinceabikehastwohubsand64 to 72 spokes,it takesusa littlebit moretime to guesswhatcouldbemeantin caseslike (8).

Sufficeit to mentionin thepresentcontextthat Roland Harweg (11964, 21979: 178–260) gives an invaluable“phenomenology

4

of pronominal linking” listing and classi-fying more or lessall the possibilitiesex-isting in this domain.The casesunderdis-cussionwould fall undertheheading“Text-Kontiguitäts-Substitution”(Harweg 21979:192–99);anothercasein point is thetheoryof suppositionasdevelopedby themedievalschoolmen:� art.14,§ 3.2.3devotedespe-cially to William of Ockham(1285–1349);Peterof Spain(1219–1277)shouldalsobementionedin this context (e.g.,PetrusHis-panus1577).

2.3 Substitution by zero

A specialcaseof substitutionis zero ana-phora or ‘anaphoricalellipsis’ (De Beau-grande& Dressler1981: 72). A casewasalready mentionedin example (2) at theend of § 1. This techniqueis well-knownin Indoeuropeanlanguages.Essentially, it isbasedon two preconditions:(a) The verbsof the languagehave to be specified asto the grammaticalpersonof the subject(‘concord’). (b) As a rule, the participantfunctioning as the grammaticalsubject isidentical with the subjectof the precedingsentence(samesubjector SS-constraint).

CLASSICAL GREEK and CLASSICAL

LATIN arecasesin point.Whenever the SS-constraintis applicable,no subjecthas tobe expressedin a subsequentclause.Lan-guagesusing this technique tend to de-velopaspecialmorphemesignalingadiffer-entsubject(DS-condition)in thesubsequentclause.In CLASSICAL GREEK this is thefunction of the particlede, in late LATIN itis autem, vero, sometimesalsosedat thebe-ginning of the next clause.As in the caseof GREEK de, grammaticaltradition hasitthat the meaningof thesesignalsis ‘but’.However, onehadbetterleavethemuntrans-lated.– For examplesseeSelig1992:138ff.;Raible1992:71–75.

2.4 Diathesis,clefting, extraposi-tion

Referencetrackingisoneof thereasonswhytheorderof clausalelementscanbeimport-ant.A referentthat remainsidentical in thesubsequentclauseis like a link – or a pivot(Foley & VanValin 1984)betweenclauses–anda pivotal elementis alwaysbestplaced

betweenthepartsto belinked.In thecaseofentireclausesthis confersa privilegedpos-ition on the headof a clause(or, ascanbeseenin sometechniquesof clauselinking,to theendof theprecedingone).

It is well known that order plays a dif-ferent part in different languages.In somelanguages,speakers are relatively free, inothersthe possibilitiesof changeinga “rat-ified” orderare ratherrestricted.Neverthe-less,no languagecando without basicor-deringprinciples:hearershave to know be-forehand what most probably will comenext. Thismeansthattherecanbea conflictbetweentheexpectedorderingprincipleandtheonea speaker intendsto choose.

Theanswerto thisconflictareinstitution-alizedstrategiesallowing speakers to “leg-ally” violate basicorderingprinciples: lin-guistscall themclefting, genusverbi, vox,diathesis( � art.67–69),extraposition,etc.,on the main clauselevel wherethey allowspeakersto bring to thefore thoseelementsthatseemrelevantto them.

A good example are such Creole lan-guageswhosespeakershave not developeda techniqueof diathesisyet.A casein pointis GUADELOUPE CREOLE.

(9a) GUADELOUPE CREOLE (Ludwig1990:34f.)

Ijéniekabat Ijenn.

EugenieIPFV strike EugeneIn diesem und inden meisten fol-genden Beispielenentspricht jeweilseiner Buchstaben-folge ohneSpatiumin der erstenZeileeine Buchstaben-folge ohneSpatiumin der Kommentar-zeile. Jeweils diekorrespondierendenGruppen bündiguntereinandersetzen.

“EugenieslapsEugene.”

(b) bat Ijéniekabat Ijenn.

strike EugenieIPFV strike Eugene

“Eugenietruly strikesEugene.”

(c) sébat Ijéniekabat Ijenn.

it.is strike EugenieIPFV strike Eugene

“idem.”

(d) séIjénieki kabat Ijenn.

it.is Eugeniewho IPFV strike Eugene

“It is Eugeniewho slapsEugene.”

(e) séIjénie i kabat Ijenn.

it.is EugeniesheIPFV strike Eugene

“idem.”

5

(f) séIjenn Ijéniekabat.

it.is EugeneEugenieIPFV strike

“It is EugenewhomEugeniestrikes.”

As in many CREOLES, thespeaker is freetofocusnot only on the Agent or the Patient,s/hemayevenhighlight theactionby front-ing theverb.

Nonetheless,as was shown by SibylleKriegel (1996) for SEYCHELLES andMAURITIUS CREOLE, speakers of suchlanguagestend to grammaticalizea newpassive form, above all underthe pressureof beginning literacy. In other languages,the techniqueof clefting may even leadto an ‘upgrading’ of finite verbs by aphenomenoncalled ‘enunciative’ (Pusch1999;2001;seebelow § 6).

2.5 Substitution by dummies

Very often, the sameinferential processesalso hold for substitutionby the dummieswe usefor nouns,i.e. mostoftenpronouns:herethe problemlies in the scopeof pro-nominalanaphoraor cataphora.In the fol-lowing example,the index lettersaddedtothe nominalsand noun groups(and to thecorrespondingverbsin casethenoungroupsaregrammaticalsubjects)show to someex-tenthow referencemaintenancefunctionsina largebodyof languages.

(10) SPANISH (SociedadChilenade Cien-ciasdelMar, Boletínmayo2000)

“1Las Jornadasde Cienciasdel Mar�constituyen� una importante tribunaparael rápidointercambiodel conoci-mientocientíficoy tecnológicogenera-do en el país.2Los numerososSimpo-sios,Conferenciasy MesasRedondas,que han tenido lugar duranteestas� ,han ofrecido un foro para la discu-sión de los problemasy temascon-tingentesen Cienciasdel Mar� . 3LasJornadas� han contribuido� ademásadifundir el quehacer[the knowhow] enCienciasdel Mar� entre los estudian-tesUniversitarios� deáreasafinesa lasCiencias del Mar� , privilegiandolas�conunamasivaasistencia.4Por lo tan-to, las jornadas� hanofrecido� a variasgeneracionesde jóvenesestudiantes� ,

un testimoniodecómosegenerael co-nocimientoenCienciasdel Mar� , con-tribuyendopor estemedio� a formar yeducar. 5Desde1994la Corporaciónhaimplementadoun sistemadebecaspa-ra jóvenesinvestigadores��� conla fina-lidad de ayudarles��� con los costosdeasistenciaa esteevento� .”

As can be easily recognized,the nominalsyntagmsJornadasdeCienciasdelMar andCienciasdelMar (‘oceanography’)makeupthe backboneof this short passage.But inspite of this systemof referencetracking,it remainsunclearwhat we should regardas the scopeof por lo tanto ‘therefore’ atthebeginningof sentence . Doesit refer tosentence , or to sentences��� ?An answertothis questionwould needa very closeandrepeatedreading,thusshowing that linkingprocessesmight be moresloppy above thesentencelevel.

Instead,it is perfectlyclearthatthescopeof thecataphoricallyusedinterpretatortesti-monio in sentence is the complementclausesegenera el conocimientoen Cien-cias del Mar: both aresyntacticallylinkedby de cómo, verbally: ‘evidence of howknowledge in oceanographyis generated’.The same thing holds for the following“contribuyendopor estemedioa formar yeducar”– ‘thuscontributing to education’.

The exampleof por lo tanto ‘therefore’shows at the sametime that there existsanother kind of interpretators:They canas well refer to entire text passages,andthey interpret thesepassages,too – but inquite anotherway: they establishone ofthe more or less SPECIFIC RELATIONS –first mentionedin §1, point 3 and hence-forward representedwith small capitals–that hold betweenthe following sentenceand its antecedent(s).In the caseof por lotantotheantecedentis seenasa CAUSE, theclauseintroducedby por lo tantoasa CON-SEQUENCE.

3 Hierar chy: downgradingclauses

There are more relationsof this kind ex-pressedin text (10):At theendof sentencewefind therelationof MANNER: ‘contribut-

6

ing in this mannerto education’(contribuy-endo por estemedio a formar y educar).Sentence reads:“Since1994,theCorpora-tion hasimplementeda systemof grantsforyoungscientistsin orderto (conla finalidadde) helpthemreducetheexpensesnecessaryfor attendingthis event”. Here the relationof FINALITY is expressedby con la final-idad de, i.e. ‘with theaim of’, consistingofPREP. + ART. + NOUN + PREP., a preposi-tional group.In example(1) we alreadyen-counteredwith a formalcensureof thepres-ident seemingunlikely, a syntagmthat wasqualified as a “hybrid betweenclauseandnominal”,thespecialrelationholdingin thiscasebeingopento interpretation.

All these examples show at least twothings:

(a) relations like FINALITY, CAUSALITY,CONSEQUENCE, CONDITION, MAN-NER play an importantpart in clauselinking.

(b) At the sametime, therearemany pos-sibilities expressingthem on differentlevelsof syntactichierarchy.

Thefirst aspectwill bepartly treatedin § 4,thesecondonewill receive a closerlook inthefollowing subsection.

3.1 Aggregationvs. integration

Let us take the exampleof CAUSALITY asa relationfrequentlyexpressedin texts.Themost simple way would be the sheerjux-taposition of two clausesas in examples(11a/b):

(11a) Joanis ill. Sheremainsathome.

Or with anappropriateexchangeof thepro-nounandits nominalantecedent:

(b) Joanremainsathome.Sheis ill.

This shows that CAUSALITY, on this level,is a matterof inference,too, and that eventhe orderof the clauseshasno importance.Order mattersin the next exampleswhere‘this is why’, resumingthepreviousclause,givesit acausalmeaning:

(12a) Joanis ill. This is why sheremainsathome.

(b) Joanbleibt zu Hause.Sie ist nämlichkrank.

(c) Joanrestechezelle. Car elle est ma-lade.

(d) Joanest malade.C’est pourquoi ellerestechezelle.

According to a classicalconceptionofgrammar, examples(11a/b)and(12a/d)arespecimensof coordination.Example(13b)would be seenas ‘subordinating’ instead,with orderagainlosingits importance:

(13a) SinceJoanis ill, sheremainsat home.

(b) Joanremainsat homebecauseshe isill.

Examples(14a/b)would be said to exhibitsubordination,too. Whereasin examples(13a/b)the verb wasstill finite, now it hasbecomenonfinite,though:

(14a) Beingill , Joanremainsat home.

(b) With her daughterRachel being ill ,Joanremainsat home.

The first versionis with samesubject(SS),the secondonewith differentsubject(DS).Its nonfinitenessmakesbeingill dependonthefinite verbof anotherclause,thusestab-lishing a clearsyntacticrelation.The char-acter of the relation remainsopen to in-terpretation,though, like in the above ex-amples(11a/b).The relationsthat areusu-ally expressedby suchgerunds,infinitivesand the like are CAUSALITY, SIMULTAN-EITIY, MANNER, CONDITION and CON-CESSIVITY. FINALITY and CONSECUTIV-ITY seemto be excludedat least in GER-MANIC and ROMANCE languages(Stump1985: 41ff.; Raible 1992: 79–87; König1995).

In examples(14a/b), with the nonfiniteverbforms,we have reacheda certainpointon a scalebetweenverbinessandnouniness( � art. 38; contributions in Vogel 2000),wherebeingill still hasverbalcharacterist-ics(e.g.,beingill asopposedto havingbeenill ). How shouldwe classify the followingexample,then?

(15) On account of her illness, Joan re-mainedathome.

7

In this case,the relation that is expressedis againvery clear:CAUSALITY. Neverthe-less, it would make no senseto speakof‘subordination’.This is why, insteadof us-ing ‘coordination’ and‘subordination’,oneshouldprefermore neutralcandidates– asarefor instanceaggregationandintegration(Raible1992;Bickel 1991:58ff. usesinteg-ration in a similar context). They are to beseenas the extreme points of a scalead-mitting agreatnumberof intermediatetech-niques.

In orderto show theremaining,still moreintegrative possibilities:insteadof prepos-itional noun groupsone could use simpleprepositionslike in (16):

(16) WegenihrerKrankheitbliebJoanheutezuHause.

If a languagehasa rich casemarking sys-tem,theoddsarethatoneof thecasemark-erswill besufficient to express,e.g.,CAUS-ALITY: In LATIN this is ablativuscausae,in CLASSICAL GREEK dativus causae, inFINNISH anadessive in an INSTRUMENTAL

sense:

(17) LATIN (Plautus, Amphitruo verse1118)

mihi horror membra misero percipitdictis tuis.

P.PRON.1P.SG.DAT horror-SG.NOM limb-PL .ACC poor-SG.DAT strike-3SG.PERF

words-PL .ABL your-2PL .POSS.ABL

“On account of your words, horrorstruckthelimbsof thepoorof me.”

(18) CLASSICAL GREEK

Xérxestenthálassanorgeemastígosen.

Xerxes-SG.NOM ART.DET sea-SG.ACC

wrath-SG.DAT to.whip-3P.SG.AOR.ACT

“AngermadeXerxeswhip thesea.”

(19) FINNISH

halonpuitakirvee-llä.

split-1SG.PRES wood-PL .PARTIT hatchet-SG.ADESS

“I am splitting wood with a/thehatchet.”

In the CLASSICAL GREEK example, wecould aswell usehyp’orges, i.e. a preposi-tion (‘out of wrath’), thusshowing thewell-known relationshipbetweencasemarkingandnominalaffixes(prepositions,postpos-itions).

3.2 Junction: a universal dimen-sion of languageasa concep-tual frame for linking tech-niques

The scaleof techniquesextendingbetweenaggregation and integration is a good ter-tium comparationis for the comparisonoflanguages( � art.1, §§5.2;5.3;art.27,§ 4;§ 5). Sinceall languageshave clauses,andsinceall languageshave to fulfill the taskof linking individualpropositionsinto largerwholes, the two extreme solutionscannotbut exist in all languages:at oneendof thescale,at the pole of aggregation,therearetwo clauseswithout explicit linking. Whatremainsat the other end of the scale,thepoleof integration,is onetotally integratedsingleclauseto which, in turn, anotheronemay be added,thus giving the scale theshapeof a Moebiusstrip.

In all languages,suchscalesrepresentatthe sametime a continuum betweenver-binessand nouniness(it should be clear,though,that‘nouns’and‘verbs’havediffer-entimplementations,too: � art.38;art.54;art. 1, § 3, point 3). This meansthat some-whereon thescaletherehasto bea turningpoint where the respective techniquesloseall their verbalproperties,beingfully integ-ratedinto therealmof nounsinstead.

In thecaseof lotsof Europeanlanguages,the first purely nominal techniqueare pre-positionalgroupslike ENGLISH on accountof, on behalfof, with respectto, in spiteof;SPANISH confinalidadde, (con)respectoa,al respectode, a causade, debidoa, graciasa, merceda, por causade; FRENCH à causede, par suitede, pour causede, envertude;ITALIAN a causadi, grazie a, a forza di,in virtù di; GERMAN infolge von,aufgrundvon,in Bezugauf, etc.

In mostcases,suchprepositionalgroupsoccurfor thefirst timein juridical texts.Thisis due to the fact that jurists like precision(the underlyingidea is ruling out ambigu-

8

ities) andthatprepositionalgroupsoffer themost precisepossibility of expressingcer-tain relations.As a result,they arerelativelyrarein othertextual genres.Above all, theytendnotto occurin thegenresof spokenlan-guage,thusshowing oncemoretherelationholdingbetweenthe linking techniquesandthe Ausbauof a languagesystemby scrip-turality.

Given the universality of the scalebetweenaggregation and integration, thedifferencebetweenlanguageslies in thefactthatspeakersof differentlanguagesmayim-plementdifferent linking techniques.Someof them will be presentedin subsections3.2.1to 3.2.8.

3.2.1 Intonation

Even beforethey understandlanguage,ba-biesandtoddlersunderstandintonationcon-tours. And before children discover seg-mentalmeansof clauselinking, they usein-tonationto this end:

(20) GERMAN (Florian,age2;4)

Hat der Folian geweint.Hat die Mamaliebhabt.

“Has Floriancried.Did momcaress.”

(21) Jetztziehich ausdie Schuhe. Jetztgehich nicht mehrGarten.

“Now I take off theshoes.Now I don’tgo gardenany more.”

Alongsidea clearsyntacticparallelism,thechild usesa characteristicintonationto linktheseclauses.

Whenanalyzingthetechniquesof clauselinkagein SEYCHELLES CREOLE, SusanneMichaelis – inspiredby MarianneMithun(1988) – discoveredtwo techniquesbasedessentiallyon intonation: ‘comma intona-tion’ and‘integrative intonation’(Michaelis1994: 41–50). Comma intonation signalsthat the information to be given has notcometo its end,but that the following in-formationunit shouldbe seenasa concep-tually distinctaspectof thewhole.

(22) SEYCHELLES CREOLE (Michaelis1994:41,48)

Mon konpran pyos* anmaserkoko *netwaypropriyetesonmetla.

1P.SG canhoeC-INT picker coconutC-INT

cleanproprietyPOSS masterthere

“I am an expert in farming,(I workedas) picker of coconuts,(I) kept cleantheproprietyof one’smaster.”

By contrast,integrativeintonation– i.e.withno intonation break – describessubpartsof what is conceived of as a single event(Mithun 1988:335):

(23) SEYCHELLES CREOLE (Michaelis1994:46f.)

La nou a tire la nou a vini nou a an-mennenzetanbalangar.

there1P.PL MOD quarry there1P.PL MOD

come1P.PL MOD bring throw down hangar

“Then we quarried(guano),we cameandgot (it) in orderto store(it) in thehangar.”

Since integrative intonation makes thepiecesof information subpartsof a whole,it is not surprisingthat thesepartsfollow inchronologicalorder.

The basicstrategy underlyingsuchphe-nomenahasbeenaptlydescribedby BrigitteK. Halford (1996): intonationcontoursre-flectunitsof cognitiveplanning.Thisis whyevenhighly complex syntaxcanbewell un-derstood,provided the speaker usesan ap-propriateintonation,andthis is why, a pri-ori, intonationis alsoa goodmeansto linkclauses– whetherit is theprincipalstrategyor only anadditionalone,supportingfor in-stanceoneof thefollowing techniques.

3.2.2 The techniqueof clausechaining

Sentencesas privileged units refer to situ-ations, events, processes,states.But nor-mally an individual clauseis not sufficientto expresswhatwe intendto convey to oth-ers.This meansthat thecomplex represent-ation we want to utter has to be decom-posedinto a whole seriesof suchclauses.This, again,amountsto sayingthat, in or-der to expressa coherentwhole, speakershave to tag the resultingclausessuchthathearershave a fair chanceof reconstruct-ing the intendedwhole. With a metaphorcoinedby G. Pilhofer (1933) in his gram-marof KÂTE (New Guinea)andtakenoverby BalthasarBickel (1991), speakers have

9

to lay out tracks(Fährtenlegen) thatcanbediscoveredby hearers.

In an earlier section, a techniquehasalready been mentionedwhere the trackslaid out were personal (substitution bynouns,pronouns,zeroanaphora,Personal-fährte in thewordingof Pilhofer;seeabove§§ 2.1; 2.3).Therewasno differencein thedegreeof finitenessbetweentheverbsof therespectivesubsequentclauses,though.

Especiallyspeakersof languageswith thebasic order SOV have developeda differ-ent techniquecalledclausechaining.At theend of a clausethe speaker signalsto thehearerwhethertheactualclauseis to beseenasdowngraded,andwhetherthesubsequentclausewill besamesubjector differentsub-ject. In thewordsof ThomasMüller-Bardey(1988) who gave a good overview overswitchreferencein general:“Scheinbarinte-grierteSachverhaltewerdenin Folgensuk-zessiver Komponenten-Prädikationenzer-legt,wobeidasSubjektjeweilsalsScharnierdient”.

HOPI, a UTO-AZTECAN language,hasarathersophisticatedsystemof clausechain-ing. It functions in the following way(Stahlschmidt1983;for thisphenomenoninNorthAmericanIndianlanguagescf. Jacob-sen1983): if the heareris supposedto ex-pecta differentparticipantassubjectof thefollowing clause,the verb closing the firstclauseendswith the suffix -q. As a result,thehearerwill have to switch to a differentsubject(hencethe term ‘switch reference’first usedby William H. Jacobsen[1967]).In casethe speaker intendsto usethe samesubject in the following clause,s/he can-notbut specifytheSPECIFIC RELATION thatshouldhold betweenthe actualandthe in-tendedfollowing proposition.

Simplifying thingssomewhat:givena SS-condition,thefirst questiona HOPI speakerhas to decide is whether the relationshipshouldbe interpretedasTEMPORAL or not.If this is not the case,the relation will beCONDITIONAL, signaledby thesuffix -e’. Iftherelationshipis to beinterpretedasTEM-PORAL, one possibility is SIMULTANEITY

(“concursiverelation”),markedby thesuffix-kyang. If a simpleANTERIOR/POSTERIOR

relation is intended,the suffix -t will do.WhenTEMPORALITY hasto be interpretedasCAUSALITY instead,thisis markedby the

suffix -qe.Whathappensattheendof thefirst clause

canbe repeatedat the endof the next one(hence ‘clause chaining’) – until the se-quenceis closedbyan“absolute”form.Thisis why Pilhofer (1933) qualified the pre-ceding verb forms as SatzinnenformenorDurchgangsformenasopposedto theabso-lute Satzendformenor Wechselformen. – Inhis grammarof FORE, anotherNew Guinealanguage,GrahamScott (1978) quotestheexample of a woman who was asked totell in shortwhat hadhappenedto her thatday. She did it in one single grammaticalsentencethat containedabout 40 predica-tions,only thelastone(“I camedown here”)ending with an absolutedeclarative form(Müller-Bardey 1988:185–88).

Some examples will demonstratehowclausechainingfunctionsin HOPI.

(24) HOPI (Stahlschmidt1983:599)

Noq yaw Tötölö-t nöm-’at nova-law-qpam yaw nöma-y’awintaq yaw Isawpasa-yamuyaqle maknum-kyang put’aw pitu.

and QUOT Grasshopperwife-his-SG.NOM

eat-DS he QUOT wife-his-SG.OBJ tell-DS QUOT Coyote field-their-PL .OBJ nearhunt-SS.SIMULT.REL 3P.SG.ALLAT arrive-ABS.FORM

“And while Grasshopper’s wife pre-paredthe meal,he told her that,whenCoyotewashuntingon thefieldscloseto them,hehadapproachedthem.”

A somewhat simpler example shows tem-poralsequentiality:

(25) HOPI (Stahlschmidt1983:521)

Qavongvaqyaw su’ich talavai Peenitaha-hoya-i ’a-mum moro-yuwsi-na-tnitkya-ta-ttuuwalo-to.

The-next-morning QUOT very-soonmorning Peeni-NOM uncle-little-POSS

with-3P.SG.-SOZ donkey-SG.NOM-garment-SG.NOM-CAUS-SEQ.REL .SS

food.for.the.journey-SG.NOM-SEQ.REL .SS

keep.guard-ABS.PROJECTIVE

“The next day very soonin the morn-ing, Peeniwith his little unclesaddledthe donkey, got their provisions andstartedin order to keepguard(on thefield).”

10

While exampleslike the one alluded toin thegrammarof FORE might amazeusasexotic, it is perhapsappropriateto point outthata text in LATIN or CLASSICAL GREEK

couldcontainthesame40 clauses,this timefor instancelinkedall by zeroanaphora(al-though,admittedly, without downgrading).Similar thingscouldevenbedonewith con-verbs (§ 3.2.5) in Europeanand Eurasianlanguages,to saynothingof ‘stylistic’ tech-niqueslike style indirect libre (§ 3.2.8) orthe FRENCH style judgementmentionedin� art. 1 § 2. For similar phenomenainTURKIC languages� art.122.

3.2.3 The technique of adverbial con-junctions

In this techniqueof linking, one of theclauses– mostly headedby a conjunction– is downgraded(‘subordinateclause’)andfunctionsasan optionaladverbial modifierof themainclause.Thefirst exampleswere(13a/b).The techniqueis very commoninmostof theEuropeanlanguages.It isextens-ively describedby BerndKortmann( � art.63).As a result,someadditionswill besuf-ficient in thepresentarticle.

Kortmann,too,underlinesthefactthattheAusbauof this techniqueshouldbe seenasstimulatedby literacy. Alreadyat thebegin-ning of the last century, EduardSchwyzer(1914)drew on literacy asa decisive factorexplaining the affinity existing in many re-spectsbetweenEuropeanlanguages.A goodexampleis the Consolidatedversion of thetreaty on European Union of 1997 (the‘Treatyof Maastricht’).§ 40(3) readsasfol-lows:

(26a) GERMAN: Die Entscheidunggilt alsangenommen,essei denn, der Ratbe-schließtmit qualifizierterMehrheit,siezurückzustellen.

(b) ENGLISH: The decision shall bedeemedto betakenunlesstheCouncil,actingby a qualifiedmajority, decidesto hold it in abeyance.

(c) FRENCH: La décisionest réputéeap-prouvée,à moinsque le Conseil,sta-tuantà la majoritéqualifiée,ne décidedela tenir ensuspens.

(d) ITALIAN: La decisionesi intendeadot-tataa menocheil Consiglio,deliberan-doamaggioranzaqualificata,decidaditenerlain sospeso.

(e) SPANISH: La decisiónse consideraráadoptadasalvoqueel Consejodecida,pormayoríacualificada,mantenerlaensuspenso.

(f) PORTUGUESE: A decisãoconsidera-setomada,exceptoseo Conselho,delibe-randopor maioriaqualificada,decidirsuspendê-la.

(g) FINNISH: Päätöskatsotaantehdyk-si, jollei neuvosto määräenemmistölläpäätäsenlepäämäänjättämisestä.

(h) MODERN GREEK : I apófasi logízeteóti échi liftí ektósan to Simbúlio, meidikí pliopsifía, apofasísina paramínito étemaekkremés.

With the exceptionof GERMAN, wherethenormalsolutionessei denn,daß is slightlydifferent, the languagescited hereuse thesamekind of excludingconjunctionheadingan integratedclausewith a verbwe usuallywould qualify asfinite. This holdseven forFINNISH whereanotherconstructionwouldhavebeenpossible.(In thepresentcase,theconjunctionjollei hastwo components,theconjunctionproperandthenegationverbeimarkedfor 3P.SG whereasthenegatedverbpäättä is nonfinite.)The tendency favoringthe use of adverbial junction correspondsto the overall picture conveyed by the EUtreaty.

We get thesame‘European’picturewithrespectto theadditionalconditionexpressedas acting by a qualified majority in theENGLISH version:the ENGLISH, FRENCH,ITALIAN, PORTUGUESE versionsuse oneof the ‘converbal’ forms discussedbelowin § 3.2.5, whereasGERMAN, SPANISH,FINNISH andMODERN GREEK preferoneof the still more integrative techniques:aprepositionalgroup (the type mit qualifi-zierter Mehrheit) or case-marking:määrä-enemmistö-llä[number-majority-ADESS] intheFINNISH example(for thistechniquesee§ 3.2.7).

That literacy playsa part in theevolutionof suchtechniquesis confirmedby casesinwhich a Europeanlanguage,e.g.,FRENCH,

11

is reducedto theroleof apurelyspokenlan-guageasfor instancein thecaseof LOUISI-ANA FRENCH (Stäbler1995; 1995a).Re-lated phenomenamay also be linked tolanguageobsolescence( � art. 118).Othercasesin pointareCREOLE languageswhichlost most of the integrating techniquesoftheEuropeandonorlanguage(Raible1994),leaving speakerswith thetaskof reinventingnew ones(Ludwig 1996).

A goodexampleof re-inventionis PAPIA-MENTO, a Creole language spoken inthe Caribbean(Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao):speakers can downgradeverbs by meansof a new conjunctive (‘suphuntivo’, a verbform withoutparticles;Maurer1988:243ff.,341f.) andby the gerundialforms (Maurer1988:67f.) discussedin § 3.2.5.

3.2.4 Clausesasparticipants

Clausesheadedby an adverbial conjunc-tion are integrated into a main clausetosuchan extent that they clearly take on thefunction of (peripheral)participants.Thiscould not be said, for instance,in the caseof clausechaining(§ 3.2.2).The techniqueof adverbial conjunctionsdoesnot gener-ate, in principle, a major problem for thehearer since the conjunction heading theclausefunctionsasa syntactichinge,indic-ating into the bargain the SPECIFIC RELA-TION holdingbetweentheadverbialandthemainclause.

Sinceoneof themostimportanttopicsofhumancommunicationis communicationit-self, there exist a lot of verbsexpressing,by theirsemanticcontent,communicativeorrelatedactivities: above all verba dicendi,sentiendiet sciendi, encompassingall thespeechact verbs.As the participantfunc-tion they assumeis usually the function ofan object,or even a subject,this leavesthespeakersof this languagewith the problemhow to tag in an adequateway such em-beddedprepositions.Sincethe participantsfunctioning as subjectsand objectsbelongto the very core of a predication(§ 7.1),this is somethingrather unusual.One an-swermay be specialconjunctionsfor com-plementclauses,a topic treatedto someex-tentelsewhere( � art.74).

In the presentcontext, it shouldonly bementionedthat speakersof ROMANCE lan-

guages,like thoseof their LATIN mother,tend to use – as an additional tag signal-ing clausalintegration– amoodcalled‘con-junctive’ or ‘subjunctive’. This is not onlythecasewith speechact complements.TheROMANCE examples(26cto 26f) show thatthis may hold even for adverbial clauses.Since the information given by the de-fault mood ‘indicative’ is ‘communicativeresponsibilityof the speaker’, thesubjunct-ive of necessityconveys a reductionof thisresponsibility:thehearercanalwayscontra-dict a statementmadein indicative mood,never onein the conjunctive or subjunctive(or in whatever modally downgradedverbform).

This leaves speakers of such languageswith a problemgeneratedby a certainkindof matrix verbs in the main clause: viz.verbsexpressing,by their meaning,that thespeaker cananddoesassumecommunicat-ive responsibility. Theseare above all theverbadicendi,sentiendiet sciendi(“I con-firm, assert,say . . . ”, the verbsof percep-tion andof knowing “I see,haveseen,know. . . ”). The solutionare‘regular exceptions’to thesubordinatingmood,i.e. thechoiceofindicative instead.

In this context, CLASSICAL GREEK andLATIN are interestingcasesbecausetheyusea somewhat different techniqueto thisend: it is calledaccusativuscumparticipioandaccusativuscuminfinitivo. This meansthat the speakers of these languagesde-velopeda techniqueallowing themto treatthe embeddedclauseasan accusative – bygiving its subjectand,if this is possible,alsoits verb (finite verb downgradedas parti-ciple)a casemarker.

In the following example (drawn fromLongus, Daphnis and Chloe, book III, §15) the main clausereads“Lycaeniumsee-ing Daphnis . . . coveted him luring himby gifts”. The ‘trick’ attenuatingthe ‘scan-dal’ of a clauseserving as a core parti-cipantof themainclauselies in thefactthat“Daphnis” has two functions in this com-plex sentence:he is object to ‘seeing’ and

Das folgendeBeispiel normalsetzen.Weil es sokomplex ist, wurdeauf die vorliegendeWeise nur das un-tereinandergesetzt,was untereinandererscheinensoll.

at the sametime subjectof the embeddedclausethat explains what the womansaw:that every day he drove his goatsby to thefieldsandback.Similar to its subject,theac-tionof ‘driving by’ asaparticiplehastheac-cusative marker thatdowngradesthe whole

12

clause.

(27) CLASSICAL GREEK :

haúteheLykaínionthis DET.SG.FEM Lykainion-SG.NOM .FEM

horosasee-PRT.AOR.ACT.NOM .FEM

tòn DáphninDET.SG.MASC Daphnis-ACC

kat’hekástenhéméraneveryday

pareláunontadrive.by-PRT.PRES.ACT.SG.ACC.MASC

tàsaîgasthegoats-PL .ACC.FEM

héotheneisnomenin themorningontopasture

nýktor eknomesonnightsfrom pasture

epethýmesencovet-3P.AOR.ACT

erastenlover-SG.ACC.MASC

ktesasthaipossess-INF.AOR.MED

doroisgifts-PL .DAT

deleásasa.lure-PRT.AOR.ACT.SG.NOM .FEM

“This Lykainion,observingDaphnisaseverydayearlyin themorninghedrovehis goats by to the fields and homeagainat the first twilight, had a greatmind to beguile the youth by gifts tobecomeherlover.”

The embeddingprocedureis repeatedattheend:“shecovetedto possess[infiniti ve](him) asa lover”.

Thespeakersof ENGLISH aredevelopinga quite similar techniquewith for + ACC

+ to + INF. Christian Mair gives, amongotherthings,adensedescriptionof all typesof ENGLISH infinitival constructions(Mair1990).

Taggingembeddedclausesby casemark-ing, i.e., treating them as nouns,not onlyavoids the problemsgeneratedby the factthat a mood is used in order to integrateclauses(Raible1983;1992a).It is aboveallcharacteristicof techniquesthatwill bede-scribedin thefollowing subsection.

The ‘scandal’ of a clausefunctioningascore-participantof anotherclausemaybeat-tenuatedby othermeans,e.g.,by the inter-pretatorsthatwerealreadymentionedabovein §§ 2.1; 2.4: one of their function wasinterpretinga clauseas a speechact. Thisis in turn why they can be used– as sub-jects or objectsof the main predication–in a cataphoricalway in orderto introducea subsequentclausethey interpret before-hand: this is the aforementionedtype theidea that, SPANISH la idea de que – seeaboveexamples(5), (6) or sentence4 of ex-ample(10).

3.2.5 The techniquemaking useof con-verbs – gerunds, infiniti ves,parti-ciples,etc.

The more a verb losesits finite properties(in Europeanlanguages‘finiteness’usuallymeansmarked for person,mood, number,tense,aspect,diathesis. . . ), the moreit be-comesnonfinite.This meansthat thereex-ists,accordingto thenumberof verbalchar-acteristicslost or left, a scalebetweenfi-nitenessand nonfiniteness,not a clear-cutdistinction(seebelow § 7.2). The resultingformsonthefiniteness/infinitenessscalearecalled‘infiniti ves’, ‘gerunds’,‘participles’.

Many linguists call these forms ‘con-verbs’, thusindicatingthat they are(a) lessfinite, i.e. dependentverbformswith (b) anadverbial function (Haspelmath1995: 26;Nedjalkov 1995:97ff.; Nedjalkov 1998withasomewhatdifferentdefinition).

In many languages,especiallyEuropeanandEurasianones(Bisang1998:730ff.; forTurkic languages:Johanson1995and � art.122), converbsare an important techniqueof integration, typically mixing verbal andnominalproperties.

A casein point is FINNISH. Apart fromparticiples, speakers of FINNISH can usefour infinitives.Grammarianscall themin-finitivesI to IV. All of themlack modalin-formation.The most ‘verbal’ oneis infinit-iveI: Apart from thefactthatit canfunctionas an object (without casesuffix), it onlytakesonecase,translative:

(28) FINNISH (Raible1992:94–103)

isä toi mansikoita syödä-kse-mme.

13

Father-SG.NOM bring-3SG.PAST

strawberry-PL .PARTIT eat-INF � -TRANSL -1PL .POSS

“The fatherwasbringing strawberriesfor usto eat”.

Personalinformationis expressedby ‘nom-inal’ means,i.e.apossessivesuffix.

Infinitive II admitsonly two cases,iness-ive and instructive, the latter being one ofthe marginal cases.The subjectof the em-beddedrepresentationappearsasagenitive.

(29) FINNISH

meidän kirjoitta-e-ssa-mmehän lukisanomalehteä.

we-PL .GEN write-INF ��� -1PL .INESS-1PL .POSS read-3SG.PAST newspaper-SG.PARTIT

“While we werewriting, he wasread-ing a/thenewspaper”.

Like infinitive II, infinitive III alwayshascasemarking, taking still more cases,though.Themostfrequentonesareinessive,elative, illative,adessive,andabessive.

(30) FINNISH

Vain etukäteenvuokran maksa-ma-llavoi vuokratahuoneen.

only beforehandrent-SG.ACC pay-INF ����� -ADESS can-3IMPERS.PRES rent-INF �room-SG.ACC

“Only by payingcashbeforehandmayonerenttheroom.”

(31) poika lipsahti baariin kenenkäänhuomaa-ma-tta.

boy-SG.NOM slip-3P.PAST snackbar-SG.ILLAT anybody-SG.GEN remark-INF ����� -ABESS

“Without beingremarked by anybody,theboy slippedinto thesnackbar.”

InfinitiveIV is averballexemewith nominalproperties.It is opento all casesuffixes.

(32) hallituksen kukistu-minen olisi ko-htalokasta.

government-SG.GEN fall-INF ��� .NOM be-3P.COND momentous-SG.PARTIT

“The falling of the governmentwouldbemomentous.”

Thelastexampleclearlyshowstheprinciplebehindagreatnumberof nonfiniteconstruc-tions.Thesubjectof theembeddedpropos-ition appearsas a genitive that determinesthe infinitival form: the type “the govern-ment falls” is transformedinto “the fallingof thegovernment”.

Inasmuchas participlesare open to allcasemarkers, they have, like infinitive IV,thestrongestnominalfeatures.At thesametime, they have more verbal characterist-ics than the latter in that they are markedfor tenseand diathesis.In line with theirverbal and nominal properties,participlesmaybeusedin verbalandnominalcontexts:asadjectivesdeterminingnounslikerelativeclauses,or as verbal kernelsof embeddedclauses:

(33) FINNISH

hänon Jumalaapelkäävämies.

he-3P.SG be-3P.SG.PRES God-SG.PARTIT

fear-PART.PRES.ACT.-SG.NOM man-SG.NOM

“He is a godfearingman.”

(34) pojansyö-ty-älähdimme.

boy-SG.GEN eat-PART.PERF.PASS-PARTIT

leave-1PL .PAST

“We left aftertheboy hadeaten.”

Thosefamiliarwith CLASSICAL LATIN willfeel thatexample(34)couldhavesomethingin commonwith LATIN ablativus absolu-tus (cf. Müller-Lancé1994,especiallywithrespectto its evolution). Its domainof ap-plication is much more restricted,though:example(34) could not easilybe translatedinto LATIN by anablativusabsolutus.

As regardstense,it tendsto disappearre-latively soon in infinitivization, but some-timesit maybeexpressedby nominalmeansinstead.A casein point is SPANISH, wherethe prepositiontras ‘after’ is totally suffi-cient in order to expressa relationshipofANTERIOR to POSTERIOR, even thoughinthiscaseaninfinitiveperfectwouldbeavail-able:

(35) SPANISH (El País, 11.9.2000)

“Las investigacionescomenzaronaprincipio de año, tras detectarse un

14

fuerteaumentoenel númerodelasciu-dadanasde Europadel Estequeexer-cíanlaprostituciónenlaCasadelCam-po.”

. . . afterdiscover-INF.PRES.REFL . . .

“Investigationsstartedat thebeginningof the year when/aftera considerableaugmentationof thenumberof citizensfrom Eastern Europe who practisedprostitutionin theCasadelCampowasfound.”

Generally speaking,one can say that themore a techniqueis ‘nouny’, the more arenominalmeansusedin orderto expressre-lationsholdingbetweenclauses.This is thecasewith the SPANISH prepositiontras aswell aswith FINNISH casemarkersoninfin-itives: in example(28) translative casewasusedfor the relationof FINALITY; adessivecan be usedfor INSTRUMENTAL relations,inessive for SIMULTANEITY, etc.

This is tantamount to saying that onthe onehandin many Europeanlanguagesthe relation expressedby a gerund,infinit-ive, participledependson the context, cer-tainrelationsbeingpracticallyexcluded(seeabove § 3.1). On the other hand,we maystatethat in languagesendowedwith a richcase marking system a large set of ‘ad-verbial’ relationscanbeexplicitly conveyedby converbs – thanks to their nouninesswhich admitscasemarking.As a result, inFINNISH even FINALITY canbe expressedconverbally(aboveexample[28]).

Another interestingfeatureis that verbaldowngradingimplies a total loss of modalinformation (indicative or assertive mood),thusshowing thatdowngradingby a specialmood (conjunctive or subjunctive) is to beseenasaquiteparticular, if not exotic, link-ing technique(seeabove § 3.2.4andbelow§ 3.2.8).

Table 45.1 summarizeswhat has beensaidwith respectto FINNISH:

HierherTabelle45.1

3.2.6 The technique of verb serializa-tion

By definition,theoppositionbetweenverbsand converbs presupposesan oppositionbetween finite and nonfinite (given thescalebetweenaggregationand integration,one should better say: less finite) verbforms.This makessenseabove all in manyEuropeanlanguageswherefinite verbsareobligatorily marked as to person,number,tense, mood, aspect,diathesis,assertion.Dependingon how many of thesefeaturesarelost,a lot of evermore‘nouny’ interme-diateformsmaycomeinto existence.

If, however, thespeakersof a languagedonot have to obligatorily mark verbsfor allthesefeatures,therewill be little room leftfor converbsand the like. This is the casewith languageslike CHINESE and V IET-NAMESE wherethe finite/nonfinitedistinc-tion doesnot makeany sense.In a languagelike JAPANESE, the distinctionis basedex-clusively on the featureof � past (Bisang1998:736–40).This is why suchlanguagesmake useof a different linking technique.It is called ‘verb series’, where, formallyspeaking,thetwo (or more)verbsfollowingoneanotherareon apar.

As a specialistin the matter, Walter Bi-sang(1998:732)givesthefollowing defini-tion:

“Verb serialization,as I understandit,is definedas the unmarked juxtapos-ition of two or more verbs or verbphrases(with or withoutsubjectand/orobject), eachof which would also beableto form a sentenceon its own (Bi-sang1992: 9). This definition is syn-tactic and can be morphologicalwithregardto the markednessof the juxta-positionandwith regardto the abilityof awordto form asentenceonitsown.

There are two different subtypesofverb serialization.If thereis no gram-maticalized verb in a sequenceofverbs,we have ‹verb serializationin abroad sense›,which is in contrasttoverb serializationinfluencedby gram-maticalizationwhich is monopredicat-ive andwhich I call ‹verbserializationin a narrow sense›”.

The following example will show, among

15

expressionof:mood person tense,

diathesiscases

moreverbal 1. participleusedasverb no poss.suff. yes some�2. infinitive I no poss.suff. no two3. infinitive II no poss.suff. no two4. infinitive III no no no many�5. infinitive IV no no no all

lessverbal 6. participleusedasnoun no no partly all

Table45.1:FINNISH infinitival linking techniquesbetweenverbinessandnouniness.Desententializationstartswith the lossof modalinformationanda continuousincreasein nominalproperties,above all in casemarking. This allows speakers to ‘nominally’ expressa large set ofadverbial relations.Informationasto the grammaticalpersonmay still begiven in themoreverbaltechniques,thoughby nominalmeans.Tensetendsto disappearsoon,too.– For similarobservationsin HUICHOL (with anevenlargernumberof intermediatestepsdueto a richerverbalsystem)� art.41§ 9 andtable41.9.

other things, how this techniquefunctionsin CHINESE. Therearefour verbalelementsfollowing one another: ‘to kneel’, ‘to godown’, ‘to come’, and ‘to beg’. ‘To come’typically confers a deictic meaningon averb or verbal syntagmit follows. This islike GERMAN ‘her-fahren’vs. ‘hin-fahren’,or, vertically, ‘hinauf-steigen’vs. ’herauf-steigen’.Except in lexicalised oppositionssuchasbring vs. take or comevs. go, thiscomponentis not translatedinto ENGLISH.

The component‘go down’ expressesthemovement of the person kneeling down.Since– accordingto the lack of a distinc-tion betweenfinite andnonfiniteverbforms– it is notclearwhetherthefourthverbalele-ment, ‘to beg’ shouldbe integratedor notinto thegroupmadeup by thethreepreced-ing verbs,thereexist four differentinterpret-ationsof thesentence.

(36) MANDARIN CHINESE (Li &Thompson 1973: 98 cited fromBisang1998:764)

Nı guì-xià-lái qiú Zhangsan.

you kneel-go.down-comebeg Zhangsan

As FINALITY: “You knelt down in or-derto beg Zhansan.”

As CONSECUTIVE action: “You kneltdown andthenbeggedZhangsan.”

As SIMULTANEOUS action:“Youkneltdown beggingZhangsan.”

As alternatingaction:“YoukneltdownandbeggedZangsan.”

The first scholar who recognized thecrucial role verb serialization(the currenttermhasbeeninventedmuchlater, though)playsin CHINESE wasWilhelm von Hum-boldt (1827). In a well-known letter ad-dressedto theFrenchphysicianJeanPierreAbel-Rémusat,he underlinedthe fact that,among other things, all the functions as-sumed by prepositionsin Europeanlan-guages,aretakenoverbyverbsin CHINESE.Thegrandethèseof ClaudeHagège(1975)and,somewhat later, the masterlythesisofWalterBisang(1992),hada similar import-ance.

Even if, in a strict sense,verb serializ-ation should be limited to languageslikeMANDARIN CHINESE whereno differencebetweenfinite and nonfinite verb forms ismade,similar phenomenacan be observedin languageswherespeakersdistinguishdif-ferentdegreesof finiteness.This meansthatthe more finite forms may have additionalverbalfeatureswith respectto thelessfiniteones,or thatthelessfinite onesexhibit addi-tionalfeaturesthemselves– likethenominalmarkersobservedin FINNISH. Bisangrefersto suchcasesas‘asymmetric’.Grammatic-alizationcanoccurin all cases,though.

Someexampleswill be added.The con-ceptualdomainchosenis in mostcases‘totake’: in orderto do somethingwith anob-ject, very oftenonehasto take it first. (Theonly CHINESE prepositionin the originalsenseof the term, ba, an object marker, isderivedfrom theverb ‘to take’; � art. 113,§ 2.1.3.)– TheFar Eastexamplesaretaken

16

from Bisang(1992:30ff.).

(37a) THAI : he– take– book– read

“He is readinga book.”

(b) KHMER: he – take – garment– direc-tional verb– put – sun

“He putsthegarmentsinto thesun.”

(c) V IETNAMESE: secretary– take – hand– put – directionalverb– pocket

“The secretaryput his hand into thepocket.”

(d) KHMER: pupil – go – house– take –book– come– school– give– teacher

“The pupil wenthomeandbroughtthebookto theteacherin theschool.”

Thefollowingexamplesdemonstratehowthe secondmemberof a verb-verb com-pound can be downgraded in languageswhereconcordbetweensubjectandverb ismandatory.

(38) K IL IVILA (Senft1986:152)

E ka-me-sio kwadewa e ka-bia-sima-waga-sii-la o kwadeva.

and 1P.EXCL-come-PL to beach and1PL .EXCL-push-PL POSS.1PL-boat-PL

3P.UNMARKED-goto beach

“And werunashoreandpushourboatsontothebeach.”

Heretheverbin theboatsgo doesnot haveits plural form, but the neutral3rd personmarkerandnopluralmarkingat theend(thefully-fledgedfinite form wouldbe i-la-si in-steadof i-la).

Anotherdowngradingfeaturemaybetheloss of a personmarker on the non-firstmembersof a verbal compound.This canbe observed, e.g., in CreolelanguageslikePRÍNCIPE CREOLE where ‘full’ verbsarespecifiedby a personalaffix whenthe sub-ject remainsidentical(referencetrackingbysubstitution,seeabove § 2.1). – Bold facemarksthehigh tone.

(39) PRÍNCIPE CREOLE (Günther 1973:122)

eli myè se wè ze awa tâ wè kaschi fezeròmòsu

thenwomanhis go-PFV get water take gohousemake meal

“Then his wife went for water (and)brought(it) to the house(in order to)preparethemeal.”

In thefollowing exampletheverbda, in ad-dition to the loss of the personmarker e‘s/he’, hasits low tone,not the high oneitwould have as a verb in its own right. Inthis case,loss of the high tone might sig-nalafurtherstepin grammaticalizationwithdafunctioningasaprepositionenlargingthevalency of theverbalconcept.

(40) PRÍNCIPE CREOLE (Günther 1973:122)

òra ki òmi sé schiga kaschi e pweròmòsuda ’li

hourwhenhusbandPOSS arrive-PFV houses/he-3P.SG put-PFV mealgive him

“When her husbandcamehome,sheservedthemealfor him.”

Another means frequently used in RO-MANCE CREOLES in orderto reducefinite-nessis imperfectivity as opposedto per-fectivity: imperfectivity is usually felt aslessfinite (seeHopper& Thompson1980;for examplesseeRaible 1992:61–71;Mi-chaelis 1994; Ludwig 1996; see below §7.2).

Verb serializationcan be seenas a con-structionkit for the expressionof complexcontent.As is shown in examples(37d) or(39), the concept‘to bring’ canbe decom-posedinto the simpler conceptualbuildingblocks‘to take’, ‘to transport’and‘to give’somethingto somebody. An additionaldir-ectionalcomponentmightcompletethepic-ture.

In its purest form, verb serializationistypical of Far Easternlanguages(see,e.g.,Bisang1998:734).Theunderlyingprinciple– i.e. thecombinationof two or moreverbalelementsin order to form a morecomplexcontent,whethermonopredicative (Bisang)or not – can probablybe found in all lan-guages,though.This makesverb serializa-tion – in a broadsense– an ideal startingpoint for grammaticalizationand lexicaliz-ation ( � art. 113, § 4.1.1.1wherethe dif-ferenttypesexisting acrossa largeseriesoflanguagesareshown). The wider the scale

17

betweenfinite andnonfiniteverbforms,thehigherthenumberof intermediateproducts.One of the typical final outcomesis evenidenticalin, e.g.,CREOLE LANGUAGES andin CHINESE: new nominal affixes, for in-stanceprepositions.

Another possible outcome is dia-thesis. An example familiar to speakersof FRENCH, ENGLISH or SPANISH arestepstowards a diathesishighlighting theBeneficiary. What is necessaryis a verblike GERMAN ‘kriegen’, ‘bekommen’,ENGLISH ‘to get’, or a perceptionverblike ‘to see’ or ‘to hear’. They have allin commonthat the first participantis notconceived of as an Agent, but ratheras aBeneficiary or someoneconcernedby anaction.

(41) ENGLISH (BBC News14.7.1999)

Aspricesfor personalcomputersplum-met, Apple could seeits revenuesdi-minish, even as its sells more com-puters,analystssay.

(42) FRENCH (LeMonde7.3.1994,p. 9)

Majit Jalil Ali Al Mendelavi, vingt-six ans,un médecinirakien, kurde etchiite, qui s’estvu refuserl’admissionsurle territoirefrançais,(...) devait êtrerenvoyé, samedi5 mars,en directiond’Amman.

In the Europeanlanguagescited above,thereis againa link to the Ausbauof lan-guages,i.e.,to literacy with its differenttex-tual genres:“The frequency of se voir insentencesexpressingthepassive or topical-izing theexperiencer, aswell asthefactthatsevoir is commonlyused– oddthoughthismayappearfrom a ‘logical’ viewpoint – intheadministrativeandscientificstyleswhenthereferentof thepatientis an abstractno-tion, aretwo importantargumentsfor gram-maticalization” (Hagège1993: 229). Non-etheless,this type of experiencerdiathesismay be found in New Guinealanguagesaswell (Foley & VanValin 1984:149ff.).

All in all, it should be clear that notany verb whatever can be integrated intosuchverbalcompounds:therearesemanticprimeshighly lkely to be part of suchtan-dem constructs,whereasotherswill neverappearin this kind of context (Raible1996;

Wierzbicka1998).Thisis,again,aclearhintto acognitivebasisof suchphenomena.

3.2.7 Prepositionalgroupsand nominalaffixes

As was shown, for instance, by AdolfNoreen(seebelow § 4), thenumberof SPE-CIFIC RELATIONS humansmaywant to ex-presswhen speakingis considerable.Oneonly hasto think of thepossibilitieswehavein thedomainof temporalor local relations:before, behind,in front of, beneath,above,below, under, over, right, left, etc. ( � art.43; art.44).All of theselocal relationsmaybe combinedwith movement,thusmakingthemdynamic(for instancethither, hither).This movement may again be combinedwith a deictic component,i.e. additionallytaking into accountthepoint of view of thespeakeror thehearer, etc.

In many Europeanlanguages,an answerto this challengeare prepositions,preposi-tional groups,a rich casesystem,or a com-binationof bothof them.Beyonddoubt,themostdynamicof thesetechniquesof integ-rationareprepositionalgroups.In principle,this techniqueis productive. As a rule, to afirst prepositionanelementis addedthathasthefunctionof thesemanticcore.Thisagainis followed by anotherpreposition,usuallyonethatbelongsto themostunmarkedpre-positions(like de/di, à/a in the ROMANCE

LANGUAGES, von in GERMAN, or of, to inENGLISH).

As regardsthesemanticcore,moreoftenthannot it is the preciseexpressionof theintendedrelation: EXCEPTION, ADDITION,interestas the GOAL of an action (in ad-dition to, with the exceptionof, on behalfof, à l’intention de, au détrimentde, to thedetrimentof, to te disadvantage of, à con-dition de, en vertu de, by virtue of, etc.). Ifthespeakersof a languagehave converbsattheir disposal(seeabove § 3.2.5),they maybeusedaswell: e.g.,FRENCH comptetenude ‘on accountof’.

Speakers of languageswhich use thetechniqueof converbsmaycombinethepre-positional techniquewith converbs in stillanotherway: the increasingnouninessofsuchconstructionscanbeenhancedby casemarking or by nominal affixes having asimilar function, while expressingat the

18

sametime SPECIFIC RELATIONS. Goodex-amples are the gerundial forms of, e.g.,SPANISH, ITALIAN or even LATIN ablat-ivus absolutus: ENGLISH whendoing this,while looking at . . . , despitehaving beenseen, with Mary now singing; SPANISH

aúnlevantándosetardísimo; ITALIAN dopocenato, LATIN quiesprovinciaequamvisre-motoconsularimansit‘in spiteof thewith-drawal of’ . . . ), etc.

In the above example (10), we becamefirst acquaintedwith a very specialkind ofinterpretator:a pronominaldummy– refer-ring to an entire sentenceor even a seriesof sentences– linked to a preposition,thetwo of themgiving the antecedentpassagea specialmeaning,for instanceCAUSE. Inthiscaseit wasSPANISH por lo tanto‘there-fore’, anequivalentof por eso.

This meansthata techniquewhich,by itsform (PREP + PRON) is highly integrative,candevelopinto a linking elementfunction-ing on a ratheraggregative level. In § 6 be-low it will becomemanifestthat this is alsooneof theimportantsourcesfor grammatic-alization.

3.2.8 Downgrading by tenseand mood

BalthasarBickel, while discussingthe pos-sibilities speakers have when they want tolay out tracksfor the hearer, mentionsdif-ferentkindsof Fährten: thepersonaltrackswhich have receivedmuchattentionabove,local tracks, tracks using topicalisationasdescribed,e.g.,in § 2.4.Healsobriefly men-tionstemporalor tensetracks(Bickel 1991:149ff.).

Sincerelatedtopicsaretreatedelsewhere( � art. 42; art. 59), a short look from aEuropeanperspective will be sufficient. –RomanJakobsonoutlined a generalframefor this kind of consideration(Jakobson1957/1971). There are different relevanttypesof linkageon the temporallevel: thetype ‘narratedEvent in relation to anothernarratedEvent’ (symbolizedasEn/En) cor-respondsto a tense like FRENCH passésimple: aseriesof clauseswith passésimplerefersto a seriesof successive events(tem-poral iconicity; � art. 30, § 4). Jakobsoncalledthis type‘taxis’:

(43) FRENCH (Racine,Phèdre)

Je le vis, je rougis,je pâlisà savue.

A second relevant type is labelledEn/Ens/Es. It describes a verbal cat-egory, called‘evidential’, “which takesintoaccountthree events– a narratedevent, aspeechevent,anarratedspeechevent(Ens),namely the alleged sourceof informationabout the narrated event. The speakerreportsan event on the basisof someoneelse’s report (quotative, i.e. hearsayevid-ence),of a dream(relative evidence),of aguess(presumptiveevidence)or of his ownprevious experience(memory evidence).”(Jakobson1957/1971:135).

Therearemany languageswhichhavein-tegratedthis possibility into their grammar,for instanceas a ‘quotative’ – see aboveexamples(24, 25). A typical example arenewspapersin most ROMANCE languageswhere conditional mood in main clausesmakes clear that the author is not will-ing to assumeany communicative respons-ibility whatever. Another interesting caseamongEuropeanlanguagesis thefreeindir-ect speech,in FRENCH style indirect libre.Direct speechis transposedinto a formwhere most of its characteristicsare con-served – with the exceptionsof tenseandpersonaldeixis ( � art. 47, § 2.2). If thelanguageunder discussionhas in its sys-tem an option betweenperfective and im-perfective tenses,the imperfective versionwill bechosen.(Downgradingby imperfect-ive forms hasalreadybeenmentionedin §3.2.6andwill beintegratedinto amoregen-eral framework in § 7.2). An examplewillillustratethis:

(44) FRENCH (Flaubert,MadameBovary,ch.VII)

[. . . ] Ah ! il était parti, le seulcharmede sa vie, le seul espoir possibled’une félicité! Commentn’avait-ellepassaisicebonheur-là,quandil sepré-sentait! Pourquoinepasl’avoir retenuà deuxmains,à deuxgenoux,quandilvoulait s’enfuir? Et elle se maudit den’avoir pasaiméLéon; elle eutsoif deseslèvres.

In thispassage,styleindirectlibrehascometo an endwhenwe read“Et elle semaudit. . . ” with its two occurrencesof passé

19

simple (as a ‘perfective’ verb form abso-lutely excluded from style indirect libre),oneof themametacommunicativeverbintothebargain(“shecursedherself. . . ”).

Speakersof GERMAN may usea mood,‘Konjunktiv 1’ (to be distinguishedfrom‘Konjunktiv 2’) asa quotative.

(45) GERMAN

“Ich bin erstgesternangekommen,willIhnenabernichtzurLastfallenundrei-sedeshalbschonmorgenwiederab”

will betransformendinto thequotativeversion

“Er seierstgesternangekommen,wol-lemir abernichtzurLastfallenundrei-sedeshalbschonmorgenwiederab.”

Quotative makesclear that the speaker hasno communicative responsibility. It shouldbe added,though, that Konjunktiv 1 is ahighly literaryform.Mostspeakersof GER-MAN cannotactively usethe adequateverbforms,takingtheformsof ‘Konjunktiv 2’ oranalyticalparaphrasesinstead.

Another caseof downgradingby moodcouldalreadybeobservedin theROMANCE

examples(26d to 26f) andit wascommen-teduponabove in § 3.2.4.

4 The expression of rela-tions

Whenspeakingof clauselinking, onecan-not avoid speakingof the SPECIFIC RELA-TIONS holding betweenpropositions– see,e.g., above §§ 1; 2.5; 3; 3.1; 3.2; 3.2.3 to3.2.7.

How shouldsuchrelationsbe conceivedof? Is therean unlimited numberof them?Are they universalor restrictedto specificlanguages?If they areuniversal,arethey in-nate?Or do we haveto acquirethem?

In order to answerthe questionsraisedhere,differentapproachesarepossible.Thefirst one is strictly empirical: we couldchooseacertaingroupof languagesandob-serve the relationsexpressed,e.g., by ad-verbials.This survey was madeby BerndKortmann (1997) in a EUROTYP project

( � art. 63). He found a body of rela-tions he termed‘ CCC’ (CAUSALITY, CON-DITION, CONCESSIVITY), and three othergroupstermedTIME, PLACE, and MODAL.Othersspeakof logical relationsinsteadofCCC. The existenceof such relationsin alargesampleof languagesspeaksin favor ofuniversalcategoriesof humanthinking.

Kortmann has combined a secondap-proach with the first one: diachrony. Aretherecertaindirectionsin semanticchange?The answer was in the affirmative, withKortmannevenproposinga ‘cognitivemap’or ‘semanticspace’explainingtheobservedchanges( � art.63,fig. 63.1;63.2).

In thepresentarticleathird approachwillbe added:the developmentof the CCC re-lations in ontogenesis.– The most basiccognitive operationcarried out in the do-mainof CCC relationsis puttinginto relationtwo events:oneevent hassomethingto dowith another. This is expressedby CIRCUM-STANCE or CONDITIONALITY, and this iswhy children,observingthespeechof theirparents,veryoftenstartwith seeminglytau-tologicalutterances:

(46) GERMAN (Florian,age2;5)

Wenn der Hansi aussteigt,steigt derHansiaus.

Wenndasselberabgeht,gehtesab.

Wenn ich das Knäckebrot aufgessenhab, hab ich das Knäckebrot auf-gessen.

Theseutterancesarenot intendedastauto-logical, though,nor as truisms.They onlyexpressthe delight the child hasat begin-ning to understandhow suchconstructionsareusedby her/hispeersor carers.

Childrentendto useoneof the conjunc-tions, in GERMAN preferablywennor sim-ilar forms,asa generalconjunctionapplic-able to all contexts. The first relation dis-tinguishedafter CONDITIONALITY is TEM-PORALITY:

(47) GERMAN (Florianage2;10)

Wenn ich geschläfen hab, hab ich einKuchengekriegt.

“WhenI hadslept,I got a cake.”

(48) GERMAN (Julianage3;1)

20

WennWeihnachtenwar, da habich dieKerzenausgepfeifen.

“When there was Christmas, I‘whistled out’ thecandles.”

Having discoveredTEMPORALITY, childrenare preparedfor CAUSALITY: temporalre-lationshipscanbe interpretedcausally, buttemporality does not imply CAUSALITY.The child may useGERMAN wenn in thissensebeforestartingto useweil.

FINALITY is morecomplicated;(a) it isthe relation of CAUSALITY seenfrom an-otherperspective,(b) intentionhasto bead-ded.

(49) GERMAN (Julianage3;1)

Ich hab dasFenstermal bisslesaubergemacht, wenn die Leute rausguckenkönnen.

“I’ ve wiped the window a little bit‘when’ the folks can look out.” (Thechild cleaneda steamedwindow in arailwaycarriage.)

(50) GERMAN (Florianage3;4)

Ich hab da wasdrangebunden.Wennsbesserhält.

Verbally: “I wrapped somethingaroundit, ‘when’ it keepsbettertight”(The child wrappedthe cableof a toytelephonearoundthe doorknobof thetoilet.) At this age,this child alreadydistinguishesbetweenwenn, als andweil.

(51) GERMAN (Julianage3;4)

[The child tells his father a pseudodream.The fatherasks:] Warum hastdudenndieFlaschenin demKoffer ge-habt?[Answer:]Weil ich trinkenkann.

“Why onearthdid youhavethebottlesin thebag?– Because[usedin a FINAL

sense]I candrink.”

Similar observationshave beenreportedforinstanceby Michèle Kail andJürgenWeis-senborn(1991).

It is not without interest that this cog-nitive evolution reflects more or less thestepsa speaker of HOPI had to apply inclausechaining:with theSS-conditionhold-ing thefirst questionto beaskedis whether

the relation is TEMPORAL or not: if it isnot temporal,it has to be CONDITIONAL.In the caseof TEMPORALITY, s/hehastochoosebetweena SIMULTANEOUS relation-ship, ANTERIOR/POSTERIOR or CAUSAL-ITY (seeabove§ 3.2.2).

It shouldbe added,though,that the ex-pressionof two simultaneousactions re-mainsa true challengeto childrenuntil ap-proximately age seven (Berman& Slobin1994:393–455).

All this is good evidencein favor of acognitive space– as shown in Table 45.2– with appropriatebuilding blocksand thecorrespondingstepsin ontogenesis.

HierherTabelle45.2

On the one hand, table 45.2 explainsalsowhy CONCESSIVITY asthe mostcom-plex relation is acquiredlast by children.On the otherhandit is a goodbackgroundfor theunidirectionalsemanticchangeKort-mannobserved in 50 Europeanlanguages.A CONDITIONAL canbecomeTEMPORAL,but not theviceversa.Thesamethingholdsfor TEMPORAL itemsevolving into CAUSAL

ones,etc. The above examplesof childrencannotbe alleged as counterevidence:thechild doesnot use the linguistic forms aspeersdo.

A last remark should be made on thenumberand the systematicorderingof re-lations.It is relatively simpleto put theCCC

relationsinto a certainorderbecausethereexistsaclearinternalrelationship.As for therest,we have thechoicebetweenlots of ap-proaches(someof themaresynthesizedinRaible1992:146–53).

One of them deserves a special men-tion as probably the most fine-tuned at-tempt in this domain: the theory of statesby Adolf Noreen (1923). Noreen distin-guishedbetweenfive exterior and four in-terior stateswith numeroussubdivisions,yielding a total of about60. Sincehe gavethemLATIN names,wefind thenamesof allthegrammaticalcaseswe know from refer-encegrammarsof the mostremoteandex-quisite languages,and we possiblyfind aswell all thesemanticrelationswe canthinkof. Oftenthedistinctionshemadeproveex-tremelyhelpful (for instancethestatusclas-

21

relationto beexpressedCONDITIONAL TEMPORAL CAUSAL CONSECUTIVE FINAL CONCESSIVE

implication yes yes yes yes yes yesanterior/posterior � yes yes yes yes yescausation � � yes yes yes yeseffect � � � yes yes yesintendedeffect � � � � yes �unexpectedeffect � � � � � yes

Table45.2:Overview over the‘logical’ relations.The table is simplified becauseit doesnot take into accountthe hypotheticalpossibliltiestreatedto someextent in Seiler1993.All combinationspossiblein this domainareanalyzedin Heger &Mudersbach1984:62.ff. Cf. alsoDancygier1998.

sificationisin caseslike la ville deParis, thislinguist of Noreen; cf. Raible1982.)

This shows, among other things, oncemore the close relationship that holdsbetween‘semantic’relationsandgrammat-ical casesasthemostintegrativetypeof ex-pressingSPECIFIC RELATIONS.

5 Communicative dynam-ism

Right from the beginning of this article itwas pointed out that clauselinking is notan end in itself. Among the aims it servesare groundingand communicative dynam-ism (§ 1, point 2). Syntactical hierarchy(ibid., point 1), establishingsemanticrela-tions (ibid., point 3) andreferencetracking(ibid., point 4) all contribute to this basictask.

Oneof thegroundingtechniquesis cleft-ing (seeabove § 2.4). Othersare diathesis( � art. 67–69)andsyntactichierarchy, thatis the whole scaleof techniquesselectivelydescribedin § 3. Evendifferenttypesof ref-erencetracking(§ 2) areimpliedin thistask,for instancein the form of the five typesofthematicprogressiondescribedby FrantišekDaneš( � art.46; art.47,§ 2.3).

This meansthat communicative dynam-ism is first and foremosta matterof texts,not of individual sentencesor clauses– seeabove example(2) with its communicativedynamismtypical of newspapergenres,ex-ample(3), (10) or theGREEK example(27)with its fine tunedexploitation of syntactichierarchy.

One of the most competentauthorsonthis topic was Étienne Bonnot de Con-

dillac (1715–1780),oneof the intellectualsof the FrenchEnlightenment.He was formany years tutor to the Infant of Parma.Between1769 and 1773,he publishedthematerialhe hadusedin this capacityunderthe title Cours d’études. It contains,amongother things, a Logic, a Grammar extens-ively commentedupon in an earlierarticleby Lia Formigari ( � art. 16), andanArt ofwriting.

Condillac’s fundamentalidea is that thebasisof textsareconceptualbuilding blocksandthat,in orderto bewell understoodandto be effective, they have to be put into anappropriateorderandto belinkedin anad-equateway. He called this la liaison desidées. In orderto demonstratethis to hispu-pil, he usedcontemporaryauthorsasgoodandasbadexamples,often generatingspe-cial effectsby modifyingtheoriginal text. Ashortpassagefrom afamousfuneraladdressby Bossuetillustratestheprocedure:

(52) FRENCH (Condillac, L’art d’écrire,bookiv)

«Onuit désastreuse! O nuit effroyable,où retentit tout à coup, comme unéclatde tonnerre,cetteétonnantenou-velle : Madamesemeurt,Madameestmorte!»

A cet endroit de l’oraison funèbredeMadame, tout le monderépanditdeslarmes: mais je me trompefort, quel’on n’enauraitpasrépandu,si Bossuetavait dit :

«Onuit désastreuse! O nuit effroyable,où cetteétonnantenouvelle : Madamese meurt, Madameest morte, retentittout à coup commeun éclat de ton-nerre.»

22

Bossuet,the author of the good version,usedeven the interpretator(seeabove §§2.1; 2.4) cetteétonnantenouvellein a cata-phoricfunctionfor theeffectheintends:firstcomesthesubstitutingelementyielding theadequateframe of interpretation,then thedirect quotethat fills this frame.The sametechniqueis usedin theaboveexample(1).

Theexampleneedsno furthercomment–apartfrom thefact that it showshow wrongthe membersof a certaingrammaticaltra-dition ( � art. 19) werewhenclaiming thatFrenchclarté was due to SV(O) ordering:in the presentcase,the effect is, above all,basedon inversion.This is tantamounttosaying– andCondillacsaysthis explicitly– that theorderof elementsin a sentenceisgovernedby thelargerwholeit is apartof.

More extensive examplesfrom Condillaccannotbecitedhere:in manifoldways,thisauthor demonstrates– by slight modific-ations – the crucial importanceof clauselinking. Even if every sentencein a seriesmaybeperfectlycorrectin itself, the resultcanturn out to be a hardly intelligible text:“les phrasesne tiennentplus les unesauxautres”.With Condillac,coherenceimpliesall the techniquesof groundingby down-gradingclausesavailablein FRENCH.

6 Diachronic aspects

The dimensionof junction with its tech-niquesextendingbetweenthe polesof ag-gregation and integration is an ideal fieldfor semanticchangeandfor grammaticaliz-ation. As regardssemanticchange,a pos-sible – partial – frame is shown above inTable45.2and,aboveall, in thecontributionof BerndKortmann( � art.63).

A good starting point for grammat-icalization are the converbal techniques(§ 3.2.5). This is due to the fact that, byvirtue of their form, they signify integrationwhereas,in principle, the specific relationholding betweenthe converbal form andthe main verb it dependson remainsopento interpretation. However, in case thesemanticcontent given to the converb isidenticalwith oneof theSPECIFIC semanticRELATIONS, this form canbegrammatical-ized, very often yielding a new adnominalelement (e.g., a preposition). Table 45.3

illustrates this with some ROMANCE ex-amples.

HierherTabelle45.3

The type of examplesintegrated in table45.3 can easily be found in the respectiveversionsof the above mentionedEU treaty(see above § 3.2.3), alongsidewith theirEnglish equivalents (during, concerning,pending, barring, notwithstanding, given,granted).

Table 45.4 shows that the same de-velopment can be observed in FINNISH,this time with the help of nonfinite verbforms and the case markers they admitin this language:again, the EU treaty isfull of such ‘new’ prepositionsthat areconstructed,in this language,with a casedependingonthemeaningof theunderlyingverb (usually genitive, partitive, illative,elative). In many cases,theotherlanguagesof the EU treaty have to fall back on lessintegrative techniquesin order to expressthesamerelations.

HierherTabelle45.4

At the end of § 3.2.7, it was alreadymentionedthat the combinationNOMINAL

AFFIX + DUMMY, with the nominal af-fix expressinga SPECIFIC RELATION, isanimportantsourcefor grammaticalization.It leadsfirst to coordinatingconjunctions:LATIN própteréa ‘therefore’ � proptérea.

propterea normally refers to somethingantecedent,that is it is used as an ana-phoric.Thenext stepin theevolutionis cata-phoricuse:proptereaquod. Whenit is usedwithout a dummyinterpretator, quodhasacausalmeaning.SinceCLASSICAL LATIN,theanalyticscheme‘dummy interpretator+prep + quod’ hasbecomehighly product-ive: inde quod,ob id quod, ideo quod, id-circo quod,interim quod,posteaquod,cumeoquod, etc.Theelementeo,eamayalsobereplacedby amorecataphoricelement,hoc:hocipsoquod, or, with a realnominalinter-pretator, hac rationequod ‘for this reason’,etc.

The number of synthetic LATIN con-junctionstransferredto ROMANCE is quite

23

relationexpressed

FRENCH ITALIAN SPANISH RUMANIAN

MEANS moyennant mediante medianteEXCLUSION hormis,

exceptéeccetto excepto, exceptu-

andoexceptîndpe

DURATION durant,pendant

durante durante

CAUSE comptetenude, vu, atten-du

tenuto conto di,considerato

habidacuentade,dado,debidoa

avîndin vedere,considerînd

CONCESSION nonobstant nonostante noobstanteRESPECT concernant,

touchant,suivant

concernientea,siguiendo

Table45.3:Grammaticalizationof converbsin someROMANCE languages.

‘preposition’ meaning form of theverbhuoli-ma-tta in spiteof INF ����� -ABESS huolia ‘to careabout’loukkaa-ma-tta regardlessof INF ����� -ABESS loukata‘to hurt’riippu-ma-tta regardless INF ����� -ABESS riippua ‘dependon’rajoitta-ma-tta withoutprejudiceto INF ����� -ABESS rajoittaa ‘to limit’lähti-e-n startingfrom INF ��� -INSTRUCT lähteä‘departfrom’kulu-e-ssa during INF ��� -INESS kulua ‘to goby’sattu-e-ssa in case INF ��� -INESS sattua‘to happen’vaati-e-ssa in case INF ��� -INESS vaatia ‘to require’menn-e-ssä until INF ��� -INESS mennä‘to go’kulu-ttu-a after PRT.PERF.PASS-PART kuluttaa‘spendtime’tarvitta-e-ssa wherenecessary PASS.INF ��� -INESS tarvita ‘to need’

Table45.4:Grammaticalizationof converbsin FINNISH.

small. The bulk of Romancesubordinat-ing conjunctionshasbeennewly formedac-cording to the two analytic LATIN mouldsPREP + DUMMY + QUOD (LATIN per hocquod) and PREP + QUOD (LATIN propterquod). Thedetails– aswell asthelink to lit-eracy – canbeseenin Stempel1964:390ff.or in Raible1992:160–70.

It standsto reasonthatverbalseries,too,areidealstartingpointsfor grammaticaliza-tion, particularlyin languageswherea largescaleof possibilitiesbetweenfinitenessandnonfinitenessexists.Exampleswerealreadymentionedin § 3.2.6.

Another interestingchapterare comple-mentizers.Here a current evolution startsfrom the introducingmatrix verb ‘to say’.Karen H. Ebert (1991; for examples inSEYCHELLES CREOLE seeMichaelis1994)has given good exampleswith all the in-termediatesteps. Another current evolu-tion starts– oncemore – from interpretat-

ors. This is how LATIN quo modo be-camea complementizerin someROMANCE

languages,cf. especially ITALIAN como.A third current starting point are cata-phoricdummies(pronouns)introducingdir-ectquote(“I tell youthat:”, leadingto formslike GERMAN dass/daß) or that.

All the developmentsmentionedas yethaveto dowith thedowngradingof clauses.As was shown by Claus D. Pusch(1999;2001),thespeakersof GASCON, oneof theROMANCE languages,have developed an‘upgrading’ featurefrom a pivot (seeabove§ 2.4); it is called ‘enunciative’ andbringsGASCON on a par with QUECHUA and acoupleof African languageslike K IKUYU

(Heine& Reh1983).

In suchcases,cleft sentencesno longerserve astagsfor the reorderingof constitu-ents. Although they do not lose entirelytheir focalizing effect which, in thesecon-texts, is associatedwith the highlighting

24

of relevant partsof the utterance,they de-velop into markers of predicationfocus, aweaker typeof focusthatoftenparallelstheunmarkedtheme/rhemeorder. Enunciativesare the morphologicremainsof cleft con-structionsin suchunmarkeddeclarativesen-tences.

In general,onecouldsaythatit shouldnotcomeasasurprisethat,aboveall, theanalyt-ical techniquesof junctionserveasastartingpoint for grammaticalization.

7 Overall view and con-cluding remarks

The precedingsectionshave shown thatclauselinking is a fairly complex task: itimplies referencetracking in subsequentclauses(§ 2), the expressionof SPECIFIC

RELATIONS (someof themwere treatedin§ 4), andthe exploitation of syntactichier-archyby aseriesof techniquesextendingona scalebetweenaggregationandintegration(§ 3).

The relevant techniques,apart from themost aggregative and integrative ones,arehighly languagespecific,thusmakingupforthe typologicalaspectof clauselinking. Inarticle 63, Kortmannhasformulatedsomecharacteristicsholding for Europeanlan-guages(‘euroversals’)in oneof thesetech-niques,adverbial conjunctions.They showa connectionbetweenother features(ba-sic word order, existenceof prepositions)andadverbial conjunctions.Basicword or-der(SOV) wasmentionedalsowith respectto the techniqueof clausechaining(above§ 3.2.2)andclefting (above § 2.4).Authorslike Toshio Ohori (1994) show diachronicprocessesbringing about a changein thedominanttypeof clauselinking, in his casefor JAPANESE.

When successfully applied, linkingclauseswith the help of the appropriatetechniquesshouldleadto a well structured,intelligible andeffective text – this is whyliteracy andtherelatedAusbauof languagescameinto play (cf., e.g.,above §§ 2.1; 3.2;3.2.3;3.2.6;3.2.7;6).

In orderto getanoverallview, thethreadswill now be tied in a somewhat differentway.

7.1 A layered or encapsulatedmodelof the verb

The following table45.5 synthesizessomeauthoritative views expressedwith respectto the internal structureof verbal groupsandclauses.

HierherFigur45.5

If a token of any layer of figure 45.5 –nuclear, core,or peripheral– is joinedto anyother token of its sametype, Foley & VanValin (1984:188)speakof ‘juncture’. Prac-tically, this concernsabove all whatBisanghascalled a ‘monopredicative’ verb series(seeabove § 3.2.6),that is nuclearjuncture.The authorscall ‘nexus’ “the natureof thesyntactic linkage between two clauses”(1984:238),proposingthreetypesof nexuscharacterizedby the combination of thefeatures � embeddedand � dependent:coordination( � embedded,� dependent),subordination( � embedded,� dependent)and cosubordination ( � embedded, �dependent).This is representedin Table45.6Nexusandjuncturepossibilities(1984:263):

HierherTabelle45.6

Up to a point, table45.6 shouldbe seenas anotherway of representingthe scalebetweenaggregation and integration pro-posedabove in § 3. This holdsall themoreas the field may be translatedinto a scalarsyntacticbondednesshierarchy(1984:267).At the sametime, the centersof interestoverlap only partially since Foley & VanValin arenot interestedin theSPECIFIC RE-LATIONS thatcanbeexpressedbynexusandjuncture,thusputtingasidesuchphenomenaasinterpretatorsandgrammaticalcasesex-pressingSPECIFIC RELATIONS, e.g.,CAUS-ALITY.

‘Conjunction’ is even more aggregativethan the above example illustrating pureaggregation (11a/b)since it combinestwototally non-coalescentclauseswith ‘and’,viz. the caseof ‘maximal disjunctness’in

25

peripheryKennethLee& Evelyn Pike1984:margin; SimonC. Dik 1978:satellites– domainof theperipheralargumentsof theverb

for Foley & VanValin 1984:Beneficiaryandall therest,plus:spatio-temporalsetting,i.e., temporalandlocaladverbials.

corePike& Pike 1984;Dik 1978:nucleus– containstheargumentsor participantsof thecore;

for Foley & VanValin 1984:only AgentandPatient;for others:Agent,Patient,Beneficiary.

– coreis thedomainwherediathesisis effective; cf. Givón1994.

nucleusFoley & VanValin 1984:“innermostlayer”;Hansjakob Seiler1988:“Partizipatum”;PeterKoch1981:“konstitutive Sachverhaltsbe-dingungen”and“Art derSachverhaltsdar-stellung”.

– Foley & VanValin 1984locateherecategorieslike ‘aspect’.This is somewhatproblematicbecauseaspectmayberealizedasa corecategory (aspectmarkingon theparticipants:� art.1 § 3, point4).

participants(e.g.,Seiler1988)

Figure45.5Encapsulatedor layeredmodelof theverbresp.clause.On thebasisof William A. Foley & RobertD. VanValin (1984:78), thefigureshows theconceptualandterminologicaldifferencesexisting betweentheseauthorsandsomeotherauthoritative modelsof theinternalstructureof verbsor clauses.

thewordingof ChristianLehmann(below §7.3,point 5).

Maintaining reference(§ 2) concernsonthe one handonly the participants,i.e. thecoreandtheperipheryin figure45.5.Ontheotherhandit mayconcernthewholeclausewith its nucleuswheneverdummiesor inter-pretators– or dummyverbs(verbavicaria)like to do, tun, faire – areusedto this end,with or without oneof the SPECIFIC RELA-TIONS being added(above § 2): they rep-resententire sentencesand even text pas-sages,thus additionally demonstratingthatnot only nouns,but also clauses,propos-itions, sentences,and texts refer to some-thing ( � art. 1, § 3, point 4). Thesearethemost interestingcasesand,above all, oftenstartingpointsfor grammaticalization(see§3.2.7).

Maintainingreferencealsohasto dowiththeorderof participantson themainclauselevel, thusimplying techniquesallowing to‘reshuffle’ participants like diathesisandclefting, the latter actually foregroundingratherthandowngradinga clause(above §2.4).

The morea techniquebecomesintegrat-ive, the more it will interactwith the coreand the nucleus. In this context, the re-lations expressedmight play a part, too:Hansjakob Seiler hasput forward the ideathat, by their nature, the SPECIFIC RE-LATIONS expressedin the dimensionex-tendingbetweenthe most aggregative andthe most integrative techniquesare them-selvesmoreor lessaggregative or integrat-ive. He proposesthe following scale,start-ing with the most integrative ones:TIME,

26

Nexus:Juncture Coordinate Subordinate cosubordinatePeripheral Conjunction Adverbialclause

(see§ 3.2.3)Switch reference(see§ 3.2.2)

parataxis(see§ 3.1,ex. [11a/b])

That-clause(see§ 3.2.4)

CONJ ‘and’ with zeroanaphora (seeex.[2]; §2.3)

Core Parataxis(see§ 3.1,ex. [11a/b])

Core embedding(see§ 3.2.5)

Verbserialization(see § 3.2.6, broadsense,ex. [38–42])

acc.c. inf.(see§ 3.2.4,ex. [27])

Clauseembedding(see§ 3.2.4,assubject)

Nuclear Verb serialization (see§ 3.2.6,strictosensu)

Verbserialization(see§ 3.2.6,stricto sensu)

Table45.6Nexusandjuncturepossibilitiesaccordingto Foley & VanValin 1984:263.

PLACE, MEANS, FINALITY, CAUSE / CON-SEQUENCE, CAUSALITY / CONCESSIVITY,INCLUSION / EXCLUSION, CONJUNCTION

/ DISJUNCTION, CONDITION / COUNTER-FACTUALITY (Seiler1995:21).All of themseem to be conceived of as peripheral,though.

Thingsaresimplerasregardsthe down-gradingtechniquessuchrelationsare usedwith. The periphery, and, in part, the core,have importantroles in clausechaining(§3.2.2),in the techniqueof adverbial subor-dinationwith conjunctions(§ 3.2.3),andinthe techniqueof converbs (§ 3.2.5). Withcomplementclauses,thecoreis stronglyin-volved, too – witnessthe casesof accusat-ivus cumparticipio or accusativuscumin-finitivo (§ 3.2.4).The samething holds fordiathesis(§ 2.4). According to its defini-tion, the‘core’ maybeimplicatedalsoin thetechniquesusing prepositionalgroupsandnominalaffixes(§ 3.2.7).Changesbroughtabout by the grammaticalizationof con-verbalprocesses(§§3.2.5;6) mayevencon-cern the nucleusby the creation of newnominal affixes (e.g., prepositions)enlar-gingverbalvalency.

The techniqueof verb serializationhas,above all, to do with nuclearprocesses.Onthe one hand,verb serializationin its nar-row senseis a conceptualconstructionsetfor “the innermostlayer” of verbs,i.e., forthe domaincalled“participatum” by Seiler(1988)and“konstitutiveSachverhaltsbedin-gung”by PeterKoch(1981):witnesstheex-amplescited as illustrations to this end in§ 3.2.6.Amongotherthings,thevalency of

theverbmaybeincreasedasaresult.Ontheotherhand,verbalseriesin thelar-

gersense,e.g.,with verbsservingasauxili-aries,area standardway of analyticallyex-pressingtense,aspect,Aktionsart, diathesis,etc., thusremodelingentireverbalsystems(cf. Raible1996).

7.2 The complexity of the finite/nonfinite distinction

In 1980, a seminalcontribution was pub-lished by Paul Hopper and Sandra A.Thompson.Its topic was the concept oftransitivity. It inspiredTalmy Givón to es-tablisha link betweensemanticconcisenessandgrammaticalfiniteness.The basicideais thatacompletedactionis morefinite thana non-terminatedone, that punctualeventsaremorefinite thandurative ones,that realeventsaremorefinite thanirreal ones,etc.

In a systematicway this canberepresen-tedasin table45.7.

HierherTabelle45.7

Table45.7suggeststhatweshoulddistin-guishfour kindsof finiteness/non-finiteness.

1. in thesenseof ‘perfectivity’ asopposedto ‘imperfectivity’, ‘realis’ asopposedto ‘irrealis’ (downgrading by mood,above§ 3.2.8),‘perfective’ asopposedto ‘imperfective’ (downgradingby as-pect,above§ 3.2.6);

2. in the senseof a loss of finiteness

27

finitenessranking contentof categoriesof tense,aspect,modality

of major verbcategories

more finite lessfinite

mostfinite TENSE terminated, in-sequence

non-terminated,anterior

MODALITY INDICATIVE realis irrealisSUBJUNCTIVE

PARTICIPIAL

INFINITIVE

ASPECT punctual durativeNEGATION affirmative negative

leastfinite NOMINAL

Table45.7Thedifferentmeaningsandimplementationsof finiteness.The two-dimensionalfield of finitenessproposedby Talmy Givón manifeststhe relativity, or, putpositively, the differentaspectsof the ‘finiteness’concept.– The two scales(a vertical anda hori-zontalone)bring differentaspectsto the fore: on the vertical one,which is in itself twofold, tenseaspectmodalityconcernsthesemanticandgrammaticalfeaturesof thenucleus,partially alsoof thecore.Thecolumnwith themajorverbalcategoriesis dedicatedto thecategoricalandmorphologicalimplementationof this kind of finitenessor non-finiteness.Thereis a correlationbetweendecreas-ing finitenessanda decreasingnumberof distinctionsa category allows: a tensesystemhasmanydifferenttenses,anaspectsystemhasonly two categoricaldistinctions(perfective/imperfective).The horizontalscaleattributeshigheror lower finitenessto the categorical contenttransportedbytense,moodetc.

brought about by the loss of distinc-tions within a category: some RO-MANCE languagesstill have a con-junctivewith four tenses,whereas,e.g.,FRENCH haslost all tensedistinctionsin this mood.This reducestheamountof grammaticalinformation conveyedby suchforms;

3. in thesenseof a lessspecifiedsystem:cp. the CHINESE verbal systemswiththeENGLISH one(above§ 3.2.6);

4. dependingon the last type: presenceor absenceof domainsthat arepartic-ularly rich in distinctions(e.g.,a tense-basedsystemasopposedto anaspect-basedone).

7.3 Relatedconceptions

SandraA. Thompsonhasnot only contrib-uted, although in an indirect way, to thefinitenessdiscussion.She wrote also, thistime togetherwith JohnHaiman,animport-antcontributionon“‹Subordination›in Uni-versalGrammar”(1984).Thiswasfollowedby an equally importantcontribution fromChristianLehmann(1988).

Basically, both contributions describescalar models, too. Haiman & Thompson

list sevencomponents:

1. Identity betweenthe two clausesofsubject,tense,or mood.

2. Reductionof oneof theclauses.

3. Grammaticallysignaledincorporationof thetwo clauses.

4. Intonation linking between the twoclauses.

5. One clauseis within the scopeof theother.

6. Absenceof tenseiconicity betweenthetwo clauses.

7. Identity betweenthe two clausesofspeechactperspective.

Items 1 to 3 can be found in a more pre-cise and analytic formulation in Foley &Van Valin (1984). Items like 5 or 7 arecharacteristicof the well-known pragmaticand text linguistic approachof Haiman&Thompson,thus being rather alien to theconsiderationsof Foley & Van Valin. Mostof theseaspectsaretakeninto accountin §§2, 3 and4.

Lehmann proposessix scales that arecombinedinto threegroups:

28

Autonomyvs. Integration

1. hierarchical downgrading (parataxisvs.embedding)

2. mainclausesyntacticlevel of the sub-ordinateclause(sentencevs.word)

Expansionvs.Reduction

3. desententializationof the subordinateclause(sententialityvs.nominality)

4. grammaticalization(independentpre-dicatevs.grammaticaloperator)

Isolationvs.Linkage

5. interlacing of the two clauses(com-plete disjunctnessvs. maximal iden-tity)

6. explicitnessof thelinking (syndesisvs.asyndesis)

Lehmann’s approachis themostanalyticoneandthusanexcellentguidelinefor con-cretecrosslinguisticanalysis.Basically, it isa three-dimensionalspace,thethreedimen-sionsbeing the headingsof the threepairsof parametershe introduces.The subpara-metersandtheirinstantiationsaspairsof op-positenotionshave beentakeninto accountin theabovesections1 to 6, too.

8 References

Bickel, Balthasar. 1991. TypologischeGrundlagenderSatzverkettung. Ein Beitragzur AllgemeinenGrammatik der Satzver-bindung und des Fährtenlegens. Zürich:ASAS-Verlag.

Bickel, Balthasar. 1998.Review of Haspel-math & König (eds.).1995.Linguistic Ty-pology2: 381–397.

Berman,RuthA. & Slobin,DanIsaac.1994.Relating events in narrative: a crosslin-guistic developmentalstudy. Hillsdale/NJ:Erlbaum.

Bisang,Walter. 1992.Das Verb im Chinesi-schen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen,Thai undKhmer. (VergleichendeGrammatikim Rah-men der Verbserialisierung, der Gramma-tikalisierung und der Attraktorpositionen).Tübingen:Narr.

Bisang, Walter. 1998. “Adverbiality. Theview from theFarEast”.In: vanderAuwera(ed.),641–812.

Charolles,Michel. 1999. “Associative ana-phora and its interpretation”. Journal ofPragmatics31.3:311–26.

Comrie, Bernard. 1999. Coreference inGrammar and Discourse. Oxford: Black-well.

Condillac,EtienneBonnot de. 1775.Coursd’étude pour l’instruction du Prince deParme: L’art d’écrire.

Dancygier, Barbara.1998.Conditionalsandpredication.Time, knowledgeandcausationin conditional constructions. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

De Beaugrande,Robert-Alain & Dressler,Wolfgang Ulrich. 1981. Einführung in dieTextlinguistik. (Konzepteder Sprach-undLiteraturwissenschaft,28.) Tübingen:Nie-meyer.

Dik, Simon C. 1978.Functional Grammar.(North Holland linguistic series,37.) Ams-terdam:North-Holland.

Ebert,KarenH. 1991.“Vom verbum dicen-di zur Konjunktion.Ein Kapitel universalerGrammatikentwicklung”.In: Bisang,Walter& Rinderknecht,Peter(eds.).Von Europabis Ozeanien– vonder AntonymiezumRe-lativsatz:Gedenkschrift für Meinrad Schel-ler. (Arbeiten des Seminarsfür Allgemei-ne Sprachwissenschaftder UniversitätZü-rich, 11.) Zürich: Seminarfür AllgemeineSprachwissenschaft,77–95.

Foley, William A. & Van Valin, RobertD. 1984. Functional syntaxand universalgrammar. Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-sity Press.

Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax:a functional-typological introduction. Vol. II. Amster-dam& Philadelphia:Benjamins.

Givón, Talmy. 1994. Voice and inversion.(Typologicalstudiesin language,28.) Am-sterdam& Philadelphia:Benjamins.

Günther, Wilfried. 1973.DasportugiesischeKreolisch der Ilha do Príncipe. (MarburgerStudienzur Afrika- und Asienkunde,SerieA, 2.) Marburg a.d. Lahn:Selbstverlag.

29

Hagège,Claude.1975.Le problèmelinguis-tique des prépositionset la solution chi-noise. (Avecun essaidetypologie à traversplusieurs groupesde langues). (Collectionlinguistiquepubliéepar la Sociétéde Lin-guistiquede Paris, LXXI.) Louvain : Pee-ters.

Hagège, Claude. 1993. The languagebuilder: an essayon the humansignaturein linguistic morphogenesis. (Amsterdamstudies in the theory and history of lin-guistic science:Series, 4, Current issuesin linguistic theory, 94.) Amsterdam &Philadelphia:Benjamins.

Haiman,John& Thompson,SandraA. 1984.“‹Subordination› in Universal Grammar”.In: Subordination.Proceedingsof theTenthAnnual Meetingof the Berkeley LinguisticSociety. Berkeley/CA: Berkeley LinguisticSociety, 510–23.

Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A.(eds.). 1988. Clause combining in gram-mar and discourse. (Typologicalstudiesinlanguage,18.) Amsterdam& Philadelphia:Benjamins.

Halford, Brigitte K. 1996. Talk units. Thestructure of spoken Canadian English.(ScriptOralia,87.)Tübingen:Narr.

Harweg, Roland. 11964 21979. Pronominaund Textkonstitution. (Beiheftezu Poetica,2.) München:Fink.

Haspelmath,Martin.1995.“The converbasacross-linguisticallyvalid category”. Haspel-math& König (eds.),1–55.

Haspelmath,Martin & König, Ekkehard(eds.). 1995. Converbs in cross-linguisticperspective:Structure and meaningof ad-verbial verb forms– adverbial participles,gerunds. (Empirical Approachesto Lan-guageTypology, 13.) Berlin & New York:MoutondeGruyter.

Heger, Klaus & Mudersbach,Klaus. 1984.Aktantenmodelle: Aufgabenstellung undAufbauregeln. (Abhandlungen der Hei-delberger Akademie der Wissenschaften.Phil.-hist. Klasse; Jg. 1984, Abh. 4.)Birkenau/Heidelberg: Bitsch.

Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechthild. 1983.“Diachronicobservationson completive fo-cus marking in someAfrican languages”.SpracheundGeschichtein Afrika 5: 7–44.

Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson,SandraA.1980. “Transitivity in grammar and dis-course”.Language56: 251–99.

Humboldt,Wilhelm von. 1827.Lettre à M.Abel-Rémusat,sur la nature des formesgrammaticalesen général, et sur le Géniedela langueChinoiseenparticulier. Paris.

Jacobsen,Jr., William H. 1967. “Switchreference in Hokan-Cohahuiltecan”.In:Hymes, Dell & Bittle, William E. (eds.).Studies in southwesternethnolinguistics:meaningandhistoryin thelanguagesof theAmericanSouthwest. (Studiesin generalan-thropology, 3.) The Hague:Mouton, 238–68.

Jacobsen,Jr., William H. 1983.“Typologicalandgeneticnoteson switch-referencesys-temsin North AmericanIndianlanguages”.In: Haiman,John& Munro, Pamela(eds.).Switch-reference and universal grammar.Proceedingsof a SymposiumonSwitch Ref-erenceand Universal Grammar. Winnipeg,May1981. (Typologicalstudiesin language,2.) Amsterdam& Philadelphia:Benjamins,151–83.

Jakobson, Roman. 1957/1971. “Shifters,verbalcategories,andtheRussianverb”. In:id. SelectedWritingsII. Word andlanguage.TheHague:Mouton,130–47.

Johanson,Lars. 1995. “On Turkic converbclauses”.In: Haspelmath& König (eds.),313–47.

Kail, Michèle& Weissenborn,Jürgen.1991.“Conjunction: Developmental issues”. In:Piéraut-LeBonniec,Gilberte & Dolitsky,Marlène (eds.). Language bases ... dis-course bases:someaspectsof contempor-ary French-language psycholinguistics re-search. (Pragmaticsandbeyond; N.S., 17.)Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins,125–142.

Kibrik, Andrej A. 1988. Tipologija sred-stvoformlenijaanaforiceskixsvajzej[A ty-pology of anaphoric means]. Ph.D. dis-sertation.Institut jazykoznanijaAN SSSR.Moskau.

Kibrik, Andrej A. 1991. “Maintenanceofreferencein sentenceand discourse”. In:Lehmann, Winfred P. & Jakusz Hewitt,Helen-Jo(eds.).Language typology 1988.

30

Typological modelsin reconstruction. Am-sterdam& Philadelphia:Benjamins,57–84[Summaryof Kibrik 1988].

Koch, Peter. 1981.Verb, Valenz,Verfügung.Zur Satzsemantikund Valenzfranz.Verbenam Beispielder Verfügungs-Verben. (ReiheSiegen,32.)Heidelberg: Winter.

König, Ekkehard. 1995. “The meaningofconverb constructions”.In: Haspelmath&König (eds.),57–95.

Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial Subor-dination. A typology and history of ad-verbial subordinators basedon europeanlanguages. (Empirical Approachesto Lan-guageTypology, 18.) Berlin & New York:MoutondeGruyter.

Kriegel, Sibylle. 1996. Diathesen imMauritius- undSeychellenkreol. (ScriptOra-lia, 88.)Tübingen:Narr.

Lehmann,Christian. 1988. “Towards a ty-pology of clauselinkage”. In: Haiman &Thompson,181–225.

Li, CharlesN. & Thompson,SandraA. 1973.“Serial verb constructions in MandarinChinese:Subordinationor co-ordination?”.ChicagoLinguisticSociety9: 96–103.

Ludwig,Ralph.1990.“Abrégédegrammairedu créoleguadeloupéen”.Ludwig, Ralph&Montbrand,Danièle & Poullet, Hector &Telchid,Sylviane.Dictionnairecréolefran-çais(Guadeloupe). Paris: Servedit/ÉditionsJasor, 17–38.

Ludwig, Ralph. 1996. Kreolsprachen zwi-schenMündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. ZurSyntaxund Pragmatik atlantischer Kreol-sprachenauf französischer Basis. (ScriptO-ralia,86.)Tübingen:Narr.

Lüdtke, Jens.1984.Spracheund Interpreta-tion: Semantikund Syntaxreflexiver Struk-turenim Französischen. (TübingerBeiträgezur Linguistik, 237.)Tübingen:Narr.

Maurer, Philippe. 1988. Les modificationstemporelles et modalesdu verbe dans lepapiamentode Curaçao (Antilles Néerlan-daises): avecuneanthologieet un vocabu-laire papiamento-français. (KreolischeBi-bliothek,9.) Hamburg : Buske.

Mair, Christian.1990.Infinitival complementclausesin English:a studyof syntaxin dis-course. (Studiesin Englishlanguage.)Cam-bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Michaelis, Susanne.1994. Komplexe Syn-tax im Seychellen-Kreol. VerknüpfungvonSachverhaltsdarstellungenzwischenMünd-lichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. (ScriptOralia,49.)Tübingen:Narr.

Mithun, Marianne.1988. “The grammatic-alization of coordination”. In: Haiman &Thompson(eds.),331–59.

Müller-Bardey, Thomas. 1988. TypologiederSubjektverkettung(“Switch reference”).(ArbeitendesKölner Universalienprojekts,70.)Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.

Müller-Lancé, Johannes. 1994. AbsoluteKonstruktionenvomAltlatein bis zumNeu-französischen: ein Epochenvergleich un-ter Berücksichtigungvon Mündlichkeit undSchriftlichkeit. (ScriptOralia,64.)Tübingen:Narr.

Nedjalkov, Igor’ V. 1998. “Converbsin thelanguagesof Europe”. In: van der Auwera1998,421–55.

Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1995.“Sometypolo-gical parametersof converbs”. In: Haspel-math& König (eds.),97–136.

Noreen, Adolf. 1923. Einführung in diewissenschaftlicheBetrachtungder Sprache:Beiträgezur MethodeundTerminologiederGrammatik. Transl.by HansW. Pollak.Hal-le a.d.S.:Niemeyer.

Ohori, Toshio. 1994. “Diachrony of clauselinkage: TE and BA in Old throughMiddleJapanese”.In: Pagliuca,William (ed.).Per-spectivesof grammaticalization. Amster-dam& Philadelphia:Benjamins,135–149.

PetrusHispanus.1577. Petri Hispani Sum-mulaelogicales:cumVersorii Parisiensis. . .expositione/ parvorumitemLogicaliumei-demPetro Hispanoadscriptumopus,nuperin partesac capitadistinctum. Venetiis:Fr.Sansovinus.

Pike, KennethLee & Pike, Evelyn. 1982.GrammaticalAnalysis.Arlington/TX: Sum-merInstituteof Linguistics.

Pilhofer, G.1933.repr. 1969.GrammatikderKâte-Sprachein Neuguinea. (Zeitschrift ff rEingeborenen-Sprachen: Beihefte,14.)Ber-lin: Reimer;Nendeln,Liechtenstein:KrausReprints.

Pusch,ClausD. 1999.”ReanalysevonSpalt-satzkonstruktionenund grammatikalisierte

31

Prädikationsexplizierung.Zur EntwicklungdesEnunziativsqueim Gaskognischen”.In:Lang, Jürgen & Neumann-Holzschuh,In-grid (eds.).ReanalyseundGrammatikalisie-rungin denromanischenSprachen. (Lingui-stischeArbeiten,410.)Tübingen:Niemeyer,147–59.

Pusch, Claus Dieter. 2001. Morphosyn-tax, Informationsstrukturund Pragmatik.Ein universalistischer Blick auf präverbaleMarker im gaskognischenOkzitanisch undin anderenSprachen.Tübingen:Narr.

Raible,Wolfgang.1972.Satzund Text: Un-tersuchungen zu vier romanischen Spra-chen. (Beiheftezur Zeitschrift für romani-schePhilologie,132.)Tübingen:Niemeyer.

Raible, Wolfgang. 1982. “‘RegelmässigeAusnahmen’im Bereich der romanischenNominaldetermination”.In: Heinz,Sieglin-de& Wandruszka,Ulrich (eds.).FaktenundTheorien. Beiträge zur romanischen undallgemeinenSprachwissenschaft.Festschriftfür HelmutStimmzum65.Geburtstag. (Tü-bingerBeiträgezurLinguistik, 191.)Tübin-gen:Narr, 231-239.

Raible,Wolfgang.1983.“Knowing andBe-lieving – and Syntax”. In: Parret, Herman(ed.). On believing. Epistemological andsemioticapproaches.De la croyance. Ap-proches épistémologiques et sémiotiques.Berlin & New York: deGruyter, 275–91.

Raible,Wolfgang.1992.Junktion.Eine Di-mension der Sprache und ihre Realisie-rungsformenzwischenAggregation und In-tegration. (Sitzungsberichteder Heidelber-ger Akademie der Wissenschaften,phil.-hist. Klasse,Jg.1992,2.) Heidelberg: Win-ter.

Raible, Wolfgang. 1992a. “The pitfallsof subordination: Subject and objectclausesbetweenLatin and Romance”.In:Brogyányi, Béla & Lipp, Reiner (eds.).Historical Philology: Greek, Latin, andRomance. Papers in honor of OswaldSzemerényiII . (CurrentIssuesin LinguisticTheory, 87.) Amsterdam& Philadelphia:Benjamins,299–337.

Raible,Wolfgang.1994.“Literacy andLan-guageChange”. In: Cmejrková, Svetla &Daneš,František & Havlová, Eva (eds.).Writing vs Speaking. Language, Text, Dis-course, Communication.Proceedingsof the

Conferenceheldat theCzech Language In-stitute of the Academyof Sciencesof theCzech Republic, Prague, October 14–16,1992. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik,392.)Tübingen:Narr, 111–25.

Raible, Wolfgang. 1996. “Kognition undSprachwandel”. Akademie-Journal 1/96,38–43.

Schwyzer, Eduard. 1914. “Genealogischeund kulturelle Sprachverwandtschaft”.In:Universität Zürich. Festgabezur Einwei-hungderNeubauten18.April 1914. Zürich.Teil V: PhilosophischeFakultätI, 133–46.

Scott, Graham. 1978. �The Fore languageof Papua New Guinea.Canberra,A.C.T.:Schoolof pacificstudies.

Seiler, Hansjakob. 1988. The Dimensionof participation. Translatedand edited byFernandoLeal. (Función, 7.) Guadalajara,México:UniversidaddeGuadalajara.

Seiler, Hansjakob. 1993.“SatzverbindungimKonditionalgefüge(besondersim Altgrie-chischen)”.Cahiers Ferdinandde Saussure47:143–58.

Seiler, Hansjakob. 1995.“Review of Raible1992”.VoxRomanica54: 12–21.

Selig,Maria.1992.Die EntwicklungderNo-minaldeterminantenim Spätlatein:romani-scherSprachwandelundlateinischeSchrift-lichkeit. (ScriptOralia,26.)Tübingen:Narr.

Senft,Gunter. 1986.Kilivila: thelanguageofthe Trobriand Islanders. (Moutongrammarlibrary, 3.) Berlin: MoutondeGruyter.

Shopen,Timothy (ed.). 1985.Language ty-pology and syntactic description. Vol. 2:Complex constructions. Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress.

Stäbler, CynthiaK. 1995.Entwicklungmünd-licherromanischerSyntax:das‹françaisca-dien›in Lousiana. (ScriptOralia,78.)Tübin-gen:Narr.

Stäbler, Cynthia K. 1995a.La vie dans letempsasteur. Ein Korpus von Gesprächenmit Cadiens in Louisiana. (ScriptOralia,79.)Tübingen:Narr.

Stump,Gregory T. 1985.Thesemanticvari-ability of absoluteconstructions. (Syntheselanguagelibrary, 25.)Dordrecht:Reidel.

32

Stahlschmidt, Andrea. 1983. Das Ver-balsystem des Hopi. Eine semantischeStrukturanalyseder Hopi-Grammatikunterbesonderer Berücksichtigung von B. L.Whorfs Thesen zur Zeitauffassung derHopi-Indianer. (SAIS Arbeitsberichteausdem Seminar für Allgemeine und Indo-germanischeSprachwissenschaft,7.) Kiel:UniverisitätKiel.

Stempel,Wolf-Dieter. 1964.Untersuchungenzur Satzverknüpfungim Altfranzösischen.(Archiv für dasStudiumder neuerenSpra-chenund Literaturen:Beihefte,1.) Braun-schweig:Westermann.

Thompson,SandraA. & Longacre,RobertE. 1985. “Adverbial clauses”.In: Shopen,Timothy (ed.),171–234.

Traugott,ElizabethC. 1987. “Literacy andlanguagechange.Thespecialcaseof speechactverbs”.Interchange18: 32–47.

vanderAuwera,Johan(ed.).1998.Adverbialconstructionsin the languages of Europe.Berlin: MoutondeGruyter.

Vogel, PetraMaria (ed.). 2000.Approachesto the typology of word classes. (Empiricalapproachesto languagetypology, 23.) Ber-lin: MoutondeGruyter.

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1998. “Anchoring lin-guistic typology in universal semanticprimes”.LinguisticTypology2: 141–94.

Wolfgang Raible, University of Freiburgi.Br. (Germany)

33