Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructional Approach(es) to Discourse-Level Phenomena: Theoretical challenges and empirical advances
Edited by Renata Enghels and María Sol Sansiñena
[Constructions and Frames 13:1] 2021
► pp. 126–159

Funny you should say that

On the use of semi-insubordination in English

 | University of Graz
This paper investigates the formal and functional properties of so-called semi-insubordination (SIS), i.e. complex sentences with an ‘incomplete’ matrix clause (e.g. Funny that you should say that), on the basis of corpus data. It is shown that SIS differs in its function from the structurally related constructions it-extraposition and exclamatives, exhibiting its own functional profile: viz. expressing a subjectivizing speaker evaluation which is non-exclamative, deictically anchored, and relates to a non-presupposed proposition. Given these functional idiosyncrasies it is argued that SIS is best analysed as a construction in its own right (in terms of Construction Grammar) rather than simply an incomplete elliptical structure.
Keywords: semi-insubordination, exclamative, it-extraposition, ellipsis, constructional network
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Delimiting the class
  • 3.Corpus data
  • 4.Formal properties
    • 4.1Attested syntactic patterns
    • 4.2Structural overlaps with related constructions
  • 5.Functional properties
    • 5.1Subjective speaker evaluation
      • A.Non-generic interpretation
      • B.Deictic anchoring
      • C.Informative rather than expressive
    • 5.2Erosion of presupposition structure
      • A.‘Flattening’ of the hierarchical structure of an it-extraposition
      • B.Absence of the ‘presupposed open proposition’ structure of an exclamative
    • 5.3Conspectus: The discourse functions of SIS
  • 6.Grammatical modelling
    • 6.1Ellipsis account
    • 6.2A constructional account
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00049.kal
References (67)
References
Aelbrecht, L. (2006). IP-ellipsis in Dutch dialects: X + that-clause. In J. Van de Weijer & B. Los (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006 (pp. 1–14). Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beijering, K. (2017). Semi-insubordinate dat-constructions in Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 22(3), 333–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beijering, K. & Norde, M. (2019). Adverbial semi-insubordination constructions in Swedish: Synchrony and diachrony. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. S. Sansiñena (Eds.), Insubordination: Theoretical and empirical issues (pp. 79–106). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beyssade, C. & Marandin, J.-M. (2006). The speech act assignment problem revisited: disentangling speaker’s commitment from speaker’s call on addressee. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, 61, 37–68. [URL]
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1977). Meaning and form. Longman.Google Scholar
Boogaart, R. & Verheij, K. (2013). Als dát geen insubordinatie is! De pragmatiek van zelfstandige conditionele zinnen. In T. Janssen & J. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Honderd jaar taalewetenschap. Artikelen aangeboden aan Saskia Daalder bij haar afscheid van de Vrije Universiteit (pp. 13–28). Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
Bos, G. (1963). Een verwaarloosd zinstype, In A. W. De Groot & H. Schulting (Eds.), Studies op het gebied van het hedendaagse Nederlands (pp. 174–194). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2017). What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 115–151). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, P. (1994). Extraposition in English. Functions of Language, 1(1), 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Exclamative clauses in English. Word, 56(1), 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Hertefelt, S. (2018). Insubordination in Germanic: A Typology of Complement and Conditional Constructions. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Hertefelt, S. & Verstraete, J.-C. (2014). Independent complement constructions in Swedish and Danish: Insubordination or dependency shift? Journal of Pragmatics, 601, 89–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2004–). British National Corpus (from Oxford University Press). Available online at [URL]
(2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One billion words, 1990–2019. Available online at [URL]
(2011–). Corpus of American Soap Operas: 100 million words. Available online at [URL]
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network. How language structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness. Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–431). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1982). Toward a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 31–59). J. Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, R. (2019). Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 11(2) (Special issue: On the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar), 171–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: a thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, E. J. (2001). Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Unpublished Phd dissertation University of California, Los Angeles. (available at [URL])
Ginzburg, J. & Kolliakou, D. (2009). The emergence of fragments in child language. Journal of Linguistics, 45(3), 541–673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Explain me this. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Perek, F. (2019). Ellipsis in Construction Grammar. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmer Timmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis (pp. 188–204). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, A. (2019). Fragments. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmer Timmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis. Oxford University Press, 605–623.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. (2003). On the syntactic and semantic status of anticipatory it . English Language and Linguistics, 7(2), 235–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). “ It-extraposition in English: a functional view.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 119–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Semi-insubordination im Englischen und Deutschen: zur Verwendung einer kommentierenden Konstruktion. Paper given at Symposium ‘Die kommentative Funktion’, Université de Lille, 4–5 November 2016.
(2019). Delimiting the class: A typology of English insubordination. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. S. Sansin͂ena (Eds.), Insubordination: theoretical and empirical issues (pp. 167–168): De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In M. Bierwisch & K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in Linguistics: A collection of Papers (pp. 143–173). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. & Siemund, P. (2007). Speech act distinctions in grammar. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1. Clause structure (pp. 276–324). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006). Deixis. In L. R. Horn & G. L. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 87–120). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merchant, J. (2019). Ellipsis. A survey of analytical approaches. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmer Timmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis (pp. 19–45). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2001). Exclamative constructions. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals 21. (pp. 1038–1050). Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K. (1996a). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 73(2), 215–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996b). The exclamative sentence type in English. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 375–390). CSLI.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (2016). How fascinating! Insubordinate exclamations. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination (pp. 367–392). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morel, M.-A. (1995). L’intonation exclamative dans l’oral spontane. Faits de Langues, 61, 63–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language, 791, 682–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H. & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 1221, 280–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1974). On Raising. M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223–255). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Progovac, L., Paesani, K., Casielles, E. & Barton, E. (Eds.), (2006). The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar
Ramat, P., & Ricca, D. (1998). Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In J. van der Auwera & D. P. Ó Baoill (Eds.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe (pp. 187–273). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riddle, E. (1975). Some pragmatic conditions on complementizer choice. Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting. April 18–20, 1975. Linguistic Society, 467–474.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. & Zwicky, A. (1985). Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1. Clause structure (pp. 155–196) Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sansiñena, M. S. (2015). The multiple functional load of que. An interactional approach to insubordinate complement clauses in Spanish. University of Leuven dissertation.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. (1993). C. E. Shannon: Collected papers. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Siemund, P. (2015). Exclamative clauses in English and their relevance for theories of clause type. Studies in Language, 39(3), 697–727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (forthc.). The development of metatextual connectors in English. A historical constructionalist perspective on pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2010). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In E. C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 19–44). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van linden, A. & Van de Velde, F. (2014). (Semi-)autonomous subordination in Dutch: Structures and semantic-pragmatic values. Journal of Pragmatics, 601, 226–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R. & Portner, P. (2003). Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language, 79(1), 39–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lorenz, David
2023.  Could be, might be, maybe . In Different Slants on Grammaticalization [Studies in Language Companion Series, 232], ► pp. 124 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.