Cover not available
Part of
Micro- and Macro-variation of Causal Clauses: Synchronic and Diachronic Insights
Edited by Łukasz Jędrzejowski and Constanze Fleczoreck
[Studies in Language Companion Series 231] 2023
► pp. 129–166

Chapter 5
English rationale since and a reassessment of the typology of adverbial clauses

| University of Geneva
| University of Geneva | Ghent University
This chapter examines the syntactic and semantic properties of English causal adverbial clauses, starting from the fact that the conjunctions since and as can both introduce either a temporal clause or a rationale clause. Where relevant, the material is supplemented with data from Dutch causal adverbial clauses, focusing on the interaction with the syntax of Verb Second. It is shown that the bipartite distinction between ‘central’ adverbial clauses and ‘peripheral’ adverbial clauses (Haegeman 1984a, 1991/2009, a.o.) should be reconsidered. Frey’s (2016, 2018) ternary distinction is adopted, which differentiates between central adverbial clauses (CACs) and peripheral adverbial clauses (PACs), both regarded as syntactically integrated, and non-integrated clauses. Evidence is provided for Frey’s hypothesis that PACs are related to JudgementP (Krifka 2017).
Keywords: causal conjunctions, central adverbial clause, peripheral adverbial clause, syntactic integration, orphan analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: aim and scope of the chapter
  • 2.A comparison
    • 2.1Scope effects: temporal, modal, negative, and interrogative operators
    • 2.2Information structure: focus, it-clefts, new information
    • 2.3VP ellipsis and VP anaphora
    • 2.4Argumental status/complement of P
    • 2.5Resumption
    • 2.6Embedding
    • 2.7Echoic adverbial clauses
    • 2.8Summary
  • 3.Re-assessing the typology and the analysis
    • 3.1Rationale clauses are syntactically integrated
    • 3.2An analysis: (rationale) since2/as2-clauses and JudgementP
    • 3.3A third type of adverbial clause: Speech-event modifiers
    • 3.4Some speculations on non-integration
  • 4.Summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.231.05hae
References (71)
References
van der Auwera, Johan. 1986. Conditionals and speech acts. In On Conditionals, Elizabeth Traugott, Alice ter Meulen, Judith Snitzer Reilly & Charles A. Ferguson (eds), 197–214. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axel, Katrin & Wöllstein, Angelika. 2009. German verb-first conditionals as unintegrated clauses. A case study in converging synchronic and diachronic evidence. In The Fruits of Empirical Linguistics [II] [Studies in Generative Grammar 102], Susanne Winkler & Sam Featherston (eds), 1–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biasio, Marco & Castro, Enrico. 2019. Will in the English protasis: A proposal for motivating the constraint. Paper presented at the Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Universita degli Studi di Padova.
Catasso, Nicholas. 2015. On postinitial aber and other syntactic transgressions: Some considerations on the nature of V2 in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 27(4): 317–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle. 2020. French causal puisque-clauses in the light of (not)-at-issueness. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 16 – Selected Papers from the 47th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL47), Newark, Delaware [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 16], Irene Vogel (ed.), 50–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2004. Issues in adverbial syntax. Lingua 114(6): 683–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Two types of non-restrictive relatives. In Empirical issues in Syntax and Semantics, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 99–137. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Close, Reginald. A. 1980. Will in if-clauses. In Studies in English Linguistics, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffry Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds), 100–109. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1982. Future time reference in the conditional protasis. Australian Journal of Linguistics 22(2): 143–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Eirean. 1979. On the Semantics of Syntax, Mood and Condition in English. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1984. Pure future will in if-clauses. Lingua 63(3–4): 279–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Tense in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat & Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. The double system of tense forms referring to future time in English. Journal of Semantics 12(3): 269–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat & Reed, Susan. 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis [Topics in English Linguistics 37]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1983. Le sens commun. Le dire et le dit. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Elhadad, Michael & McKeown, Kathleen R. 1990. Generating connectives. Proceedings of COLING 90(3): 97–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endo, Yokio & Haegeman, Liliane. 2019. Adverbial clauses and adverbial concord. Glossa – A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. On the role of semantics in a theory of adverb syntax. Lingua 117(6): 1008–1033. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27(3): 497–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1990. The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 26(1): 57–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2012. Peripheral adverbial clauses, their licensing and the prefield in German. In Satzverknüpfung – Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion [Linguistische Arbeiten 534], Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi & Anna Volodina (eds), 41–77. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. On some correlations between formal and interpretative properties of causal clauses. In Co- und Subordination in German and Other Languages [Sonderheft Linguistische Berichte 21], Ingo Reich & Augustin Speyer (eds), 153–179. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
. 2018. On the syntax-discourse interface with different kinds of not-at-issue expressions. CGSW 33, 27–28 August 2018, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.Google Scholar
. 2019. Linking some syntactic and semantic features of concessives and adversatives. Paper presented at DGfS, AG 5, Bremen.
. 2020. On the categorical status of different dependent clauses. Ms, Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin.Google Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra. 2014. Prosodic signals as syntactic formatives in the left periphery. In On Peripheries, Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions, Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque & Endo Yoshio (eds), 161–188. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobe.Google Scholar
Greco, Ciro & Haegeman, Liliane. 2020. Frame setters and microvariation of subject-initial verb second. In Rethinking Verb Second, Rebecca Woods & Sam Wolfe (eds), 61–89. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1984a. Parasitic gaps and adverbial clauses. Journal of Linguistics 20(2): 229–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984b. Pragmatic conditionals in English. Folia Linguistica 18(3–4): 485–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984c. Remarks on adverbial clauses and definite anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 15(4): 712–715.Google Scholar
. 2003a. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18(4): 317–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003b. Notes on long adverbial fronting in English and the left periphery. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4): 640–649. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991/2009. Parenthetical adverbials: The radical orphanage approach. In Aspects of Modern English Linguistics: Papers Presented to Masatomo Ukaji on His 60th Birthday, Shuki Chiba, Akira Ogawa, Yasuaki Fuiwara, Norio Yamada, Osamu Koma & Takao Yagi (eds), 232–254. Tokyo: Kaitakushi. Republished in 2009 in Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Perspectives, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 331–347. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2010. The movement derivation of conditional clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4): 595–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena and the Composition of the Left Periphery [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 8]. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Greco, Ciro. 2018. West Flemish V3 and the interaction of syntax and discourse. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21 (1): 1–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Robinson, Brian. 1979. A note on some aspects of the use of will in affirmative declarative sentences. Journal of Linguistics 15(1): 109–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Wekker, Herman. 1984. The syntax and interpretation of futurate conditionals in English. Journal of Linguistics 20(1): 45–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, Shaer, Benjamin & Frey, Werner. 2009. Postscript: Problems and solutions for orphan analyses. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 348–365. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As Time Goes By. Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909–49. A Modern English Grammar. Heidelberg: Karl Winter, Copenhagen / Einar Munksgaard, London / Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kearns, John T. 2006. Conditional assertion, denial, and supposition as illocutionary acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(4): 455–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial Subordination. A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 18]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan. 2000. Extraposition as parallel construal. Ms, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2017. Assertions and Judgements, Epistemics and Evidentials. Paper presented at the Workshop Speech Acts: Meanings, Uses, Syntactic and Prosodic Realizations, Leibniz-ZAS Berlin, 29–31 May. <[URL]> (2 September 2022).
. To appear. Layers of assertive causes: Propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. In Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich: Theorie und Empirie. / Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. [Studien zur Deutschen Sprache], Jutta M. Hartmann & Angelika Wöllstein (eds). Tübingen: Narr.
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1971. Meaning and the English Verb (2nd and 3rd edn: 1987, 2004). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Li, Yafei, Shields, Rebecca & Lin, Vivian. 2012. Adverb classes and the nature of minimality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(1): 217–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Charles J. Fillmore & D. Terence Langėndoen (eds), 96–113. Irvington.Google Scholar
Niewint, Pieter. 1986. Present and future in conditional protases. Linguistics 24(2): 371–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1965. A Linguistic Study of the English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1974. The English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2015. Presupposition and implicature. In Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 2nd edn], Shalom Lappin & Chris Fox (eds), 168–202. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1973. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar. Handbook in Generative Syntax [Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics 1], Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ros, Hilke. 2005. Functional Phrase Structure: Integrating functional ideas in generative adverbial syntax. PhD dissertation, Ghent: Ghent University.
Rutherford, William E. 1970. Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English. Language 46(1): 97–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Safir, Kenneth. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17(4): 663–690.Google Scholar
Shaer, Benjamin. 2009. German and English left-peripheral elements and the “orphan” analysis of nonintegration. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 366–397. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takami, Ken-ichi. 1988. The syntax of if-clauses: Three types of if-clauses and X’-theory. Lingua 74(4): 263–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandepitte, Sonia. 1993. A Pragmatic Study of the Expression and Interpretation of Causality. Conjuncts and Conjunctions in Modern Spoken British English. Brussels: Sonia Vandepitte.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2002. Interpersonal grammar and clause combining in English. PhD dissertation, Leuven: University of Leuven.
Wakker, Gerry. 1996. Conditionals at different levels of the clause. In Complex Structures [Functional Grammar Series 17], Betty Devriend, Louis Goossens & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 177–199. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wekker, Herman C. 1976. The Expression of Future Time in Contemporary British English. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Wekker, Herman. C. 1977. Future reference in adverbial clauses. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2: 64–77.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, Reinart Willem. 1975. A Handbook of English Grammar. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine. 2012. “Car, parce que, puisque” revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 44(2): 138–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar