Cover not available
Part of
Insubordination
Edited by Nicholas Evans and Honoré Watanabe
[Typological Studies in Language 115] 2016
► pp. 39–64

Chapter 2. On insubordination and cooptation

| Institut für Afrikanistik, Universität zu Köln, Germany
| Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Universität Wien, Austria
| University of Düsseldorf | SOAS, University of London

The chapter is concerned more generally with what, following Evans (2007), we call insubordinated (or insubordinate) clauses, that is, with the conventionalized main clause use of what, prima facie, appear to be formally subordinate clauses. Insubordinated clauses are, as we argue here, information units that are coopted from a construction type [matrix clause – subordinate clause] where the matrix clause is implied but not formally expressed. Based on recent findings on discourse grammar analysis (Kaltenböck et al. 2011; Heine et al. 2013), three basic types of insubordinated clauses are distinguished and the nature of such clauses is accounted for with reference to the mechanism of cooptation from one domain of grammar to another.

Published online: 18 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.02hei
References
Aijmer, Karin
1997 “I think” – an English modal particle. Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen-Westvik (eds), 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arroyo, José Luis Blas
2011 From politeness to discourse marking: The process of pragmaticalization of muy bien in vernacular Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 855–874. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter & Günthner, Susanne
2005 Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung? In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, [ Linguistik - Impulse & Tendenzen 9], Torsten Leuschner, Tanja Mortelmans & Sarah De Groodt (eds), 335–362. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Klaus
1973 Verteilung und Funktion der sogenannten Parenthese in Texten. Deutsche Sprache 1: 64–115.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987 Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J
2008 The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development [Studies in English Language]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buscha, Annerose
1976 Isolierte Nebensätze im dialogischen Satz. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 13: 274–279.Google Scholar
D’Hertefelt, Sarah
2013 Independent conditional clauses in Germanic languages. Paper presented at Compex Sentences International Workshop , Leuven, 16 November.
de Vries, Mark
n.d. The syntax of nonsubordination: Parenthesis, appositions and grafts. Unpublished MS.
2007 Invisible constituents? Parentheses as B-merged adverbial phrases. In Parentheticals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 106], Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds), 203–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dér, Csilla Ilona
2010 On the status of discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57(1): 3–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C
1997 The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions [Functional Grammar Series 21]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald & Bourcier, Daniele
1980 Les mots du discours. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa
1991 The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67: 726–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2007 Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nicolaeva (ed.), 366–431. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2009 Insubordination and the grammaticalisation of interactive presuppositions. Paper presented at Methodologies in Determining Syntactic Change Conference , Osaka, March.
Frank-Job, Barbara
2006 A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 395–413. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fujii, Seiko
2012 Insubordination of conditional constructions in Japanese. Paper presented at the symposium on Dynamics of Insubordination, Research Institut for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa , Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, October 25–28.
Furkó, Bálint Péter
2005 The Pragmatic Marker – Discourse Marker Dichotomy Reconsidered: The Case of well and of course . PhD dissertation, Debreceni Egyetem, Bölcsészettudományi Kar, Debrecen.Google Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore
2004 Theticals in Russian. Journal of Pragmatics 36(11): 1953–1974. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
2003 Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18(4): 317–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
2013 On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51(6): 1205–1247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther & Kuteva, Tania
2015 Some observations on the evolution of utterance-final particles. In Final Particles, [Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 284]. Sylvie Hancil, Alexander Haselow & Margje Post (eds), 111–140. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania & Long, Haiping
2013 An outline of discourse grammar. In Functional Approaches to Language, Shannon Bischoff & Carmen Jany (eds), 175–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 On some correlations between grammar and brain lateralization. In Oxford Handbooks Online in Linguistics. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2007 The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction [Studies in the Evolution of Language 9]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania & Kaltenböck, Gunther
2014 Discourse Grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: Some correlations. Language and Cognition 6(1): 146–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan
2008 Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Functional Discourse Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 367–400. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kac, Michael B
1972 Clauses of saying and the interpretation of because . Language 48(3): 626–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther
2007 Spoken thetical clauses in English. In Parentheticals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 106], Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds), 25–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2011 On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 848–893. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kavalova, Yordanka
2007  And-parenthetical clauses. In Parentheticals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 106], Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds), 145–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1972 The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Language Form. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B
1997 Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2008 The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84(1): 69–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt
1998 The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua 104(3-4): 235–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Particles at the Semantics/pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues. A Study with Special Reference to the French Phrasal Adverbs. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Nelson, Gerald, Wallis, Sean & Aarts, Bas
2002 Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohori, Toshio
1995 Remarks on suspended clauses: A contribution to Japanese phraseology. In Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 32], Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 201–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew
2009 Grammarians’ languages versus humanists’ languages and the place of speech act formulas in models of linguistic competence. In Formulaic Language, Vol. 1: Distribution and Historical Change [Typological Studies in Language 82], Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pittner, Karin
1995 Zur Syntax von Parenthesen. Linguistische Berichte 156: 85–108.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha
2002 From silence to grammar: Grammaticalization and ellipsis in Korean. Paper presented at the conference on New Reflections on Grammaticalization II , University of Amsterdam, April 3–6.
Rouchota, Villy
1998 Procedural meaning and parenthetical discourse markers. In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57], Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds), 97–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, William W
1970 Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English. Language 46(1): 97–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1987 The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Theticity. In Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds), 255–308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siepmann, Dirk
2005 Discourse Markers across Languages: A Contrastive Study of Second-level Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native Text with Implications for General and Pedagogic Lexicography. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita
1998 From sentence to discourse: Cos (because) in teenage talk. In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57], Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds), 127–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B
2002 Regularity in Semantic Change [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D
2007 Recent developments in the Role and Reference Grammar theory of clause linkage. Language and Linguistics 8: 71–93.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, Sarah D’Hertefelt, Sarah & Van linden, An
2012 A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language 36: 123–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehr, Barbara
2000 Zur Beschreibung der Syntax des français parlé (mit einem Exkurs zu “thetisch” und “kategorisch”). In Diskursanalyse: Untersuchungen zum gesprochenen Französisch, Barbara Wehr & Helga Thomaßen (eds), 239–289. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Weuster, Edith
1983 Nicht-eingebettete Nebensätze mit Verb-Endstellung. Zur Wortstellungsproblematik im Deutschen [Studien zur Deutschen Grammatik 20], Klaus Olszok & Edith Weuster (eds), 7–87. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan
1993 Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 18 other publications

Ahn, Mikyung & Foong Ha Yap
2022. On the extended uses of -ki and -m nominalization constructions as face-threat mitigators in Korean. Lingua 274 ► pp. 103230 ff. DOI logo
Farahani, Mehrdad Vasheghani & Zahra Ghane
2022. Unpacking the function(s) of discourse markers in academic spoken English: a corpus-based study. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 45:1 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Ghane, Zahra & Mehrdad Vasheghani Farahani
2022. Function and translation of the thetical you know: a parallel corpus-based investigation of English and Persian. Corpora 17:3 ► pp. 363 ff. DOI logo
Heine, Bernd
2018. Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization?. In New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 202], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
2023. The Grammar of Interactives, DOI logo
Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck & Tania Kuteva
2020. On the status of wh-exclamatives in English. Functions of Language 27:2 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long
2021. Chapter 1. On the rise of discourse markers. In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219], ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Heine, Bernd, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long
2020. Chapter 2. Dual process frameworks on reasoning and linguistic discourse. In Grammar and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 70], ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Kaltenböck, Gunther
2016. On the grammatical status of insubordinate if-clauses. In Outside the Clause [Studies in Language Companion Series, 178], ► pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
Kaltenböck, Gunther & Evelien Keizer
2022. Insubordinate if-clauses in FDG: Degrees of independence. Open Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 675 ff. DOI logo
Kruijsdijk, Iris, Nina van der Vlugt & Jenneke van der Wal
2022. The insubordinated infinitive in Makhuwa-Enahara and the expression of feelings. Linguistics in the Netherlands 39 ► pp. 122 ff. DOI logo
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee
2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, DOI logo
la Roi, Ezra
2021. The Insubordination of If- and That-Clauses from Archaic to Post-Classical Greek: A Diachronic Constructional Typology. Symbolae Osloenses 95:1 ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
2022. Insubordination in Archaic and Classical Latin: commands, requests, wishes and assertives. Journal of Latin Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Lastres–López, Cristina
2020. Subordination and insubordination in contemporary spoken English. English Today 36:2 ► pp. 48 ff. DOI logo
McGregor, William B.
2017. There’s grammar and there’s grammar just as there’s usage and there’s usage. English Text Construction 10:2 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Xiaoyun
2020. Managing a suspended course of action. Chinese Language and Discourse. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 11:2 ► pp. 306 ff. DOI logo
Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, Emma Moore, Linda van Bergen & Willem B. Hollmann
2019. Categories, Constructions, and Change in English Syntax, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 march 2023. 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.