Complement-taking predicates, parentheticals and grammaticalization

Boye, Kasper; Harder, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101416

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In some cases, they are highly idiosyncratic and can be adverbially modifiedtwo characteristics that cannot be reconciled with grammatical status. For such cases, Boye and Harder (2021) do not posit any syntagmatic relation between parenthetical and host clause, and they do not posit any developmental relationship from complement constructions with CTP-clauses in canonical matrix position like (1) and (2). They thus revise their (2007,2012) account and argue that parenthetical CTP-clauses are obligatorily discourse-secondary because they occur in specific constructional slots that are dedicated to secondary status and also allow lexical fillers.…”

Section: Articles In This Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The collection opens with Boye and Harder (2021), in which they revisit earlier work on the structure and use of complement-taking predicates Harder 2007, 2012), as outlined above in Section 1. 2 Integrating distinct theoretical approaches (viz.…”

Section: Articles In This Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What stands out most is the converging evidence that parenthetical clauses do not always compare to grammatically used CTP-clauses in sentence-initial position like I think in (6) compares to I think in (2) above. Rather, parenthetical clauses may be diverse in terms of morpho-syntactic features, and they may not show schematic, speaker-related meanings (see Boye and Harder 2021;Gentens 2022;Maekelberghe 2021). This finding has a diachronic correlate: such formally variable and lexically full parentheticals may and often do emerge prior to grammatical uses of CTP-clauses (Gentens 2022).…”

Section: Articles In This Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Revisiting complement and parenthetical constructions: theory and description

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Articles In This Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Articles In This Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Articles In This Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting complement and parenthetical constructions: theory and description

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, just like the development of English gonna , the development of the German particle glaub must involve conventionalization of discursively secondary status (see Boye & Harder 2021 for a thorough discussion of the relationship between parentheticals and grammaticalization).…”

Section: Defining Grammaticalization As a Change Or Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grammaticalization as Conventionalization of Discursively Secondary Status: Deconstructing the Lexical–Grammatical Continuum

Boye

2023

Trans of the Philol Soc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite intense research on grammaticalization, no satisfactory definition has so far been proposed. Some would argue that it is indeed impossible to come up with a precise definition as grammaticalization is an epiphenomenon. After pointing out problems in existing definitions, this article proposes a new definition of grammaticalization as a distinct kind of change. The definition is based not only on the theory of the lexical–grammatical distinction in Boye & Harder (2012), but also on a rejection of the definition of grammaticalization offered there. The proposal is that grammaticalization is a distinct kind of conventionalization: the conventionalization of discursively secondary status. It is argued that in addition to avoiding problems intrinsic to earlier definitions, this definition captures canonical and non‐canonical cases of grammaticalization, and allows us to be precise about what to include and what not to include under grammaticalization. Finally, three important implications are discussed. (1) Grammaticalization is not a type of overall change, but rather one part of overall changes that simultaneously include other aspects. (2) Grammaticalization involves gain rather than loss. (3) A lexical–grammatical continuum does not exists, but grammaticalization is bound up with other continua, including: a social‐level conventionalization continuum, a splitting continuum and a discourse prominence continuum.

show abstract

“…unustama ei viita oma põhitähenduses kontrollitavale tegevusele -me ei saa kontrollida, kas me unustame midagi või ei. Sestap on selle kasutamine nii imperatiivis kui hortatiivis pigem retooriline, sest tegevuse sooritaja ei saa kuidagi teadlikult tegevust läbi viia: võib küll üles kutsuda mitte unustamisele (Ära unusta, et... / Ärgem unustagem, et...) unustama-verbi sage esinemine ja kasutamine mitmuse 1. isiku keeldkõnes osutab kasutusviisi kinnistumisele, mida on täheldatud ka muude diskursuses/tekstis sagedasti kasutatavate komplemendiga verbide puhul (complementtaking predicates, vt nt Boye & Harder 2021). Taolist nähtust on analüüsitud enamasti seoses partiklistumisega suulises kõnes (vt nt Keevallik 2003), ent toimub ka teistes registrites ning on tihedalt seotud verbi semantikaga, nt ma arvan (et) Kuigi sagedasem on unustama-verbi kasutamine imperatiivses ärgem-konstruktsioonis, kasutatakse seda samas funktsioonis ka ärme-konstruktsioonis, mis näitab, et tegemist on varieerumisega, mitte konstruktsioonide puhtakujulise spetsialiseerumisega.…”

Section: Lemmadunclassified

Keeldkõne mitmuse 1. isiku vormide varieerumine ja tüpoloogiline keelemuutus: kas probleem keelekorralduse jaoks?

Lindström

2023

ESUKA-JEFUL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artiklis käsitletakse eesti keele mitmuse 1. isiku keeldkõne moodustamise ja kasutamise varieerumist, keelemuutuse kulgu ning järeldusi keelekorralduse jaoks. Mitmuse 1. isiku keeldkõnet saab moodustada nii imperatiivi keeldkõne vorme kasutades (ärgem tehkem) kui ka indikatiivi lõppe kasutades eitussõnal ja põhisõnal (ärme teeme) või ainult eitussõnal (ärme tee). Eesti keele ühendkorpusest 2019 saadud 4964-lauselise juhuvalimi põhjal selgub, et eitussõna ärme kasutus laieneb, ärgem kahaneb ning lõputa konstruktsiooni (ärme tee) kasutus kasvab. Ärgem- ja ärme-konstruktsiooni valikus on märgata mõningaid kinnistunud väljendeid, mis üht või teist varianti eelistavad. ärgem-konstruktsiooni kasutatakse rohkem retoorilise üleskutsena koos mitteagentiivsete verbidega, ärme-konstruktsiooni kõnelejat kaasavalt ja agentiivsete verbidega. Keelemuutuse suund on indikatiivse lõputa konstruktsiooni kasutuse laienemisele. See on ühtlasi tüpoloogiline muutus, sest sümmeetriline keeldkõnevorm asendub asümmeetrilisega. Seetõttu on keelekorraldus pikalt seda muutust tõrjunud, ent 2022. aasta lõpul siiski aktsepteerinud ka lõputa vormi. Abstract. Liina Lindström: Variation in prohibitive 1Pl forms and typological shift: a problem for language planning? Estonian shows extensive variation in the formation and use of 1Pl prohibitive forms. Older forms use a special imperative (prohibitive) negation verb, which can be conjugated (ärgem); imperative endings are repeated on the main verb (ärgem tehkem ‘let’s not do it’). New forms use indicative endings on the negation verb (ärme) and main verb; however, the main verb may also occur as a bare stem (ärme teeme or ärme tee ‘let’s not do it’). In this paper, the variation between these three main constructions is analysed on the basis of data taken from the Estonian National Corpus 2019. It appears that use of the imperative construction (ärgem) is decreasing and use of indicative forms (ärme) is increasing; with indicative forms, there is a preference for the main verb to occur as a bare stem. This can also be seen as a typological change: symmetric negation of the imperative is replaced with an asymmetric negation construction. The imperative construction (ärgem), however, is still widely used for rhetorical purposes especially with non-agentive verbs, such as unustama ‘forget’, while the indicative construction (ärme) is typically used speaker-inclusively with agentive verbs. Language planning has resisted the asymmetric negation type so far, but accepted it finally in 2022.

show abstract

Complement-taking predicates, parentheticals and grammaticalization

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

Revisiting complement and parenthetical constructions: theory and description

Revisiting complement and parenthetical constructions: theory and description

Grammaticalization as Conventionalization of Discursively Secondary Status: Deconstructing the Lexical–Grammatical Continuum

Keeldkõne mitmuse 1. isiku vormide varieerumine ja tüpoloogiline keelemuutus: kas probleem keelekorralduse jaoks?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About