1 preliminaries - quitero

8/6/2019 1 Preliminaries - Quitero

1/29

1. Preliminaries

1.1 Aims and scope of this study

This book presents a detailed corpus-based study of adverbial subordinate clauses

in English within the framework of Functional Grammar (henceforth FG). Its aim

is to demonstrate the relevance of FGs hierarchical model of the structure of the

clause for the analysis of adverbial constructions by examining the systematic

relationship between the semantic type of adverbial clauses and the way these are

expressed in English. The method of analysis is largely based on the typological

study of adverbial clauses carried out by Hengeveld (1998). The importance of

this study not only lies in its contribution to the knowledge and typological

classification of European languages, but also in its theoretical implications forFG. On the basis of an in-depth analysis of data obtained from the LOB-corpus,

the present study shows that the expression of adverbial clauses in English runs

parallel to the distribution of expression formats from a cross-linguistic

perspective.

The present work is organised as follows. Chapter 1 provides a description

of the theoretical framework FG (1.2), of the object of analysis adverbial

subordinate clauses (1.3), and of the data used for the analysis (1.4). The

following two chapters deal with the classification of adverbial clauses. Firstly,

the expression formats which are characteristic of these constructions in English

are analysed (Chapter 2), and subsequently a semantic classification of adverbialclauses is provided using the theoretical framework of FG (Chapter 3). Chapter 4

studies the way in which the different types of adverbial subordinate clauses are

expressed in English, in order to demonstrate, in Chapter 5, the existence of a

systematic relationship between the semantic type of a subordinate clause on the

one hand and the way in which it is expressed on the other. In the concluding

Chapter 6 the results of this study are interpreted in terms of FG. It furthermore

discusses the theoretical implications of the findings of this study for the FG

model.

1.2 The Functional Grammar framework

This section provides a general overview of the basic principles of FG, with a

focus on those aspects which are relevant to the study of adverbial subordinate

clauses. The presentation of the FG model is based mainly on Dik (1997a/b),

although reference will also be made to other works which, in one way or

another, elaborate on or disagree withwhat is set out in that work. First the basic

methodological principles of FG are presented (1.2.1), followed by a description

of the general organisation of this model (1.2.2).


2/29

Mara Jess Prez Quintero2

1.2.1 Methodological principles of Functional Grammar

FG is a general model for the analysis of the organisation of natural languages

which takes a functional view of language, defined as an instrument of social

interaction among human beings, used with the intention of establishingcommunicative relationships (Dik 1997a: 3). Thus, FG adheres to the functional

paradigm, as opposed to the formal paradigm, the main exponent of which is

Chomskys formalist theory. In contrast to a formalist conception of language, in

which language is considered an abstract object of study that must be analysed

independently of its use, a functional approach to the study of language involves a

different conception of the object of study, which is understood as an instrument

of social interaction between natural language users (NLUs). While in the formal

paradigm the psychological correlate of a language is competence, that is, the

ability to construe and interpret linguistic expressions (Dik 1997a: 6) as opposed

to performance, in the functional paradigm the psychological correlate of alanguage is communicative competence, his [NLUs] ability to carry on social

interaction by means of language (Dik 1997a: 5). Hymes (1972), from whom

Dik (1978) adopts the concept of communicative competence, claims that the

attitude taken towards the conception of the object of study determines, to a great

extent, the organisation of the different components of a linguistic theory.

Regarding the formalist view of syntax as a module independent from semantics

and pragmatics, Dik (1997a: 7-8) states that:

in the functional paradigm the relation between the different

components of linguistic organization is viewed in such a way thatpragmatics is seen as the all-encompassing framework within which

semantics and syntax must be studied. Semantics is regarded as

instrumental with respect to pragmatics, and syntax as instrumental

with respect to semantics. In this view there is no room for something

like an autonomous syntax. On the contrary, to the extent that a

clear division can be made between syntax and semantics at all,

syntax is there for people to be able to form complex expressions for

conveying complex meanings, and such meanings are there for people

to be able to communicate in subtle and differentiated ways.

Thus, it is clear that in the functional paradigm linguistic expressions must be

described and explained in the context of verbal interaction, which in turn should

be integrated within the more general framework of the NLUs cognitive

capacity. Dik claims that such a model of analysis should aim at providing a

functional explanation of linguistic phenomena and he adds:

a functional explanation of grammatical phenomena will typically not

be based on an assumption of simple form-function correlation, but

will instead involve a network of interacting requirements and

constraints, each of which may be understood in functional termsitself, but which interact in complex ways and in a certain sense


3/29

Preliminaries 3

compete for recognition and expression in the final design of

linguistic expressions. (Dik 1986: 7)

In Diks view, a functional grammar must analyse the properties of linguistic

expressions in the context of their use and connect these properties with the rulesand principles which govern verbal interaction. The final goal is to construct a

Model of the NLU (M.NLU), capable of accounting for the abilities of speaker

and addressee. These abilities form the competence of the NLU at three different

levels: cognitive, pragmatic and grammatical. Accordingly, a functional Model of

the NLU should take into consideration these three aspects, which constitute three

theoretical components integrated into a modular system. FG, therefore, can be

considered a modular theory in the sense suggested by Escribano (1992; 1993),

who maintains that the concept of modularity has been used in a trivial way to

refer to any theory that proposesdifferent constituents of analysis. For this author

a grammar is modular if and only if it features a many-to-many relationshipbetween its systems (1993: 255-6).

FG is then modular in the sense that a Grammatical Theory should be

included within the framework of a Pragmatic Theory, which in turn is

considered part of a Cognitive Theory. Gmez Solico (1995) points out that this

modular system can be expressed in the following simplified manner:1

Figure 1.1: Modularity in Functional Grammar (Gmez Solico 1995)

Gmez Solico (1995: 203) argues that, according to this interpretation and

contrary to what is postulated in Generative Grammar, the grammar of a language

is not a restricted and autonomous system governed by independent principles

which only partially interact with other human capacities.

1Translated from the Spanish.

COGNITIVE THEORY

Perceptual, logical and epistemological competence

PRAGMATIC THEORY

Communicative competence

GRAMMATICAL THEORY

Grammatical competence


4/29


The criteria of explanatory adequacy postulated within FG are directly

related to this functional conception of the organisation of natural languages. Dik

(1997a: 12-5) proposed the following standards of adequacy:

(i) Pragmatic adequacy: The theory should account for how people interactin verbal communication.

(ii) Psychological adequacy: The theory must be compatible with models

which explain the psycholinguistic processes of (de)codification.

(iii) Typological adequacy: The theory should be valid for the analysis of any

language, accounting both for the differences and for the similarities

between different languages.

FG is not only consideredfunctional because it is based on a functional view of

the nature of language. Dik (1980) points out that this label is also due to the

importance attributed, in the description of linguistic expressions, to functional orrelational notions, as opposed to categorical ones. FG recognises functional

relationships at three different levels:

(i) Semantic functions: These specify the roles performed bythe referents of

the terms in the State of Affairs designated by the predication in which

they appear. They include Agent, Positioner, Force, Processedand Zero

(linked to the first argument), Goal (linked to thesecond argument)and

Recipient,Location,Direction, Source andReference (linked to the second

orthird argument).

(ii) Syntactic functions: These specify the perspective from which the State ofAffairs is presented in a linguistic expression. FG recognises only two

syntactic functions, Subject and Object. Although Dik maintains the

traditional terminology, these functions are interpreted communicatively

to refer to the point of view from which the State of Affairs is presented.

Thus the function of Subject is assigned to the argument from the

perspective of which the State of Affairs is considered, while the function

of Object would be related to a secondary perspective on that State of

Affairs.

(iii) Pragmatic functions: [These] specify the informational status of a

constituent within the wider communicative setting in which it occurs (thatis, in relation to the pragmatic information of S and A at the moment of

use)2

(Dik 1997a: 26). FG distinguishes two types of pragmatic function,

which are analysed in detail in Dik (1997b): (i) Extra-clausal functions

(e.g. theme, initiatior), which are assigned to elements external to the

predication, and (ii) Intra-clausal functions (topic and focus), which are

assigned to constituents of the predication in terms of their informational

status within the communicative setting in which they are used.

2S represents Speakerand AAddressee.


5/29


6/29


Figure 1.2: General organisation of Functional Grammar (Dik 1997a)

FUND

derived derivedpredicates terms

PREDICATE FRAMES TERMS

termformation

predicateformation

LEXICONbasic basic

predicates terms

nuclear predication

1 1

core predication

2 2

syntactic functions

extended predication

3 3

proposition

4 4

pragmatic functions

clause structure

EXPRESSION RULES

form

order

prosody

LINGUISTIC

EXPRESSION


7/29

Preliminaries 7

(i) The form of the predicate

(ii) The category of the predicate (verbal, nominal, adjectival or adverbial)

(iii) The number of arguments

(iv) The semantic functions assigned to the arguments

(v) The selection restrictions imposed on the arguments

By way of illustration, Dik (1997a: 59) gives the following example of a

predicate frame:

(2) give [V] (x1:(x1))Ag (x2)Go (x3:(x3))Rec

Here the verbal predicate give (v) takes three arguments (x1, x2, x3) which carry

the semantic functions ofAgent(Ag), Goal (Go) andRecipient(Rec). The first

and the third argument show the selection restriction .

In the lexicon basic predicates are semantically related to one anotherthrough meaning postulates, which characterise the meaning of a predicate in

terms of a unidirectional relation (e.g. bachelor not married Siewierska1991), or through meaning definitions, if the relationship which is established is

bidirectional (e.g. bachelorunmarried man Siewierska 1991).Apart from predicates, the fund in the FG model contains terms: linguistic

expressions with referential potential. Prototypically, terms designate entities

which exist in space, calledfirst order entities. However, terms can also refer to

entities of different orders, as is the case with: (i) properties or relations (e.g.intelligence), (ii) states of affairs (e.g. match), (iii) propositional contents (e.g.

fact) or (iv) speech acts (e.g. question). In these cases of non-prototypicalreference, terms can present a derived or complex structure, containing embedded

predications, propositions or speech acts.

A distinction should also be made between basic terms, contained in the

lexicon and limited in number, and derived, which constitute the large majority of

term structures and which are formed by means of term formation rules. The

general format of derived terms can be represented as follows (Dik 1997a: 61):

(3) ( xi: 1(xi): 2(xi):...: n(xi))

where represents one or more term operators (e.g. number, quantification, . . .),xi represents the referent, and each (xi) constitutes an open predication in xi (a

predicate frame in which all positions, except that occupied by x i, have been

occupied by terms), which restricts the possible values of x i.

Summarising, the lexical component of FG contains two types of

elements, predicates, with their corresponding predicate frames, and terms.

Through the insertion of the appropriate terms in the positions of the argument

slots of predicate frames, a nuclear predication is obtained. The structure of this

predication, as well as the other expansions within the structure of the clause, is

analysed below.


8/29


1.2.2.2 The hierarchical structure of the clause

In her analysis of FG Siewierska points out that Inherent in the functional

approach to language is the recognition of several layers of the structural

organization of the clause corresponding to the multiple functions that the clause

fulfils in the act of communication (1991: 36). She also mentions the fact that inthe first version of the FG model (Dik 1978), the study of the clause was limited

to its representational function, which was identified with the predication.

However, in the second version of FG, Dik, inspired by the idea of the existence

of different layers postulated by Foley and Van Valin (1984), recognises that the

underlying clause structure is made up of a complex abstract structure in which

several levels or layers of formal and semantic organization have to be

distinguished (1997a: 50). Therefore, according to this model, originally

introduced by Hengeveld (1989) and further developed by this author (Hengeveld

1990; 1992; 1997), any utterance can be analysed in terms of an underlying

structure composed of the two levels shown in (4) (Hengeveld 1990):

(4)

(E1: [ILL (S) (A) (X1: [ ] (X1))] (E1))

(e1: [Predb (x1: Predn (x1)). . .(xn)] (e1))

The upper level, the interpersonal level, represents a speech act (E1), which is

structured on the basis of an abstract illocutionary frame (ILL) 3 with three

arguments: (i) a speaker (S) who transmits (ii) a propositional content (X1) to (iii)an addressee (A). This propositional content makes reference to a State of Affairs

(e1), which constitutes the lower level, the representational level. This level is

structured on the basis of a predicate frame (Pred b)4

with one or more argument

positions filled by terms ((x1). . .(xn)).5

The hierarchical structure of the utterance given in (4) was later modified

by Hengeveld (1992), who proposed the incorporation of a variable for every

layer of the hierarchy, in order to represent the different levels in a uniform

format. The modified representation of the hierarchical structure of the clause is

shown in (5):

3The units considered to be abstract illocutionary frames in Hengeveld (1990)

are analysed as illocutionary operators in Dik (1997a).4

In Dik (1997a/b) the symbol b, which represents the type of predicate, has

been substituted by [T].5 The distinction between these two functions of language, interpersonal and

representational (or ideational in Hallidays 1994 terminology) comes, as Butler

(1996) points out, from Systemic Functional Grammar. In Role and Reference

Grammar(Foley and Van Valin 1984; Van Valin 1993) such a distinction is not

made explicit.


9/29

Preliminaries 9

(5)

(E1: [(F1: ILL (F1)) (S) (A) (X1: [ ] (X1))] (E1))

(e1: [(f1: Predb (f1)) (x1: (f2: Predn (f2)) (x1))] (e1))

In this hierarchical structure different layers are distinguished, each associated

with a specific designation and a variable which represents it, as can be seen in

the following table, adapted from Hengeveld (1996: 120):

Table 1.1: Units of the hierarchical structure of the clause (Hengeveld 1996)

LAYER VARIABLE DESIGNATION

Clause E1 Speech Act

Illocutionary Frame F1 IllocutionProposition X1 Propositional Content

Predication e1 State of Affairs

Predicate f1 Relation or Property

Term x1 Individual

Some of the layers which constitute this hierarchical structure correspond to the

types of entity recognised by Lyons (1977). Thus, it can be asserted that a term

designates a first order entity,6 a predication a second order entity and a

proposition a third order entity in the classification proposed by Lyons, while thedistinction of zero order (predicate) and fourth order (speech act) entities

constitute an innovation of FG. Within this layered model of the clause, an

individual is a first order entity which can be situated in space and evaluated in

terms of its existence. A State of Affairs is a second order entity which can be

situated in space and time and evaluated in terms of its reality. A propositional

content is a third order entity which cannot be situated either in space or time, but

can be evaluated in terms of its truth. A speech act is a fourth order entity which

situates itself in space and time and which can be evaluated in terms of its felicity.

The two lower layers in this model, predicate and term, were analysed

previously when discussing the lexical component of FG, the fund, to which thesetwo elements belong. When the appropriate term structures have been inserted in

the argument slots of the predicate frame, the nuclear predication is obtained.

This is represented as follows (Dik 1997a: 291):

(6) nuclear predication = [pred [type] (args)]

6 In the context of clause structure, term is used in a restricted sense to refer to

the prototypical use of this linguistic unit (the designation of a first order entity).

As has already been mentioned, in Dik (1997a/b) term is also used, in a wider

sense, to refer to every linguistic unit that can function as argument or satellite.


10/29


A nuclear predication designates a State of Affairs (hereafter SoA), an expression

taken by Dik to mean the conception of something which can be the case in

some world (1997a: 105). Within FG a classification of SoAs is offered which is

based on the interaction of various semantic parameters (dynamism / control /

telicity). Thus the following classification of SoAs is established (Dik 1997a:114):

Table 1.2: Typology of States of Affairs (Dik 1997a)

General term [+control] [control]

[dyn] Situation

[+dyn] Event

[telic] Event

[+telic] Event

Position

Action

Activity

Accomplishment

State

Process

Dynamism

Change

The type of SoA designated by a nuclear predication correlates to a great extent

with the type of semantic function assigned to the first argument within the

predicate frame on which the predication is based.

Once a nuclear predication has been formed, each layer can be modified

by grammatical elements, operators, and lexical elements, satellites, which

provide additional information. Operators and satellites may realise the same

functions. The difference between them is that operators are expressed by

grammatical means and satellites by lexical means. Five different types of

operator can be distinguished: term operators ( ), predicate operators (1),

predication operators ( 2), proposition operators ( 3) and illocutionary operators

( 4). Similarly, there are five types of satellite: predicate satellites ( 1),

predication satellites ( 2), proposition satellites ( 3), illocutionary satellites ( 4)

and clause satellites ( 5). The functions of the different types of operators and

satellites (excluding term operators, which function within the fund) are described

below.

1.2.2.2.1 Predicate operators and satellites ( 1 and 1)

First layer operators and satellites specify additional properties of the internal

structure of the SoA designated by the nuclear predication. Predicate operators,called Qualifying operators, constitute the grammatical elements which specify

additional features of the nature or quality of the SoA (Dik 1997a: 219). The

additional properties related to the internal organisation of the SoA belong to: (i)

the domain of verbal aspect, such as the Perfective / Imperfective distinction, and

(ii) the domain of modality inherent in the SoA.

First layer satellites belong mainly to three groups: (i) those which

designate additional participants in the SoA (Beneficiary, Company); (ii) those

which specify the way in which the SoA is attained (Instrument, Manner, Speed,

Quality) and (iii) those which express spatial orientations of the SoA (Direction,

Source, Path).


11/29

Preliminaries 11

The result of the modification of the nuclear predication through first layer

satellites and operators is the core predication, a structure which can be

represented as follows (Dik 1997a: 64):

(7) core predication = [ 1 [nuclear predication] 1]

A variable representing the SoA can be added to the core predication and this

results in structures of the type:

(8) ei: [core predication]7

1.2.2.2.2 Predication operators and satellites ( 2 and 2)

The core predication can be modified by second layer operators and satellites

which locate the SoA with respect to the temporal, spatial and cognitive setting,

without affecting the properties of this SoA. Regarding predication operators, adistinction can be established between Quantifying and Localizing operators.

Quantification of the predication is carried out through aspectual distinctions

which concern the frequency of the SoA (Semelfactive, Iterative, Frequentative

and Distributive Aspect). The operators that contribute to the location of the SoA

are tense, perspectival aspect, objective modality and polarity.8

The satellites at this layer locate the SoA in the spatial dimension

(Location), the temporal dimension (Time, Circumstance) and the cognitive

dimension (Result, Purpose,Reason and Cause).

The result of applying grammatical or lexical modifications to the core

predication is the extendedpredication, which Dik (1997a: 291) represents in thefollowing way:

(9) extended predication = [ 2 ei: [core predication] ( 2)]

It is at this layer of the underlying structure of the clause that the assignment of

syntactic functions (Subject and Object) takes place, as can be seen in Figure 1.2.

The extended predication can be modified by third layer satellites and

operators, thus giving rise to a proposition, the next layer in the hierarchical

structure, which is represented by the variable (X i), which designates a

propositional content.

7Given this representation, in the previous edition of Dik (1997a [1989]) it is

noted that this predication can be called an embedded predication, since it is

embedded under the influence of the SoA variable.8 Although polarity is generally considered a second layer operator, Dik

(1997b), inspired by Lyons (1977), analyses different types of negation which

correspond to the different layers of the hierarchical structure of the clause

(illocutionary, propositional, predicational andpredicate negation).


12/29


1.2.2.2.3 Proposition operators and satellites ( 3 and 3)

Third layer operators and satellites express the speakers evaluation or attitude

towards the content expressed by the proposition. The modifiers at this layer,

therefore, relate the propositional content to the subjective world of the speaker,

expressing: (i) aspects of subjective modality, related to the speakers personalopinion or attitude, and (ii) specifications about the manner and circumstances in

which the speaker obtained the information contained in the proposition, by

means of evidential modality or attitudinal satellites. The result of applying third

layer modifiers is theproposition, represented as follows (Dik 1997a: 291):

(10) proposition = [ 3 Xi: [extended predication] ( 3)]

The proposition can be expanded into the clause, which designates the speech act

to which the linguistic expression refers and which is represented by the variable

(Ei).

9

1.2.2.2.4 Illocutionary operators and satellites ( 4 and 4)

The operators and satellites at this layer are related to the speakers

communicative ability. In Diks model (1997a) illocutionary operators designate

the basic illocutionary force (DECL(arative), INT(errogative), IMP(erative). . .)

of the utterance.10 This illocutionary force, codified in some way in the linguistic

expression [IllE], does not necessarily have to correspond to the intention of the

speaker [IllS] or the interpretation of the addressee [IllA].11 The basic illocutionary

force can undergo a process of (pragmatic, lexical or grammatical) conversion

and thus give way to another type of illocutionary force.Illocutionary satellites specify the way in which the speaker wishes the

addressee to interpret the speech act and, therefore, include lexical elements

which express Manner, Reason, Condition or Purpose, not regarding the SoA, but

regarding the speech act.

9 Although it is the propositional content and not the SoA that can be modified

by illocutionary operators and satellites, imperative operators are an exception,

since they operate directly on the predication, without an intermediate

propositional level (Dik 1997a: 53).10

Following the model proposed by Hengeveld (1990), however, this

illocutionary force would, as has been mentioned earlier, constitute an abstract

illocutionary frame with the speaker, the addressee and the propositional content as

its arguments. Therefore, the operators at this level would modify the basic

illocutionary force of the utterance, whether the speaker wants to mitigate the force

of the speech act (mitigating mode) or wants to reinforce it (reinforcing mode).11

Regarding fourth layer operators, Moutaouakil proposes a distinction betweensentence type operator(Tp) and illocutionary operator(Ill), since he believes that

the type of utterance (Decl., Int.,...) and the illocutionary force (statement,

question,...) are quite distinct features although they interplay in determining the

formal (i.e. morphosyntactic and prosodic) properties of linguistic expressions as

well as their interpretation (1996: 224).


13/29


14/29


15/29


16/29


Following this classification, the distribution of subordinate clauses can be

established as in Table 1.4:

Table 1.4: Distribution of subordinate clauses (Hengeveld 1995)

Noun Phrase Head

Restrictor

Complement clause

Relative clause

Verb Phrase Head Predicate clause

Restrictor Adverbial clause

Adverbial clauses are comparable to adverbs, since both function as restrictors of

a verb phrase. Therefore, it is possible to establish a semantic classification of

adverbial clauses, parallel to that proposed for adverbs or satellites, paying

attention to the layer of the hierarchical structure which they modify.

The layered structure of the clause has been used as a descriptive

framework for carrying out studies on specific types of subordinate clauses, such

as complement clauses (Dik and Hengeveld 1991) and adverbial clauses

(Hengeveld 1993; 1996; 1998; Hengeveld and Wanders 1997).16

In his study of the internal structure of adverbial clauses, Hengeveld

(1996: 121) puts forward the following classification of subordinate clauses:

Table 1.5: Classification of subordinate clauses (Hengeveld 1996)

Superordinate Main clause

Subordinate Open Relative clause

Closed Governing Predicate clause

Governed Obligatory Complement clause

Optional Adverbial clause

Hengeveld argues that the study of adverbial clauses is in many respects parallel

to that of complement clauses since they have one characteristic in common,

namely, that both are governed clauses, in the sense that their underlying structure

is determined by elements belonging to the main clause.

Using this classification as a basis, Hengeveld (1998), in his typological

study of adverbial clauses, defines a subordinate clause as one whose existence

depends on another, inasmuch as it satisfies the requirements of the predicate

frame of the matrix predicate, and an adverbial clause as one which can be

16Other studies of subordinate clauses within the framework of FG can be

mentioned such as those of Zimmermann (1985), Bolkestein (1986), Rijksbaron

(1986), Wakker (1987; 1992; 1996), Harder (1989; 1996), Dik (1990), Vester

(1990), Cuvalay (1996), Genee (1998). Although these are more specific in the

sense that they concentrate on the analysis of a single language or a specific type

of construction.


17/29


18/29


19/29

Preliminaries 19

classification of complex conjunctions, stating that they are structures which have

been formed from prepositional phrases which appeared with an embedded

clause, but what they actually do is introduce hypotactic clauses like any other

conjunction. The examples he gives are in case, in the event that, to the extent

thatand the combination of the definite article with various nouns which indicatetime and manner, such as the day, the moment, the way. However, when dealing

with cases of embedded clauses with adverbial meaning (embedded enhancing),

Halliday points out that these are structures which are formed by a noun post-

modified by an embedded clause and that the relation between the two members

of this construction has a circumstantial meaning of time, place, manner, cause or

condition. He believes that there are two different types of embedded structures:

(i) those in which the adverbial meaning is expressed by a nominal head (e.g. the

time when/that, the place where, reason why/that. . . ) and (ii) those in which it is

the embedded clause that carries the circumstantial meaning (e.g. the house

where/in which she lived). However, Halliday does not explain the difference thatexists between these embedded constructions, which are not examples of

adverbial subordination, and the complex prepositions consisting of a nominal

head which express time and manner, which he mentions when dealing with the

different types of adverbial conjunction.

Given the aim of this book, it is fundamental to establish a clear

distinction between nominal conjunctions, constructions which have suffered a

process of grammaticalisation and which, therefore, introduce subordinate

clauses, and the structures formed by a noun phrase whose head is post-modified

by an embedded clause and which, therefore, are excluded. As a valid criterion

for establishing this differentiation, it should be established whether the nominalpart of a complex conjunction has lost its nominal features and is thus part of a

fixed construction which functions as a subordinating conjunction. This criterion

is adopted by Huddleston (1985), when establishing a distinction between

complex prepositions and structures of the type preposition + noun +

preposition. He points out: we may think of complex prepositions as arising

historically through the lexicalisation the fusion into a single lexical item of

the first words of some productive construction (1985: 342).

The need to establish a distinction between simple and complex

prepositions is also found in Quirket al. (1991: 671):

In the strictest definition, a complex preposition is a sequence that is

indivisible both in terms of syntax and in terms of meaning. However,

there is no absolute distinction between complex prepositions and

constructions which can be varied, abbreviated, and extended

according to the nominal rules of syntax. Rather, there is a scale of

cohesiveness running from a sequence which behaves in every way

like a simple preposition, e.g.: in spite of (the weather), to one which

behaves in every way like a set of grammatically separate units, e.g.:

on the shelf of (the door).


20/29


The tests which Huddleston sets out in order to identify complex prepositions are

applied below in order to distinguish nominal conjunctions. By way of

illustration, Huddleston uses the constructions by dint of hard work (complex

preposition + noun phrase) and after years of hard work (preposition + noun

phrase + preposition + noun phrase):

(i) A complex preposition cannot realise the syntactic functions typically

associated with a noun phrase, such as subject or complement. Thus, dint

of hard workcannot realise the function of subject or complement in a

clause, butyears of hard work(e.g. Years of hard work had taken their toll

(subject); He had wasted years of hard work(complement)) can fulfil

these functions. Similarly, if in case (complexconjunction) is compared

with the time (that) (noun phrase), it can be seen that the former structure

cannot function as subject but the latter can (e.g. The time to be ready is

four oclock).(ii) Complex prepositions do not allow the same variety of determiners as the

head of a noun phrase does. The indefinite constructionyears of hard work

contrasts with the definite construction the years of hard work, allowing

also the use of other kinds of determiner such as these, a few, several . . .

However, this variation is not possible with dint of hard work. Huddleston

points out that the possibility of variation has to be determined bearing in

mind that the original meaning must be maintained. Thus, for example, the

conjunction in case does not allow a great variety of modifiers while

preserving its conditional value. It can be quantified by most of, in which

case a nominal construction is obtained which has a different meaning(e.g. in most of the cases temporal sense). The head of the nominal

construction the time can be quantified as in most of the time, while at the

same time allowing a greater variety of modifiers, such as every time

(that), such time as, the very first time. In all these cases the basic meaning

of the construction is maintained.

(iii) The nominal part of a complex preposition does not allow variation in

number. While the plural formyears of hard workcan be substituted by a

singular a year of hard work, the singular form ofdint of hard workdoes

not have a plural alternative. It can also be seen that in the examples of

complex conjunctions in case cannot be substituted by in cases, while thenoun phrase the day has alternative plural expressions, such as since the

days (when).

To Huddlestons criteria, others can be added from among those presented by

Quirk et al. (1991: 671-2), who use the complex preposition in spite of (the

weather) and the nominal construction on the shelf of (the door) as examples:

(iv) The preposition which introduces a nominal construction allows variation.

Thus, for example, the change of the preposition on in the structure on the

shelf offor under(e.g. under the shelf by (the door)) is possible, but it isnot possible in the case of the complex preposition (e.g. in spite ofcannot


21/29


22/29


form which requires identification of the subject with that of the main clause,

while in Provided that the film entertains, few people care about its merits ,

identification of a subject is not necessary. Similarly, Knig and Kortmann

(1991) point out some features which indicate that a verb has been re-analysed as

a preposition: change in the word order, change of grammatical relations andphonological and morphological criteria. These features, as well as some

additional ones, are analysed by Kortmann and Knig (1992: 686), who state:

Many of the changes leading to a recategorization of verbs as

prepositions can be seen as a loss of certain properties: a loss of

semantic, phonological, and morphological substance, a loss of the

ability to inflect for case, number, and gender, a loss for agreement

with a subject, a loss of the ability to be marked for tense and aspect.

Nevertheless, Kortmann (1991) points out that not all participles which are usedas conjunctions show the same degree of lexicalisation, and mentions two

parameters which prove this. Firstly, in some cases the identification of an

implicit subject is established with an indefinite pronoun or with the speaker (e.g.

. . . as if I couldnt figure out for myself that things had better be just so,

considering whos coming Kortmann 1991: 51), and secondly, the participle can

appear in contexts in which it still functions as a verbal form (e.g. The new

airship . . . could keep station above the fleet wherever the US chose to go,

providing early warning of aircraft or missile attack Kortmann 1991: 52).

Kortmann and Knig (1992: 683) comment:

Deverbal prepositions are not only marginal members in their lexical

class, they are also an extremely heterogeneous group as a result of

the fact that the various changes discussed in section 1 have not

affected each individual item in the same way and to the same degree.

This characteristic of subordinating particles derived from a participle makes it

difficult to distinguish between a complement clause, whose main verb is in a

non-finite form, and an adverbial clause, introduced by a non-finite verbal form

which has been re-analysed as a preposition.

1.3.2.3 Verbless clauses

Of the three types of structure which Quirk et al. (1991) point out as possible

realisations of a subordinate clause, those constructions which belong to the third

group verbless clauses are not included, since the main aim of this work is to

study the systematic relations between the semantic type of adverbial subordinate

clause and the way in which these clauses are expressed in English, paying

special attention to the verbal forms contained in these constructions. Therefore,

constructions of the type Although always helpful, he was not much liked, in

which the subordinate clause lacks a verbal form, will be excluded.


23/29

Preliminaries 23

1.3.2.4 Copy-cleft sentences

Talmy (1978a) analyses a series of constructions which have in common the fact

that, from a semantic point of view, they are equivalent to subordinate clauses. He

calls these copy-cleft sentences. Talmy argues that the complex clause Mays

provided some excitement for the viewers by batting in three runs can have thefollowing possibilities as alternative constructions:

(16) Mays batted in three runs; he provided some excitement for the viewers

thereby (without any type of linking element)

(17) Mays batted in three runs, and provided some excitement for the viewers

thereby (with a coordinating conjunction)

(18) Mays batted in three runs, providing some excitement for the viewers

thereby (non-finite construction -ing form)

(19) Mays batted in three runs, to provide some excitement for the viewers

thereby (non-finite construction infinitive)(20) Mays batted in three runs, whereby he provided some excitement to the

viewers thereby (relative construction)

Of these five types, only the non-finite constructions (18) and (19) are considered

adverbial subordinate clauses. Examples (16) and (17) are examples of paratactic

constructions, juxtaposition and coordination, respectively, which do not form

part of the set of structures under study. Example (20) represents an example of a

relative clause in which the presence of an anaphoric element can be seen.

Relative constructions constitute a type of subordinate clause different from

adverbial clauses.

1.3.2.5 Independent relative clauses

Geis (1970), when presenting types of constructions which he considers to be

adverbial clauses, mentions one type which he calls independent relative clause,

to which clauses such asJohn lives where Harry said he didorI found him where

he said he would be, belong. These types of structures have been excluded

because they are examples of relative clauses which form part of a group of

subordinate clauses that are not adverbial. Moreover, in the first example, the

temporal expression introduced by the relative pronoun does not function as a

satellite, an optional element added to the predication, but as an argument, anobligatory constituent required by the predicate. Other excluded constructions are

those which Quirket al. (1991) call sentential relative clauses, that is, clauses

which do not have a noun phrase as an antecedent, but refer to the predicate (e.g.

They say he plays truant, which he doesnt), to the predication (e.g.He walks for

an hour each morning, which would bore me), to a complete clause (e.g. Things

then improved, which surprises me) or even to a series of clauses (e.g. Colin

married my sister and I married his brother, which makes Colin and me double

in-laws).


24/29


1.3.2.6 Clauses of Comparison and Comparative clauses

A distinction should be established, as Quirk et al. (1991) propose, between

adverbial clauses of Comparison (e.g. He bent down as if tightening his shoe

laces) and Comparative clauses, in which a relation of comparison between a

proposition from the main clause and one from the subordinate clause isestablished, (e.g. Marilyn was too polite to say anything about my clothes).

Clauses belonging to this latter typeare also excluded, since they are examples of

clauses embedded in an adjectival group.

1.3.2.7 Clauses introduced by two conjunctions

It can sometimes happen that a clause is introduced by two conjunctions. These

clauses are classified only according to the meaning of the second conjunction,

since in these examples the value of the first conjunction has been cancelled by

that of the second.

(21) Whether Handel planned it as he began the movement or whether it

occurred to him as when improvising, this way of integrating the

movement was exactly right in this place, and sensible people may call it a

symphonic way. (LOB G42 153)

There are also cases in which the meaning of the first conjunction is not lost, but

there is only one verbal form that is introduced by the second conjunction. This

type of clause is also classified according to the meaning expressed by the second

conjunction.

(22) Joyce did, of course, starve; Proust did not, except when the waiters at the

Ritz were inattentive. (LOB G41 32)

(23) That will wasnt made until after Id gone away! (LOB L22 163)

1.3.2.8 Grammaticalised constructions

Haspelmath and Knig (1998), in their typological study of Concessive-

Conditional clauses, mention the existence of a type of construction, slightly

grammaticalised, which expresses this adverbial meaning. They claim that

expressions such as let it rain, it may rain, let it be that it rains, it may be

that it rains express the idea of even if it rains.

(24) She may be the worlds leading Etruscologist, but I doubt that she knows

what concessive conditionals looked like in Etruscan.

These constructions are not taken into account here, since there seems to be no

direct relation between this type of expression and a concessive-conditional

meaning. Only finite clauses introduced by a conjunction are analysed, with the

exception of Conditional clauses expressed through the inversion of the auxiliary

(e.g.Had I known that she was here I wouldnt have come), because in this case

there is a systematic relation between these constructions and the meaning whichthey express.


25/29


26/29


Givn (1995: 20) warns that this method of analysis raises a series of important

questions:

First, how many instances ofForm A in the text were not paired with

Function X, but rather with Functions Y, Z, Q? Second, how manyinstances ofFunction Xin the text were not paired with Form A, but

rather with Forms B, C, D? Third, given the percent ofForm A that

indeed correlates with Function X, is it statistically significant, in the

view of (i) the size of the total population; (ii) the size of the sample;

and (iii) the amount of variation within the sample? Without

answering these questions, we perpetuate the bad habit of testing

hypothesis by attempting to verify them. Whereas what we should be

doing is attempting and hopefully failing tofalsify them.

Within the framework of FG this practice is inadequate if the standards ofadequacy proposed within the model are taken into account:

(i) FG aims to be a pragmatically adequate grammar, that is, a grammar

taking account of the interaction between speaker and addressee in verbal

communication. In order to achieve this aim FG must focus on the analysis

of authentic uses of language and not on isolated data extracted from

different sources. Moreover, it is important to point out the importance of

using oral language corpora, since these probably constitute the most

natural form of verbal interaction. In this respect, Butler (1999) questions

the extent to which FG reflects what happens in real language.(ii) FG aims to be a psychologically adequate theory, that is, it aims to be

compatible with the processes of (de)codification which take place in the

human mind in the course of communication. Butler (1999) also questions

the extent to which FG reflects the choice of linguistic elements in

processing language. It is only through experimenting, observation and the

exhaustive analysis of the authentic use of language that conclusions about

the cognitive processes that are involved in communication can be

reached.

(iii) FG has amongst its aims that of achieving typological adequacy. In order

to become a theory which is capable of representing different languagesand explaining the differences and similarities between them, it is essential

that it starts from (qualitative and quantitative) descriptive studies of

particular languages which can only be conveniently analysed using a

corpus.

(iv) Finally, a grammatical model which is based on the use of language, and

not on the speakers abstract knowledge, ought to be a dynamic model

capable of taking account of linguistic variation. Such variation only

becomes apparent through the observation of authentic data. In this

respect, FG should develop a model which is capable of giving proper

account of this variation.


27/29

Preliminaries 27

Today, within the framework of FG, a growing interest in the analysis of corpora

can be observed, an interest that must undoubtedly be assessed positively:

One effect of this development has been to provide a new manner of

testing the empirical claims of FG; another has been to throw up novelquestions and often bewildering challenges which are bound to

become dominant issues in the FG of the nineties. (Mackenzie 1992:

10)

This book contributes to enriching the FG model with the analysis of authentic

uses of language. Thus it aims to make a contribution to the analysis of corpora

suggested by corpus linguistics, without rejecting introspection, which is a

necessary tool for interpreting empirical data. As Johansson (1991: 313) states

when discussing the use of linguistic corpora:

In spite of the great changes in the less than three decades since the

first computer corpus, there is one way in which the role of the corpus

in linguistic research has not changed. The corpus remains one of the

linguists tools, to be used together with introspection and elicitation

techniques. Wise linguists, like experienced craftsmen, sharpen their

tools and recognize their appropriate uses.

1.4.2 Information about the corpus used

The corpus used is the Lancaster Oslo/Bergen (LOB) Corpus.19 This corpus

comes in different versions: horizontal/vertical and tagged/untagged. The present

study was carried out using the horizontal tagged version. In this version the

corpus comes in the form of a text in which each word is accompanied by a word-

tag which has been assigned to it through the use of automatic programmes and

manual edition tasks.20

A selection of adverbial clauses in their contexts was carried out using

25% of the total corpus. Butler (1985: 2) puts forward the advantages of using a

sample of data in the following terms:

19Unfortunately, at the moment the research for this book was done, it was

impossible to use the British National Corpus (BNC), mainly for technical

reasons. Nevertheless, this circumstance may be expected not to affect the

findings. Firstly, because subordination is much more common in written than in

spoken language. Secondly, given that we are dealing with written data, the fact

that the data contained in the LOB corpus is older than that of theBNCis only

slightly relevant.20 For information on the sources and selection of the texts that conform the

LOB corpus, see Johansson et al. (1978). For detailed information on the tagged

version see Johansson et al. (1986).


28/29


with a finite population21

which is not too large, we may be able to

investigate the whole population. But if our population is potentially

infinitive, or if it is finite but very large, we shall have to be content

with samples drawn from the population concerned. The use of

samples, even for the study of finite populations, cuts down the labourand cost involved in obtaining results, and minimises the errors which

can easily be made during the processing of large amounts of

statistical data.

In order to guarantee the representativity of a sample of data methods of

probabilistic sampling are used. As Bisquerra Alzina (1987: 7) explains, these

methods are based on the principle of equiprobability, which states that all

individuals of a population have the same probability of becoming part of the

sample.

The probabilistic method used here is the one known as random selection.According to Bizquerra Alzina (1987), this method of sampling consists of:

(i) Dividing the population into different strata. TheLOB corpus (population)

is divided into different categories (strata) which constitute the different

types of text.

(ii) Selecting a sample from each stratum. To select a sample within each

textual category a simple random process has been used. It has not been

necessary to assign a number to each text, since texts are already

numbered within each category. Using the SPSS programme (Statistical

Package for Social Sciences), texts have been selected randomly usingthese numbers.

(iii) Deciding on the number of individuals in each stratum. In this study the

number of texts to be included in each category is derived by proportional

affixation, that is, taking into account the proportion of texts which make

up each category.

The results of selecting 25% of the texts for each textual category is given in

Appendix I.

After randomly selecting the sample of texts from the corpus, the

adverbial clauses were identified using the Tact programme (Text AnalysisComputing Tools, version 2.1.4, June 1995). The selection of adverbial clauses

with an independent verbal form was carried out by searching the tags CS

(Subordinating Conjunction) and WRB (Wh-adverb). On the other hand,

adverbial clauses with a dependent verbal form were selected through: (i) The

tags BEN, HVN and VBN, for past participle forms; (ii) the tags BE, DO, HV

and VB, for infinitive forms; and (iii) the order .*ing, for -ing forms. The

exclusion of the non-relevant constructions (such as complement clauses

introduced by a conjunction, restrictive relative clauses realised by a past

21The term population is used in a broad sense to refer to any collection of

entities, of whatever kind, that is the object of investigation (Butler 1985: 1).


29/29

Preliminaries 29

participle or an -ing form and by finite verbal forms tagged BE, DO, HV and VB)

was carried out manually.

1 preliminaries - quitero

Documents