Cover not available
Part of
Finiteness and Nominalization
Edited by Claudine Chamoreau and Zarina Estrada-Fernández
[Typological Studies in Language 113] 2016
► pp. 13–42

Finiteness, nominalization, and information structure

Convergence and divergence

| University of Mainz
The correlation between finiteness and nominalization is frequently discussed in the literature. This paper will introduce information structure as a third factor that has an important impact on processes of grammaticalization. Nominalized verb forms can be used in the formation of relative clauses and clefting. With these functions, they can become part of focus constructions. At a subsequent stage, they are reanalyzed either as finite forms with tense-aspect functions or as markers of stance. With the integration of the focus function of nominalized verb forms, a considerable part of what is described as insubordination (Evans 2007) can be explained in terms of a grammaticalization process, moving from the use in a focus construction to the reanalysis as a finite form.
Keywords: clefting, grammaticalization, information structure, insubordination, nominalization, relative clause
Published online: 23 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.113.02bis
References (41)
References
Adger, David. 2007. Three domains of finiteness: A minimalist perspective. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 24-58. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Beffa, Marie-Lise & Hamayon, Roberte. 1975. Eléments de grammaire mongole. Paris: Dunot, Documents de linguistique quantitative.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9: 93-124.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2004. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5: 107-136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1999. Nominalization and focus constructions in some Kiranti languages. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover (eds), Topics in Nepalese Linguistics, 271-96. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 1995. Verb serialization and converbs—differences and similarities. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Ekkehard König & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 137-188. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1998. Grammaticalization and language contact, constructions and positions. In The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 37], Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul Hopper (eds), 13-58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Finite vs. non finite languages. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1400-1413. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2007. Categories that make finiteness: Discreteness from a functional perspective and some of its repercussions. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 115-137. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2008. Precategoriality and syntax-based parts of speech—the case of Late Archaic Chinese. Studies in Language 32: 568-589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. On the evolution of complexity—sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds), 34-49. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bril, Isabelle. 2010. Informational and referential hierarchy. Clause-linking strategies in Austronesian-Oceanic languages. In Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy [Studies in Language Companion Series 121], Isabelle Bril (ed.), 269-311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corston-Oliver, Simon H. 1996. Ergativity in Roviana, Solomon Islands [Pacific Linguistics B-113]. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
. 2002. Roviana. In The Oceanic Languages, John Lynch, Malcolm Ross & Terry Crowley (eds), 467-497. Richmond: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 366-431. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54: 564-589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1998. Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johan van der Auwera & Donall P. Ó Baoill (eds), 335-419. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinds, John. 1986. Japanese [Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars Series]. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Horie, Kaoru. 2008. The grammaticalization of nominalizers in Japanese and Korean. In Rethinking Grammaticalization. New Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 76], María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds), 169-187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalinina, Elena & Sumbatova, Nina. 2007. Clause structure and verbal forms in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 183-249. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2): 245-73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2007. Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 305-32. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], John Haiman & Sarah G. Thompson (eds), 181-225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1972. Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1, John P. Kimball (ed.), 237-257. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Szendröi, Kriszta. 2007. Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 671-714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Essays on Language Function and Language Type. In Honor of T. Givón, Joan Bybee, John Haiman, & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 373-394. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pilot-Raichoor, Christiane. 2010. Converbs and adverbial clauses in Badaga, a South-Dravidian language. In Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy [Studies in Language Companion Series 121], Isabelle Bril (ed.), 165-202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas. 1970. Mongolian Language Handbook. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1995. Outline of Classical Chinese Grammar. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm D. 2002. Takia. In The Oceanic Languages, John Lynch, Malcolm Ross & Terry Crowley (eds), 216-248. Richmond: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Senderjav, Alimaa. 2003. Parataktische Teilsätze im Khalkha-Mongolischen verso hypotaktische Teilsätze im Deutschen. Ein Beitrag zur Sprachlehrforschung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Staalsen, P. 1972. Clause relationships in Iatmul. Pacific Linguistics A.31: 45-69.Google Scholar
Street, John C. 1963. Khalkha Structure [Research and Studies in Uralic and Altaic Languages, Project No. 25]. Bloomington IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Vietze, Hans-Peter. 1974. Lehrbuch der mongolischen Sprache. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Von Heusinger, Klaus, Klein, Udo & Guntsetseg, Dolgor. 2011. The case of accusative embedded subjects in Mongolian. Lingua 121: 48-59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yap, Foon Ha & Matthews, Stephen. 2008. The development of nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages. In Rethinking Grammaticalization. New Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 76], María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds), 309-341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Li, Fanxi
2021. On the conditional marker “zhě”(者). International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 8:2 ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo
Robbeets, Martine
2017. The development of finiteness in the Transeurasian languages. Linguistics 55:3 ► pp. 489 ff. DOI logo
Evans, Nicholas & Honoré Watanabe
2016. Chapter 1. The dynamics of insubordination. In Insubordination [Typological Studies in Language, 115], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. 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.