Cover not available
Part of
Insubordination
Edited by Nicholas Evans and Honoré Watanabe
[Typological Studies in Language 115] 2016
► pp. 65–88

Chapter 3. Running in the family

Patterns of complement insubordination in Germanic

| University of Leuven
| University of Leuven
This chapter provides a survey of insubordination patterns (as defined by Evans 2007) in five Germanic languages, Dutch, German, English, Swedish and Danish. The analysis focuses on a type of insubordination that is productive in many Germanic languages, viz. insubordinate complement clauses, introduced by dat (Dutch), dass (German), that (English), att (Swedish) and at (Danish). From a descriptive perspective, we try to identify the full constructional range of complement insubordination in each language, and we compare this range across the five languages. From a theoretical perspective, we use these data to assess the constructional status of insubordinate clauses, their development, and the boundaries of the concept, particularly with respect to ‘discourse-structuring’ or ‘elaborative’ uses. We round off by providing an overall functional characterization of insubordination that draws on functional work on subordination.
Published online: 18 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.03ver
References (30)
References
Christensen, Tanya Karoli &Heltoft, Lars. 2010. Mood in Danish. In Mood in the Languages of Europe [Studies in Language Companion Series 120], Björn Rothstein & Rolf Thieroff (eds), 85-102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 2010. Exclamatives in Scandinavian. Studia Linguistica 61: 16–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Hertefelt, Sarah & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe . 2014. Independent complement constructions in Swedish and Danish: Insubordination or dependency shift? Journal of Pragmatics 60: 89–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1993. Code, inference, placedness and ellipsis. In The Role of Theory in Linguistic Description, William A. Foley (ed.), 243–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 366–431. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia, Fox, Barbara & Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In The Language of Turn and Sequence, Cecilia Ford, Barbara Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 14–38. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick. 2012. On the Grammar of Optative Constructions [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 193]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Word order change as grammaticalization. Paradigm structure and change in Scandinavian. Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 65: 171–235. 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 (ed.), 335–419. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2012. Satztyp und Typologie. In Satztypen des Deutschen, Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds), 846–873. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lehti-Eklund, Hanna. 2001. Om att som diskursmarkör. Språk och stil 11: 81–118.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan & Londen, Anne-Marie. 2008. Constructing reasoning. The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In Constructional Reorganization [Constructional Approaches to Language 5], Jaakko Leino (ed.), 105–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maekelberghe, Charlotte. 2011. Geïnsubordineerde complementconstructies. Een vergelijking tussen Duits en Nederlands vanuit typologisch perspectief. MA thesis, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84: 69–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda. 2011. Emotion and desire in independent complement clauses. A case study from German. In Cognitive Linguistics. Convergence and Expansion [Human Cognitive Processing 32], Mario Brdar, Stefan Thomas Gries & Zic Fuchs (eds), 87–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petersson, David. 2011. Swedish exclamatives are subordinate. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 88: 169–237.Google Scholar
Rosengren, Inger. 1992. Zur Grammatik und Pragmatik der Exklamation. Satz und Illokution, Vol. 1, Inger Rosengren (ed.), 263–306. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob. 1998. Om fordi i forskellige sætningstyper i dansk talesprog. In Selskab for Nordisk Filologi København. Årsberetning 1996–1997, Kjeld Kristensen (ed.), 179–192. Copenhagen: Selskab for Nordisk Filologi.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra. 1985. Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs. final purpose clauses in English. Text 5: 55–84.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality: Problems in the deontic domain. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1401–1418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Re-thinking the Coordinate-Subordinate Dichotomy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, D’Hertefelt, Sarah & Van linden, An. 2012. A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language 36(1): 123–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weuster, Edith. 1983. Nicht-eingebette Satztypen mit Verb-Endstellung im Deutschen. In Zur Wortstellungsproblematik im Deutschen, Edith Weuster & Klaus Olszok (eds), 7–87. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella & Portner, Paul. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language 79: 39–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Visapää, Laura
2022. Infinitives of affect and intersubjectivity: on the indexical interpretation of the Finnish independent infinitives. Cognitive Linguistics 33:3 ► pp. 521 ff. 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
Cappelle, Bert, Ilse Depraetere & Mégane Lesuisse
2019. The necessity modals have to, must, need to, and should . Constructions and Frames 11:2 ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
D'Hertefelt, Sarah
2017. Directive conditional and complement insubordination in Germanic languages. In Imperatives and Directive Strategies [Studies in Language Companion Series, 184], DOI logo
Gras, Pedro & María Sol Sansiñena
2017. Exclamatives in the functional typology of insubordination: Evidence from complement insubordinate constructions in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 115 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.