[Lingtyp] Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal?

[Martin Haspelmath]

On 29.11.18 00:30, Adam James Ross Tallman wrote:
> It seems to be generally true that biclausal structures can become 
> monoclausal structures over time and not the reverse.

This is indeed an interesting observation that has not been discussed 
very widely, I think. Harris & Campbell (1995) (in their book on 
diachronic syntax) discuss such phenomena at some length, but they don't 
seem to explain the unidirectionality. So it would be nice to see a 
convincing explanation.

But in order to make this claim fully testable, one needs a general 
definition of "clause", and I don't know of a very good definition. My 
working definition is in terms of negatability: If a structure that 
contains two verbs can be negated in two different ways, it's biclausal, 
but otherwise it's monoclausal:

She was able [to do it]. (biclausal)

(She was not able to do it / She was able not to do it)

She could do it. (monoclausal)

(She could not do it – there is no contrast between "she could [not do 
it]" and "she could not [do it]")

This indicates that "want" clauses are monoclausal in English, because 
"I want to not make a mistake" sounds bad. But the judgements are 
subtle, and one may perhaps even have something like "The king ordered 
the non-destruction of the city" (vs. "The king didn't order the 
distruction of the city", which is normally considered monoclausal).

So the negation criterion isn't very good, but I know of no better way 
of distinguishing in general between monoclausal and biclausal 
constructions.

Martin

-- 
Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de)
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10	
D-07745 Jena
&
Leipzig University
Institut fuer Anglistik
IPF 141199
D-04081 Leipzig