[Lingtyp] Lingtyp Digest, Vol 50, Issue 20
Borja Herce
borjaherce at gmail.com
Fri Nov 30 16:36:30 UTC 2018
It seems safe to say that biclausal>monoclausal is much more frequent than
the reverse but for those of you interested in possible cases of
monoclausal>biclausal
I discuss something like this briefly in a paper of mine (reference below,
Section 2.4). Summarizing, in Spanish temporal constructions with
*llevar *'take',
an earlier
non-clausal modifier seems to have been progressively expanded/elaborated
into a clause:
Llevamos 10 semanas *de viaje* > Llevamos 10 semanas *de viajar* > llevamos
10 semanas *viajando* > llevamos 10 semanas *que estamos viajando*
By the end of this expansion, both *llevar *and *estar *can be
independently negated.
Herce, Borja. "The diachrony of Spanish haber/hacer+ time." *Journal of
Historical Linguistics* 7.3 (2017): 276-321.
Best,
Borja
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 15:08, <lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org>
wrote:
> Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Deadline extension: Nominal Categorization Workshop 2019
> (Magdalena Lemus Serrano)
> 2. Re: Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal? (Martin Haspelmath)
> 3. Re: Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal? (Nigel Vincent)
> 4. Re: Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal? (Martin Haspelmath)
> 5. Re: Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal?
> (Jorge Rosés Labrada)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 02:20:40 +0000
> From: Magdalena Lemus Serrano <Magdalena.Lemus-Serrano at univ-lyon2.fr>
> To: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: [Lingtyp] Deadline extension: Nominal Categorization Workshop
> 2019
> Message-ID: <1a7af732bc0441e3bb400b4ba27a6aa1 at univ-lyon2.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear colleagues, abstract submission for the 'Noun categorization: from
> grammar to communicative interaction' Workshop has been extended to
> December 9, 2018.
> Interested participants are invited to send a 2-page abstract in English,
> French, Spanish or Portuguese to the following address:
> nominalcategorization.lyon2019 at gmail.com<mailto:
> nominalcategorization.lyon2019 at gmail.com>
>
> The workshop will take place in Lyon, France on April 18-19, 2019. Several
> mobility grants will be available, and we encourage students and young
> scholars from outside of Europe to apply. For more information regarding
> travel costs assistance, please contact the organizers.
> <mailto:nominalcategorization.lyon2019 at gmail.com>
>
> Call for papers
>
> Noun categorization: from grammar to communicative interaction
> http://www.ddl.cnrs.fr/colloques/NCW2019/
>
>
>
> When: April 18-19, 2019
> Where: Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage, CNRS, Université Lyon
> 2, France
> Format: 30-min presentations and round tables
> Registration: No registration fees.
> Organizers: Rosa Vallejos (University of New Mexico & Collegium de
> Lyon)
> Thiago Chacon (University of Brasilia & Collegium de Lyon)
> Françoise Rose (Dynamique du Langage, CNRS)
> Denis Bertet (Dynamique du Langage, CNRS)
> Magdalena Lemus (Dynamique du Langage, CNRS)
> Léa Mouton (Dynamique du Langage, CNRS)
>
>
> Noun categorization devices denote properties of nouns and nominal
> referents. Languages share striking similarities concerning the types of
> semantic distinctions, the items that markers can be associated with, and
> the grammaticalization paths followed by those markers. Categorizing
> morphemes most likely provide information about animacy, sex, physical
> properties and functionality (Denny 1976, Allan 1977, Croft 1994); they can
> generally occur on nouns, several modifier types, predicates, as well as
> pronouns (Aikhenvald 2000, Grinevald 2000). Nevertheless, there is wide
> cross-linguistic variation among the documented systems (Seifart 2010). The
> similarities and diversity of categorization patterns raise questions
> regarding the extent to which they reflect the way we perceive and construe
> the world we live in, and to what extent the documented similarities
> reflect underlying, general cognitive processes in the human mind. A
> question of theoretical interest is whether categorization systems can be
> accounted for by externally motivated explanations grounded in notions such
> as prototypicality, frequency, and ease of acquisition, or in terms of
> arbitrarily conventionalized facts about the grammar of individual
> languages.
> While the categorization of nouns is a universal and pervasive aspect of
> human languages, typological proposals tend to highlight a finite set of
> grammatically relevant categorization devices: noun/gender classes, noun
> classifiers, numeral classifiers, genitive classifiers, verbal classifiers,
> locative classifiers (see, for example, Aikhenvald 2000, Dixon 1986,
> Grinevald 2000, Grinevald & Seifart 2004, among others). However, there are
> a number of other structural strategies that do not fall neatly within
> these more well-known types (Aikhenvald 2000, Grinevald 2015). In addition,
> multiple overlapping systems can co-exist in a single language, or a single
> system can have multiple functions in the same language (e.g. agreement and
> representation of referents, cf. Fedden & Corbett 2017, Contini-Morava
> 2013, respectively).
> Noun categorization has been extensively dealt with in terms of semantic
> and morphosyntactic variation. However, the pragmatic side of this
> phenomenon in general, and its role in communicative interaction in
> particular, have received much less attention (but see Seifart 2005,
> Contini-Morava & Kilarski 2013, Farmer 2015). This is surprising,
> considering that the primary functions of noun categorization devices are
> said to be classification, individuation, reference building, and reference
> tracking of entities in sustained discourse.
> The proposed workshop can advance this debate by examining new bodies of
> data from languages under-represented in the literature. It can contribute
> to the development of a more fine-grained typology taking into
> consideration a multidimensional approach, as suggested by Seifart (2010)
> and Grinevald (2015), among others. We invite contributions from scholars
> of different theoretical orientations, on in-depth, preferably usage-based
> research of different aspects of noun categorization devices, including
> (albeit not exclusively):
> · The motivation for using a classifier in narratives and
> conversation for certain referents is not always obvious. What are the
> discourse functions of noun categorization devices in a given language? How
> dependent are these devices on the pragmatic context, the interlocutors’
> familiarity with the referent, specific cultural practices, and world views?
> · Systems allow for some semantic heterogeneity within each
> “category”. This suggests a continuum within a given group, from
> prototypical to less prototypical exemplars. If the sorting is established
> according to perceptual properties, how much room is there for intra- and
> inter-speaker variation?
> · While in some languages each noun is associated with one
> classifier, in other languages there is a degree of flexibility with regard
> to the choice of classifier in order to differentiate shades of meaning.
> How can pragmatics explain the choice of classifiers? And to what extent do
> these classifiers display inflectional and/or derivational characteristics
> for the creation of lexical items, agreement and cross-referencing?
>
> Submissions:
> Please send your abstract to nominalcategorization.lyon2019 at gmail.com by
> December 09, 2018.
> Notification of acceptance: December 30, 2018.
> Abstracts should be no longer than two pages, including examples and
> references. Send pdf files using Unicode fonts. Papers can be presented in
> English, French, Spanish or Portuguese, but there must be a handout in
> English.
>
> References:
> Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2000). Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization
> devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
> Allan, Keith. (1977). Classifiers. Language 53.283-310.
> Contini-Morava, E. & M. Kilarski. (2013). ‘Functions of Nominal
> Classification’. Language Sciences 40: 263–99.
> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.002.
> Corbett, G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
> Croft, W. (1994). Semantic universals in classifier systems. Word
> 45.145-71.
> Croft, W. (2017). Classifier constructions and their evolution: a
> commentary on Kemmerer (2016). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience
> 32(4).425-27.
> Denny, J.P. (1976). What are noun classifiers good for? In: Mufwene, S.S.,
> Walker, C.A., Steever, S.B. (Eds.), Papers from the Twelfth Regional
> Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 23–25, 1976. Chicago Linguistic
> Society, Chicago, pp. 122–132.
> Dixon, R. M. W. (1986). Noun classes and coun classification in
> typological perspective. In Colette Craig (Ed.), Noun Classes and
> Categorization, 105-112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
> Farmer, S. (2015). Establishing Reference in Máíhɨ̃ki. PhD Dissertation.
> University of California at Berkeley.
> Fedden, S. & G. Corbett. (2017). Gender and classifiers in concurrent
> systems: Refining the typology of nominal classification. Glossa: a journal
> of general linguistics 2(1): 34. 1–47.
> Grinevald, C. (2000). A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In G.
> Senft (Ed.), Systems of nominal classification, 50-92. New York: Cambridge
> University Press.
> Grinevald, C. & F. Seifart. (2004). Noun Classes in African and Amazonian
> Languages: Towards a Comparison. Linguistic Typology 8: 243-285.
> Grinevald, C. (2015). Linguistics of classifiers. In: James D. Wright
> (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd
> edition, Vol 3, 811–818. Oxford: Elsevier.
> Seifart, F. (2005). The structure and use of shape-based noun classes in
> Miraña (North West Amazon). Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud Universiteit
> Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
> Seifart, Frank. (2010). ‘Nominal Classification’. Language and
> Linguistics Compass 4 (8): 719–36.
> https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00194.x.
>
>
>
> Magdalena Lemus Serrano
> Doctorante / PhD student
> Université Lyon 2
> Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage UMR 5596
> 14 Avenue Berthelot, 69363 Lyon Cedex 07
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181130/2c25f371/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:01:20 +0100
> From: Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>
> To: <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal?
> Message-ID: <5C012690.7090100 at shh.mpg.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:02:57 +0000
> From: Nigel Vincent <nigel.vincent at manchester.ac.uk>
> To: Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>,
> "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal?
> Message-ID:
> <1932B7F071337A4088C8050DE465747D019A18832D at MBXP11.ds.man.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> I discuss this issue briefly in a recent article about causatives in Latin
> and Romance - see J.N. Adams & N. Vincent (eds) Early and Late Latin:
> Continuity or Change?, CUP, 2016, especially pp. 310-312. I refer there to
> Michelle Sheehan's chapter 'Complex predicates' in A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden
> (eds) The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, OUP, 2016, pp 981-994. She
> offers a range of tests for bi-/mono-clausality. It looks very much as if
> the diachronic profile here is biclausal Latin becomes monoclausal across
> the Romance languages with some of these then showing signs of developing
> back into (a different kind) of biclausal construction.
> Best
> Nigel
>
> Professor Nigel Vincent, FBA MAE
> Professor Emeritus of General & Romance Linguistics
> The University of Manchester
>
> Linguistics & English Language
> School of Arts, Languages and Cultures
> The University of Manchester
>
>
>
>
> https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/researchers/nigel-vincent(f973a991-8ece-453e-abc5-3ca198c869dc).html
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Lingtyp [lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org] on behalf of
> Martin Haspelmath [haspelmath at shh.mpg.de]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 12:01 PM
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal?
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:38:06 +0100
> From: Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>
> To: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal?
> Message-ID: <5C013D3E.9070405 at shh.mpg.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> I don't have access to Sheehan's paper (it's behind a paywall), but if
> she offers "a range of tests", then that's precisely the problem:
>
> The very notion of a "test" (or diagnostic, or symptom) presupposes that
> there is some deep reality of "monoclausality" vs. "biclausality" – in
> other words, a natural kind or innate category.
>
> As long as we don't have very good evidence that such distinctions are
> part of human nature, we need to operate with *definitions*, not with
> symptoms. (Doctors identify diseases on the basis of diagnostics or
> symptoms, but this makes sense only if they know that these diseases are
> part of nature, and not idiosyncratic to each patient.)
>
> Balthasar Bickel has a discussion of some of these issues in this 2010
> paper:
>
> Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Capturing particulars and universals in clause
> linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Isabelle Bril (ed.),
> /Clause-hierarchy and clause-linking: the syntax and pragmatics
> interface/, 51–102. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> On 30.11.18 14:02, Nigel Vincent wrote:
> > I discuss this issue briefly in a recent article about causatives in
> Latin and Romance - see J.N. Adams & N. Vincent (eds) Early and Late Latin:
> Continuity or Change?, CUP, 2016, especially pp. 310-312. I refer there to
> Michelle Sheehan's chapter 'Complex predicates' in A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden
> (eds) The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, OUP, 2016, pp 981-994. She
> offers a range of tests for bi-/mono-clausality. It looks very much as if
> the diachronic profile here is biclausal Latin becomes monoclausal across
> the Romance languages with some of these then showing signs of developing
> back into (a different kind) of biclausal construction.
> > Best
> > Nigel
> >
> > Professor Nigel Vincent, FBA MAE
> > Professor Emeritus of General & Romance Linguistics
> > The University of Manchester
> >
> > Linguistics & English Language
> > School of Arts, Languages and Cultures
> > The University of Manchester
> >
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/researchers/nigel-vincent(f973a991-8ece-453e-abc5-3ca198c869dc).html
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Lingtyp [lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org] on behalf of
> Martin Haspelmath [haspelmath at shh.mpg.de]
> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 12:01 PM
> > To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal?
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181130/1765b757/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:07:03 -0700
> From: Jorge Rosés Labrada <jrosesla at ualberta.ca>
> To: haspelmath at shh.mpg.de
> Cc: "list, typology" <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Universal trend: biclausal -> monoclausal?
> Message-ID:
> <CAA6kzGt2edUkTOr-=TygcPM+fsNp9AS1Cv_hM1JkcgEFg=
> tS_Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> Regarding your negability test, I am a non-native speaker of English so
> take this with a grain of salt but your “I want[/would like] to not make
> [any] mistake[s]” doesn’t sound so bad to me (perhaps with some emphatic
> intonation on the negator).
>
> And a collocation with a modal “could” and two negators (e.g. “I could not
> not come”) is totally possible for me (with some emphatic intonation on the
> second negator). It seems like at least in the COCA corpus, this is
> attested (n=10):
>
>
> Best,
> Jorge
> -------------
> Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada
> Assistant Professor, Indigenous Language Sustainability
> Department of Linguistics
> University of Alberta
> Tel: (+1) 780-492-5698 <(+1)%20780-492-5698>
> jrosesla at ualberta.ca
>
> *The University of Alberta acknowledges that we are located on Treaty 6
> territory, **and respects the history, languages, and cultures of the First
> Nations, Métis, Inuit, **and all First Peoples of Canada, whose presence
> continues to enrich our institution.*
>
> On Nov 30, 2018, at 5:01 AM, Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>
> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Lingtyp mailing list
>
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181130/7b80a6f3/attachment.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image2.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 249911 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181130/7b80a6f3/attachment.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 50, Issue 20
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20181130/445ea85e/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list