[Lingtyp] neither simple nor complex clause

[Christian Lehmann]

Dear colleagues, here is another terminological question.

The following definitions do not claim originality; cf. Martin 
Haspelmath on https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1725.

A *clause* is a construction based on a predicate and comprising its 
dependents. A *simple clause* is a clause comprising one predicate. A 
*complex clause* is a clause comprising more than one clauses.

Now assume a grammatical description organized by levels of grammatical 
complexity. One level is the simple clause, the (apparently) next higher 
level is the complex clause. Grammaticalization teaches us that a 
complex clause may be condensed into a simple clause. The process gives 
rise to constructions halfway between a complex and a simple clause. 
Thus, there are constructions like the following:

  *

    Constructions based on a periphrastic verb form like the famous
    Vulgar Latin /librum comparatum habeo/.

  *

    Causative constructions like /She had me rewrite the text/.

  *

    Constructions such as '[finite_clause] EXIST' in Cabecar (cf. my
    post of 03/09/24), where the EXISTENTIAL that may appear to be the
    main predicate is in no way expandable.

Such constructions involve more than one verb form, one of which may, 
but need not be non-finite. There is something like an inner simple 
clause and a component outside its boundaries.

  *

    There are also pseudo-cleft-sentences on their way towards simple
    clauses, as in Brazilian Portuguese (from Lehmann 2024, ch. 7.1.8.1).


Ele

	

disse

	

que

	

vai

	

para

	

Piracicaba,

he

	

said

	

SR

	

goes

	

to

	

Piracicaba

He said he would go to Piracicaba,

mas

	

ele

	

vai

	

é

	

para

	

Manhurimim.

but

	

he

	

goes

	

is

	

to

	

Manhurimim

but he does go to Manhurimim.

	


  *

    And the collection does not end with focus constructions which show
    vestiges of being grammaticalized from cleft sentences.

All of these share a simple clause combined with material which is 
outside its proper boundaries but which does not attain the level of a 
complete clause.

I am not asking for definitions which will allow us to call each and 
every of the constructions mentioned a simple or a complex clause. Nor 
do I wish to be taught that these traditional terms are not 
cross-linguistically applicable and that each language has its own 
levels of grammatical structure. If it is true that there are 
constructions which are not readily classifiable as either simple or 
complex clauses, this by no means entails that there are no (simple 
and/or complex) clauses.

What I am asking for is a practical term that may be used in a 
grammatical description which distinguishes simple and complex clauses 
and needs a chapter heading to comprise constructions which exceed the 
boundaries of the simple clause without being complex clauses. I would 
be grateful for a viable term (no matter whether the concept I propose 
is well-founded). I have in mind something like 'transgressive clause' 
or 'excessive clause' (both adjectives have unwanted connotations) or 
'cross-border' or 'transboundary clause' (both adjectives appear to 
require an action noun as head). Neither does 'expanded clause' seem to 
be the term looked for; this seems to be well-established to designate a 
clause that comprises adjuncts, thus still a simple clause.

All ideas welcome!

-- 

Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland

Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250407/95189c45/attachment.htm>