[Lingtyp] neither simple nor complex clause

Tue Apr 8 09:01:28 UTC 2025

For the practical question (the chapter heading in a reference grammar), 
why not say simply "semi-complex clause"?

However, what does it mean to say that a construction is "halfway 
between a complex and a simple clause"? Can this be made precise, by 
some kind of quantification (1/2, or 50%)? I'm not sure.

There is a long tradition of talking about "verbal complex predicates" 
(see now this ongoing ANR-DFG project: 
https://complete.huma-num.fr/index.htm), and it is generally thought 
that complex-predicate clauses are monoclausal, i.e. they contain 
multiple verb forms but just one composite predicate. (For causatives, 
the monoclausal vs. biclausal nature has often been discussed, and there 
is widespread agreement that many "analytic causatives" are monoclausal.)

Cleft-type constructions present a different problem, but again, there 
is a long literature about their monoclausal status (see, e.g., 
Creissels 2021: 
https://brill.com/view/journals/fdl/52/1/article-p13_13.xml).

Thus, according to these views, complex-predicate and cleft clauses are 
kinds of simple clauses, not a distinct category intermediate between 
simple and complex clauses (so that the label "semi-complex" is a bit 
confusing). It therefore seems to me that a chapter heading such as 
"Cleft and complex-predicate clauses" would be clearer. (But of course, 
it may be possible to come up with a quantifying approach in the future.)

Martin

On 07.04.25 18:16, Christian Lehmann via Lingtyp wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-- 
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
https://www.eva.mpg.de/linguistic-and-cultural-evolution/staff/martin-haspelmath/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250408/055c2367/attachment.htm>