[Lingtyp] neither simple nor complex clause

[Sebastian Nordhoff]

Dear all,
for the ordering, I would suggest the following:

- Syntax
-- The simple clause
-- Beyond the simple clause
--- Phenomenon A
--- Phenomenon B
--- ...

 From a didactic point of view, it is good for readers to grasp the
structure of very basic sentences. Once they have acquired some
familiarity, they can move on. The didactic necessity to distinguish
between "semi-complex" and "real complex" clauses is less obvious.
Depending on the language, a chapter "Complex clauses" could follow, or
be integrated in "Beyond the simple clause".

The drawback is that you cannot form a noun for "Beyond the simple
clause", but given that the phenomena discussed there are quite
heterogeneous anyway, the need for this does not arise very often.


Best wishes
Sebastian




On 4/7/25 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