Adverbial Subordination in English: A Functional Approach 9042013605, 9789042013605

Table of contents :
1. Preliminaries
1.1 Aims and scope of this study
1.2 The Functional Grammar framework
1.2.1 Methodological principles of Functional Grammar
1.2.2 General organisation of Functional Grammar
1.2.2.1 The fund
1.2.2.2 The hierarchical structure of the clause
1.2.2.2.1 Predicate operators and satellites (π1 and σ1)
1.2.2.2.2 Predication operators and satellites (π2 and σ2)
1.2.2.2.3 Proposition operators and satellites (π3 and σ3)
1.2.2.2.4 Illocutionary operators and satellites (π4 and σ4)
1.2.2.3 Expression rules
(i) The form of its constituents
(ii) The order of its constituents
(iii) Prosodic contour
1.3 Adverbial subordination in Functional Grammar
1.3.1 Concept
1.3.2 Delimitation of the object of study
1.3.2.1 Embedded clauses
1.3.2.2 Complement clauses
1.3.2.3 Verbless clauses
1.3.2.4 Copy-cleft sentences
1.3.2.5 Independent relative clauses
1.3.2.6 Clauses of Comparison and Comparative clauses
1.3.2.7 Clauses introduced by two conjunctions
1.4 Functional Grammar and Corpus Linguistics
1.4.1 Corpus analysis in Functional Grammar
1.4.2 Information about the corpus used
2. The formal classification of adverbial clauses
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Verbal expression formats in English
2.2.1 Independent forms
2.2.2 Dependent forms
2.2.3 Summary
2.3 Problems relating to the expression of adverbial clauses through
dependent forms
2.3.1 The infinitive with ‘to’ / infinitive without ‘to’ distinction
2.3.2 The present participle / nominal form distinction
2.3.3 Lack of subordinating particle
2.3.4 Presence of a subordinating particle
3. The semantic classification of adverbial clauses
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Parameters and hierarchies
3.2.1 Entity Type
3.2.2 Time Dependency
3.2.3 Factuality7
3.2.4 Presupposition8
3.2.4.1 The concept of presupposition
3.2.4.2 The Presupposition parameter
3.2.5 Summary
3.3 Classification
3.3.1 Clauses of Means
3.3.2 Clauses of Time
3.3.2.1 Anteriority
3.3.2.2 Simultaneity
3.3.2.3 Posteriority
3.3.3 Clauses of Manner
3.3.3.1 Eventive Manner
3.3.3.2 Epistemic Manner
3.3.3.3 Illocutionary Manner
3.3.4 Clauses of Comparison
3.3.4.1 Potential Comparison
3.3.4.2 Unreal Comparison
3.3.5 Clauses of Negative Circumstance
3.3.6 Clauses of Purpose
3.3.6.1 Eventive Purpose
3.3.6.2 Epistemic Purpose
3.3.7 Clauses of Consequence
3.3.7.1 Eventive Consequence
3.3.7.2 Epistemic Consequence
3.3.7.3 Illocutionary Consequence
3.3.8 Clauses of Addition
3.3.9 Clauses of Substitution
3.3.10 Clauses of Exception
3.3.11 Clauses of Cause
3.3.11.1 Eventive Cause
3.3.11.2 Epistemic Cause
3.3.11.3 Illocutionary Cause
3.3.12 Clauses of Condition26
3.3.12.1 Eventive Condition
3.3.12.2 Epistemic Condition
3.3.12.3 Illocutionary Condition
3.3.12.4 Other cases
3.3.13 Clauses of Concessive-Condition
3.3.13.1 Eventive Concessive-Condition
3.3.13.2 Epistemic Concessive-Condition
3.3.13.3 Illocutionary Concessive-Condition
3.3.13.4 Other cases
3.3.14 Clauses of Concession
3.3.14.1 Eventive Concession
3.3.14.2 Epistemic Concession
3.3.14.3 Illocutionary Concession
3.3.15 Summary and illustrative examples
3.4 Excluded constructions
3.4.1 Semantic indeterminacy of clauses with a dependent verb form
3.4.2 Other excluded constructions
4. Adverbial clauses in English
4.1 Description of expression formats
4.1.1 Clauses of Means
4.1.2 Clauses of Time
4.1.2.1 Anteriority
4.1.2.2 Simultaneity
4.1.2.3 Posteriority
4.1.3 Clauses of Manner
4.1.3.1 Eventive Manner
4.1.3.2 Epistemic Manner
4.1.3.3 Illocutionary Manner
4.1.4 Clauses of Comparison
4.1.4.1 Potential Comparison
4.1.4.2 Unreal Comparison
4.1.5 Clauses of Negative Circumstance
4.1.6 Clauses of Purpose
4.1.6.1 Eventive Purpose
4.1.6.2 Epistemic Purpose
4.1.7 Clauses of Consequence
4.1.7.1 Eventive Consequence
4.1.7.2 Epistemic Consequence
4.1.7.3 Illocutionary Consequence
4.1.8 Clauses of Addition
4.1.9 Clauses of Substitution
4.1.10 Clauses of Exception
4.1.11 Clauses of Cause
4.1.11.1 Eventive Cause
4.1.11.2 Epistemic Cause
4.1.11.3 Illocutionary Cause
4.1.12 Clauses of Condition
4.1.12.1 Eventive Condition
4.1.12.2 Epistemic Condition
4.1.12.3 Illocutionary Condition
4.1.13 Clauses of Concessive-Condition
4.1.13.1 Eventive Concessive-Condition
4.1.13.2 Potential Epistemic Concessive-Condition
4.1.14 Clauses of Concession
4.1.14.1 Eventive Concession
4.1.14.2 Epistemic Concession
4.1.14.3 Illocutionary Concession
4.2 Summary of the expression of adverbial clauses
5. Semantic hierarchies
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Entity Type Hierarchy
5.3 The Time Dependency Hierarchy
5.4 The Factuality Hierarchy
5.5 The Presupposition Hierarchy
5.6 Summary
5.7 Interaction between the hierarchies
5.7.1 Interaction: Entity Type – Factuality
5.7.2 Interaction: Entity Type – Presupposition
5.7.3 Interaction: Factuality – Presupposition
5.7.4 Interaction: Presupposition – Time Dependency
6. Adverbial clauses in Functional Grammar
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Underlying representation of the internal structure of adverbial
clauses
6.2.1 The Entity Type parameter
6.2.2 The Time Dependency parameter
6.2.3 The Factuality parameter
6.2.4 The Presupposition Parameter
6.2.5 Open predication / closed predication
6.3 Underlying representation of the external structure of adverbial
clauses
6.4 Representation of the different semantic types of adverbial clauses
Clauses of Means
Clauses of Time
Clauses of Manner
Clauses of Comparison
Clauses of Negative Circumstance
Clauses of Purpose
Clauses of Consequence
Clauses of Addition
Clauses of Substitution
Clauses of Exception
Clauses of Cause
Clauses of Condition
Clauses of Concessive-Condition
Clauses of Concession
7. Summary
References
Appendix I
Appendix II
Clauses of Means
Clauses of Time
Clauses of Manner
Clauses of Negative Circumstance
Clauses of Purpose
Clauses of Consequence
Clauses of Addition
Clauses of Substitution
Clauses of Exception
Clauses of Cause
Clauses of Condition
Clauses of Concessive-Condition
Clauses of Concession

Citation preview

1.

Preliminaries

1.1

Aims and scope of this study

This book presents a detailed corpus-based study of adverbial subordinate clauses in English within the framework of Functional Grammar (henceforth FG). Its aim is to demonstrate the relevance of FG’s hierarchical model of the structure of the clause for the analysis of adverbial constructions by examining the systematic relationship between the semantic type of adverbial clauses and the way these are expressed in English. The method of analysis is largely based on the typological study of adverbial clauses carried out by Hengeveld (1998). The importance of this study not only lies in its contribution to the knowledge and typological classification of European languages, but also in its theoretical implications for FG. On the basis of an in-depth analysis of data obtained from the LOB-corpus, the present study shows that the expression of adverbial clauses in English runs parallel to the distribution of expression formats from a cross-linguistic perspective. The present work is organised as follows. Chapter 1 provides a description of the theoretical framework – FG – (1.2), of the object of analysis – adverbial subordinate clauses – (1.3), and of the data used for the analysis (1.4). The following two chapters deal with the classification of adverbial clauses. Firstly, the expression formats which are characteristic of these constructions in English are analysed (Chapter 2), and subsequently a semantic classification of adverbial clauses is provided using the theoretical framework of FG (Chapter 3). Chapter 4 studies the way in which the different types of adverbial subordinate clauses are expressed in English, in order to demonstrate, in Chapter 5, the existence of a systematic relationship between the semantic type of a subordinate clause on the one hand and the way in which it is expressed on the other. In the concluding Chapter 6 the results of this study are interpreted in terms of FG. It furthermore discusses the theoretical implications of the findings of this study for the FG model. 1.2

The Functional Grammar framework

This section provides a general overview of the basic principles of FG, with a focus on those aspects which are relevant to the study of adverbial subordinate clauses. The presentation of the FG model is based mainly on Dik (1997a/b), although reference will also be made to other works which, in one way or another, elaborate on or disagree with what is set out in that work. First the basic methodological principles of FG are presented (1.2.1), followed by a description of the general organisation of this model (1.2.2).

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

2

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

1.2.1 Methodological principles of Functional Grammar FG is a general model for the analysis of the organisation of natural languages which takes a functional view of language, defined as “an instrument of social interaction among human beings, used with the intention of establishing communicative relationships” (Dik 1997a: 3). Thus, FG adheres to the functional paradigm, as opposed to the formal paradigm, the main exponent of which is Chomsky’s formalist theory. In contrast to a formalist conception of language, in which language is considered an abstract object of study that must be analysed independently of its use, a functional approach to the study of language involves a different conception of the object of study, which is understood as an instrument of social interaction between natural language users (NLUs). While in the formal paradigm the psychological correlate of a language is competence, that is, “the ability to construe and interpret linguistic expressions” (Dik 1997a: 6) as opposed to performance, in the functional paradigm the psychological correlate of a language is communicative competence, “his [NLU’s] ability to carry on social interaction by means of language” (Dik 1997a: 5). Hymes (1972), from whom Dik (1978) adopts the concept of communicative competence, claims that the attitude taken towards the conception of the object of study determines, to a great extent, the organisation of the different components of a linguistic theory. Regarding the formalist view of syntax as a module independent from semantics and pragmatics, Dik (1997a: 7-8) states that: in the functional paradigm the relation between the different components of linguistic organization is viewed in such a way that pragmatics is seen as the all-encompassing framework within which semantics and syntax must be studied. Semantics is regarded as instrumental with respect to pragmatics, and syntax as instrumental with respect to semantics. In this view there is no room for something like an “autonomous” syntax. On the contrary, to the extent that a clear division can be made between syntax and semantics at all, syntax is there for people to be able to form complex expressions for conveying complex meanings, and such meanings are there for people to be able to communicate in subtle and differentiated ways. Thus, it is clear that in the functional paradigm linguistic expressions must be described and explained in the context of verbal interaction, which in turn should be integrated within the more general framework of the NLU’s cognitive capacity. Dik claims that such a model of analysis should aim at providing a functional explanation of linguistic phenomena and he adds: a functional explanation of grammatical phenomena will typically not be based on an assumption of simple form-function correlation, but will instead involve a network of interacting requirements and constraints, each of which may be understood in functional terms itself, but which interact in complex ways and in a certain sense María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries

3

‘compete’ for recognition and expression in the final design of linguistic expressions. (Dik 1986: 7) In Dik’s view, a functional grammar must analyse the properties of linguistic expressions in the context of their use and connect these properties with the rules and principles which govern verbal interaction. The final goal is to construct a Model of the NLU (M.NLU), capable of accounting for the abilities of speaker and addressee. These abilities form the competence of the NLU at three different levels: cognitive, pragmatic and grammatical. Accordingly, a functional Model of the NLU should take into consideration these three aspects, which constitute three theoretical components integrated into a modular system. FG, therefore, can be considered a modular theory in the sense suggested by Escribano (1992; 1993), who maintains that the concept of modularity has been used in a trivial way to refer to any theory that proposes different constituents of analysis. For this author “a grammar is modular if and only if it features a many-to-many relationship between its systems” (1993: 255-6). FG is then modular in the sense that a Grammatical Theory should be included within the framework of a Pragmatic Theory, which in turn is considered part of a Cognitive Theory. Gómez Solico (1995) points out that this modular system can be expressed in the following simplified manner:1

COGNITIVE THEORY Perceptual, logical and epistemological competence PRAGMATIC THEORY Communicative competence GRAMMATICAL THEORY Grammatical competence

Figure 1.1: Modularity in Functional Grammar (Gómez Solico 1995) Gómez Solico (1995: 203) argues that, according to this interpretation and contrary to what is postulated in Generative Grammar, the grammar of a language is not a restricted and autonomous system governed by independent principles which only partially interact with other human capacities.

1

Translated from the Spanish. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

4

The criteria of explanatory adequacy postulated within FG are directly related to this functional conception of the organisation of natural languages. Dik (1997a: 12-5) proposed the following standards of adequacy: (i) (ii) (iii)

Pragmatic adequacy: The theory should account for how people interact in verbal communication. Psychological adequacy: The theory must be compatible with models which explain the psycholinguistic processes of (de)codification. Typological adequacy: The theory should be valid for the analysis of any language, accounting both for the differences and for the similarities between different languages.

FG is not only considered functional because it is based on a functional view of the nature of language. Dik (1980) points out that this label is also due to the importance attributed, in the description of linguistic expressions, to functional or relational notions, as opposed to categorical ones. FG recognises functional relationships at three different levels: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

2

Semantic functions: These specify the roles performed by the referents of the terms in the State of Affairs designated by the predication in which they appear. They include Agent, Positioner, Force, Processed and Zero (linked to the first argument), Goal (linked to the second argument) and Recipient, Location, Direction, Source and Reference (linked to the second or third argument). Syntactic functions: These specify the perspective from which the State of Affairs is presented in a linguistic expression. FG recognises only two syntactic functions, Subject and Object. Although Dik maintains the traditional terminology, these functions are interpreted communicatively to refer to the point of view from which the State of Affairs is presented. Thus the function of Subject is assigned to the argument from the perspective of which the State of Affairs is considered, while the function of Object would be related to a secondary perspective on that State of Affairs. Pragmatic functions: “[These] specify the informational status of a constituent within the wider communicative setting in which it occurs (that is, in relation to the pragmatic information of S and A at the moment of use)”2 (Dik 1997a: 26). FG distinguishes two types of pragmatic function, which are analysed in detail in Dik (1997b): (i) Extra-clausal functions (e.g. theme, initiatior), which are assigned to elements external to the predication, and (ii) Intra-clausal functions (topic and focus), which are assigned to constituents of the predication in terms of their informational status within the communicative setting in which they are used.

S represents Speaker and A Addressee. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries

5

Dik (1997a) states that while semantic and pragmatic functions are universally relevant to all languages, syntactic functions are not universal in this sense, since there are languages which do not include subject and object assignment in their grammatical organisation. Nevertheless, these functions are universal in the sense that if a language makes use of them, this use follows some basic principles which are language independent. 1.2.2 General organisation of Functional Grammar Within FG clauses are described in terms of underlying structures, from which, through the application of expression rules, the corresponding linguistic expressions are obtained. This process may be represented in the following way (Dik 1997a: 49): (1) UNDERLYING CLAUSE STRUCTURE EXPRESSION RULES LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS The underlying clause structure constitutes a complex abstract structure in which, as will be shown below, different levels of organisation can be distinguished. Likewise, expression rules, which determine the final form of linguistic expressions, constitute a complex component of FG. The complexity of linguistic expressions is described from the most basic to the most complex elements in a bottom-up model of language production. The organisation of this model is represented in Figure 1.2, taken from Dik (1997a: 60). In this model, three basic components can be distinguished: the fund (1.2.2.1), the hierarchical structure of the clause (1.2.2.2) and the expression rules (1.2.2.3). 1.2.2.1 The fund The fund is the lexical component of FG which contains all the predicates and terms necessary for the construction of predications. In FG all lexical elements of a language are analysed as predicates, expressions which designate properties or relations between entities. Dik (1997a: 59) distinguishes three different categories of predicate – verbal, nominal and adjectival – on the basis of their formal and functional properties, to which Hengeveld (1992) adds the adverbial category. The predicates of a language can be basic, if they must be learned as such, and derived, if they can be formed through the application of a synchronically productive rule of predicate formation. Basic predicates constitute, along with basic terms, the lexicon of a language. However, in FG predicates are considered to be structures rather than isolated elements. These structures, called predicate frames, provide the information necessary for determining the type of predication in which a certain predicate can be used. This information consists of: María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

6

María Jesús Pérez Quintero FUND

predicate formation

LEXICON derived basic predicates predicates

basic terms

PREDICATE FRAMES

derived terms

term formation

TERMS

nuclear predication

1

1

core predication 2

2

syntactic functions extended predication 3

3

proposition 4

4

pragmatic functions clause structure EXPRESSION RULES form order prosody LINGUISTIC EXPRESSION

Figure 1.2: General organisation of Functional Grammar (Dik 1997a)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

7

The form of the predicate The category of the predicate (verbal, nominal, adjectival or adverbial) The number of arguments The semantic functions assigned to the arguments The selection restrictions imposed on the arguments

By way of illustration, Dik (1997a: 59) gives the following example of a predicate frame: (2)

give [V] (x1:(x1))Ag (x2)Go (x3:(x3))Rec

Here the verbal predicate give (v) takes three arguments (x1, x2, x3) which carry the semantic functions of Agent (Ag), Goal (Go) and Recipient (Rec). The first and the third argument show the selection restriction . In the lexicon basic predicates are semantically related to one another through meaning postulates, which characterise the meaning of a predicate in terms of a unidirectional relation (e.g. bachelor ® not married – Siewierska 1991), or through meaning definitions, if the relationship which is established is bidirectional (e.g. bachelor « unmarried man – Siewierska 1991). Apart from predicates, the fund in the FG model contains terms: linguistic expressions with referential potential. Prototypically, terms designate entities which exist in space, called first order entities. However, terms can also refer to entities of different orders, as is the case with: (i) properties or relations (e.g. intelligence), (ii) states of affairs (e.g. match), (iii) propositional contents (e.g. fact) or (iv) speech acts (e.g. question). In these cases of non-prototypical reference, terms can present a derived or complex structure, containing embedded predications, propositions or speech acts. A distinction should also be made between basic terms, contained in the lexicon and limited in number, and derived, which constitute the large majority of term structures and which are formed by means of term formation rules. The general format of derived terms can be represented as follows (Dik 1997a: 61): (3)

( xi:

1(x i):

2(x i):...:

n(x i))

where represents one or more term operators (e.g. number, quantification, . . .), xi represents the referent, and each (xi) constitutes an open predication in x i (a predicate frame in which all positions, except that occupied by x i, have been occupied by terms), which restricts the possible values of x i. Summarising, the lexical component of FG contains two types of elements, predicates, with their corresponding predicate frames, and terms. Through the insertion of the appropriate terms in the positions of the argument slots of predicate frames, a nuclear predication is obtained. The structure of this predication, as well as the other expansions within the structure of the clause, is analysed below.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

8

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

1.2.2.2 The hierarchical structure of the clause In her analysis of FG Siewierska points out that “Inherent in the functional approach to language is the recognition of several layers of the structural organization of the clause corresponding to the multiple functions that the clause fulfils in the act of communication” (1991: 36). She also mentions the fact that in the first version of the FG model (Dik 1978), the study of the clause was limited to its representational function, which was identified with the predication. However, in the second version of FG, Dik, inspired by the idea of the existence of different layers postulated by Foley and Van Valin (1984), recognises that the underlying clause structure is made up of “a complex abstract structure in which several levels or ‘layers’ of formal and semantic organization have to be distinguished” (1997a: 50). Therefore, according to this model, originally introduced by Hengeveld (1989) and further developed by this author (Hengeveld 1990; 1992; 1997), any utterance can be analysed in terms of an underlying structure composed of the two levels shown in (4) (Hengeveld 1990): (4) (E 1: [ILL (S) (A) (X1: [

] (X1))] (E 1))

(e1: [Predb (x1: Predn (x1)). . .(xn)] (e1)) The upper level, the interpersonal level, represents a speech act (E 1), which is structured on the basis of an abstract illocutionary frame (ILL) 3 with three arguments: (i) a speaker (S) who transmits (ii) a propositional content (X 1) to (iii) an addressee (A). This propositional content makes reference to a State of Affairs (e1), which constitutes the lower level, the representational level. This level is structured on the basis of a predicate frame (Pred b)4 with one or more argument positions filled by terms ((x 1). . .(xn)). 5 The hierarchical structure of the utterance given in (4) was later modified by Hengeveld (1992), who proposed the incorporation of a variable for every layer of the hierarchy, in order to represent the different levels in a uniform format. The modified representation of the hierarchical structure of the clause is shown in (5):

3

The units considered to be abstract illocutionary frames in Hengeveld (1990) are analysed as illocutionary operators in Dik (1997a). 4 In Dik (1997a/b) the symbol b , which represents the type of predicate, has been substituted by [T]. 5 The distinction between these two functions of language, interpersonal and representational (or ideational in Halliday’s 1994 terminology) comes, as Butler (1996) points out, from Systemic Functional Grammar. In Role and Reference Grammar (Foley and Van Valin 1984; Van Valin 1993) such a distinction is not made explicit. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries

9

(5) (E1: [(F1: ILL (F 1)) (S) (A) (X1: [

] (X1))] (E1))

(e1: [(f1: Predb (f1)) (x1: (f2: Predn (f2)) (x1))] (e1)) In this hierarchical structure different layers are distinguished, each associated with a specific designation and a variable which represents it, as can be seen in the following table, adapted from Hengeveld (1996: 120): Table 1.1: Units of the hierarchical structure of the clause (Hengeveld 1996) LAYER

VARIABLE

DESIGNATION

Clause Illocutionary Frame Proposition Predication Predicate Term

E1 F1 X1 e1 f1 x1

Speech Act Illocution Propositional Content State of Affairs Relation or Property Individual

Some of the layers which constitute this hierarchical structure correspond to the types of entity recognised by Lyons (1977). Thus, it can be asserted that a term designates a first order entity,6 a predication a second order entity and a proposition a third order entity in the classification proposed by Lyons, while the distinction of zero order (predicate) and fourth order (speech act) entities constitute an innovation of FG. Within this layered model of the clause, an individual is a first order entity which can be situated in space and evaluated in terms of its existence. A State of Affairs is a second order entity which can be situated in space and time and evaluated in terms of its reality. A propositional content is a third order entity which cannot be situated either in space or time, but can be evaluated in terms of its truth. A speech act is a fourth order entity which situates itself in space and time and which can be evaluated in terms of its felicity. The two lower layers in this model, predicate and term, were analysed previously when discussing the lexical component of FG, the fund, to which these two elements belong. When the appropriate term structures have been inserted in the argument slots of the predicate frame, the nuclear predication is obtained. This is represented as follows (Dik 1997a: 291): (6)

nuclear predication = [pred [type] (args)]

6

In the context of clause structure, term is used in a restricted sense to refer to the prototypical use of this linguistic unit (the designation of a first order entity). As has already been mentioned, in Dik (1997a/b) term is also used, in a wider sense, to refer to every linguistic unit that can function as argument or satellite. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

10

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

A nuclear predication designates a State of Affairs (hereafter SoA), an expression taken by Dik to mean the “conception of something which can be the case in some world” (1997a: 105). Within FG a classification of SoAs is offered which is based on the interaction of various semantic parameters (dynamism / control / telicity). Thus the following classification of SoAs is established (Dik 1997a: 114): Table 1.2: Typology of States of Affairs (Dik 1997a) General term [–dyn] Situation [+dyn] Event [–telic] Event [+telic] Event

[+control] Position Action Activity Accomplishment

[–control] State Process Dynamism Change

The type of SoA designated by a nuclear predication correlates to a great extent with the type of semantic function assigned to the first argument within the predicate frame on which the predication is based. Once a nuclear predication has been formed, each layer can be modified by grammatical elements, operators, and lexical elements, satellites, which provide additional information. Operators and satellites may realise the same functions. The difference between them is that operators are expressed by grammatical means and satellites by lexical means. Five different types of operator can be distinguished: term operators ( ), predicate operators ( 1), predication operators ( 2), proposition operators ( 3) and illocutionary operators ( 4). Similarly, there are five types of satellite: predicate satellites ( 1), predication satellites ( 2), proposition satellites ( 3), illocutionary satellites ( 4) and clause satellites ( 5). The functions of the different types of operators and satellites (excluding term operators, which function within the fund) are described below. 1.2.2.2.1 Predicate operators and satellites ( 1 and 1) First layer operators and satellites specify additional properties of the internal structure of the SoA designated by the nuclear predication. Predicate operators, called Qualifying operators, constitute the grammatical elements which specify “additional features of the nature or quality of the SoA” (Dik 1997a: 219). The additional properties related to the internal organisation of the SoA belong to: (i) the domain of verbal aspect, such as the Perfective / Imperfective distinction, and (ii) the domain of modality inherent in the SoA. First layer satellites belong mainly to three groups: (i) those which designate additional participants in the SoA (Beneficiary, Company); (ii) those which specify the way in which the SoA is attained (Instrument, Manner, Speed, Quality) and (iii) those which express spatial orientations of the SoA (Direction, Source, Path).

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries

11

The result of the modification of the nuclear predication through first layer satellites and operators is the core predication, a structure which can be represented as follows (Dik 1997a: 64): (7)

core predication = [

1 [nuclear

predication]

1]

A variable representing the SoA can be added to the core predication and this results in structures of the type: (8)

ei: [core predication]7

1.2.2.2.2 Predication operators and satellites ( 2 and 2) The core predication can be modified by second layer operators and satellites which locate the SoA with respect to the temporal, spatial and cognitive setting, without affecting the properties of this SoA. Regarding predication operators, a distinction can be established between Quantifying and Localizing operators. Quantification of the predication is carried out through aspectual distinctions which concern the frequency of the SoA (Semelfactive, Iterative, Frequentative and Distributive Aspect). The operators that contribute to the location of the SoA are tense, perspectival aspect, objective modality and polarity.8 The satellites at this layer locate the SoA in the spatial dimension (Location), the temporal dimension (Time, Circumstance) and the cognitive dimension (Result, Purpose, Reason and Cause). The result of applying grammatical or lexical modifications to the core predication is the extended predication, which Dik (1997a: 291) represents in the following way: (9)

extended predication = [

2

ei: [core predication] ( 2)]

It is at this layer of the underlying structure of the clause that the assignment of syntactic functions (Subject and Object) takes place, as can be seen in Figure 1.2. The extended predication can be modified by third layer satellites and operators, thus giving rise to a proposition, the next layer in the hierarchical structure, which is represented by the variable (X i), which designates a propositional content.

7

Given this representation, in the previous edition of Dik (1997a [1989]) it is noted that this predication can be called an embedded predication, since it is “embedded” under the influence of the SoA variable. 8 Although polarity is generally considered a second layer operator, Dik (1997b), inspired by Lyons (1977), analyses different types of negation which correspond to the different layers of the hierarchical structure of the clause (illocutionary, propositional, predicational and predicate negation). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

12

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

1.2.2.2.3 Proposition operators and satellites ( 3 and 3) Third layer operators and satellites express the speaker’s evaluation or attitude towards the content expressed by the proposition. The modifiers at this layer, therefore, relate the propositional content to the subjective world of the speaker, expressing: (i) aspects of subjective modality, related to the speaker’s personal opinion or attitude, and (ii) specifications about the manner and circumstances in which the speaker obtained the information contained in the proposition, by means of evidential modality or attitudinal satellites. The result of applying third layer modifiers is the proposition, represented as follows (Dik 1997a: 291): (10)

proposition = [

3

Xi: [extended predication] ( 3)]

The proposition can be expanded into the clause, which designates the speech act to which the linguistic expression refers and which is represented by the variable (E i).9 1.2.2.2.4 Illocutionary operators and satellites ( 4 and 4) The operators and satellites at this layer are related to the speaker’s communicative ability. In Dik’s model (1997a) illocutionary operators designate the basic illocutionary force (DECL(arative), INT(errogative), IMP(erative). . .) of the utterance.10 This illocutionary force, codified in some way in the linguistic expression [IllE], does not necessarily have to correspond to the intention of the speaker [IllS] or the interpretation of the addressee [Ill A].11 The basic illocutionary force can undergo a process of (pragmatic, lexical or grammatical) conversion and thus give way to another type of illocutionary force. Illocutionary satellites specify the way in which the speaker wishes the addressee to interpret the speech act and, therefore, include lexical elements which express Manner, Reason, Condition or Purpose, not regarding the SoA, but regarding the speech act. 9

Although it is the propositional content and not the SoA that can be modified by illocutionary operators and satellites, imperative operators are an exception, since they operate directly on the predication, without an intermediate propositional level (Dik 1997a: 53). 10 Following the model proposed by Hengeveld (1990), however, this illocutionary force would, as has been mentioned earlier, constitute an abstract illocutionary frame with the speaker, the addressee and the propositional content as its arguments. Therefore, the operators at this level would modify the basic illocutionary force of the utterance, whether the speaker wants to mitigate the force of the speech act (mitigating mode) or wants to reinforce it (reinforcing mode). 11 Regarding fourth layer operators, Moutaouakil proposes a distinction between sentence type operator (Tp) and illocutionary operator (Ill), since he believes that the type of utterance (Decl., Int.,...) and the illocutionary force (statement, question,...) “are quite distinct features although they interplay in determining the formal (i.e. morphosyntactic and prosodic) properties of linguistic expressions as well as their interpretation” (1996: 224). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries

13

The result of modifying the basic structure of the clause by illocutionary operators and satellites is the extended structure of the clause which Dik (1997a: 292) represents in the following way: (11)

clause = [

4

Ei: [proposition] ( 4)]12

Dik (1997a) points out that once the different layers of the hierarchical structure of the clause are modified through the insertion of operators and satellites, the upper layer of the organisation of the clause is reached, leading to the assignment of the third type of functions, pragmatic functions, as can be seen in Figure 1.2. The complete structure of the clause is represented in the following way (Dik 1997a: 68): [

4 Ei:

[

3 Xi:

2 ei:

[ 1 [pred [T] args] 1] 2] 3] 4] [.....nucleus.....] [...core predication...] [........extended predication........] [........................proposition........................] [.....................................clause.....................................] Figure 1.3: Hierarchical structure of the clause (Dik 1997a) However, Hengeveld (1990) recognises a fifth type of satellite which he calls clause satellites ( 5) which are not included in the FG model given by Dik (1997a). The lexical modifiers at this layer specify aspects relative to the setting of the utterance. This type of satellite has been considered by Wanders (1993) in her analysis of adverbs in Spanish. This author proposes the addition of a layer which represents units larger than the clause, in order to be able to account for the scope of textual adverbs. She calls this new layer discourse episode and represents it with the variable (D). Wanders proposes to call clause satellites, represented as 5, rhetoric satellites, since this term reflects more clearly the function that these satellites realise. Figure 1.4 shows the representation of operators and satellites in the hierarchical model proposed by Wanders (1993):

12

However, in Hengeveld’s model, this level is structured by an abstract illocutionary frame (ILL), made up of three arguments (a speaker, an addressee and a propositional content), which leads to a different representation (Hengeveld 1990: 6): Ei: [ 4 ILL: 4 (S) (A) (extended proposition)] (Ei) María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

14

María Jesús Pérez Quintero D1: [ (E 1: [ 4F1: ILL(F1): (S) (A) ( 3X1: [

. . . (E n)] (D1) ] (X1):

3(X1))

( 2e1: [ 1f1: Predb (f1): (Wx1: Predn(x1))...(xn)

4(F1)]

1(f1)]

(E1):

(e1):

5(E1))

2(e 1))

Figure 1.4: Operators and satellites in the hierarchical structure Recently, there has been great interest in developing FG from a sentence grammar into a grammar of discourse,13 although this area of study constitutes an important aspect still to be developed within the FG model. However, it is the organisation of the clause, and not that of discourse, which is the part of FG theory most relevant to the present study. Dik argues that, although the semantic relations expressed by satellites at clause level seem to have a projection towards the level of discourse, he does not “go along with the idea that clausal, propositional and predicational satellites should not be treated as subordinate or embedded at the clause level” (1997b: 432). Therefore, it is the hierarchical structure of the clause, consisting of different levels of increasing complexity, which is adopted here as the model of analysis for adverbial subordinate clauses. 1.2.2.3 Expression rules According to the FG model, once the complete representation of the underlying structure of the clause is obtained, the expression rules, which translate underlying representations into actual linguistic expressions, are applied. This final component of FG takes care of the following characteristics of linguistic expression: (i) The form of its constituents In FG the underlying structure of the clause only contains lexical elements. All the grammatical elements of a linguistic expression (e.g. morphological affixes, adpositions and grammatical particles) are provided by the expression rules which are language specific. Expression rules are the result of the application of (semantic, syntactic and pragmatic) functions and of operators, both specified in the underlying structure and called morphosyntactic operators. The rules of formal expression have the following structure (Dik 1997a: 69): (12)

operator(s) [input form] = output form

13

One of the first contributions in this direction was Hengeveld’s (1997) work, who proposed the addition of a higher level, the rhetorical level, to the hierarchical structure. For other works relating to discourse and pragmatic aspects within the framework of FG, see Gómez Solico (1996), Dik (1997b), Connolly et al. (1997) and Hannay and Bolkestein (1998). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries

15

(ii) The order of its constituents The order in which the different elements in the underlying structure of the clause are presented does not reflect the order in which they appear in the linguistic expression, but they are intended to be a reflection of the semantic relations which hold between them. It is through the application of one type of expression rule, called placement rules, that the different constituents are linearly ordered in the linguistic expression. (iii) Prosodic contour Finally, prosodic features characteristic of each language, such as tone, accent and intonation, must also be assigned to the linguistic expression derived from the underlying structure. 1.3

Adverbial subordination in Functional Grammar

1.3.1 Concept When dealing with complex constructions in FG, Dik (1997b) establishes a distinction between coordination and embedding. The term coordination includes the relations that exist between elements that are equivalent from a functional point of view, whereas the term embedding covers the relations in which one element realises a function within another element. Other linguists ascribed to the FG model prefer to use the term subordination instead of embeddedness. Thus, in FG the traditional dichotomy coordination / subordination is maintained,14 the main difference lying in the functional perspective adopted for the analysis of complex constructions. In order to present a functional classification of subordinate clauses, Hengeveld (1995) takes as a point of departure the classification of the parts of speech, summarised in the following table:15 Table 1.3: Classification of the parts of speech (Hengeveld 1995) Noun Phrase Verb Phrase

Head Noun Verb

Restrictor Adjective Adverb

14

Many authors have tried to offer alternative solutions to the problem that the delimitation of the concept of subordination presents. These solutions can be essentially divided into three groups: (i) those who propose a tripartite classification (Van Valin 1984; 1993; Foley and Van Valin 1984; Van Valin and LaPolla 1997); (ii) those who consider that sentence relations have to be analysed, not as a dichotomy, but as a continuum (Givón 1990; Lehmann 1988) and (iii) those who suggest that subordination should not be considered a onedimensional but a multi-dimensional phenomenon (Haiman and Thompson 1984). 15 Translated from the Spanish. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

16

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

Following this classification, the distribution of subordinate clauses can be established as in Table 1.4: Table 1.4: Distribution of subordinate clauses (Hengeveld 1995) Noun Phrase Verb Phrase

Head Restrictor Head Restrictor

Complement clause Relative clause Predicate clause Adverbial clause

Adverbial clauses are comparable to adverbs, since both function as restrictors of a verb phrase. Therefore, it is possible to establish a semantic classification of adverbial clauses, parallel to that proposed for adverbs or satellites, paying attention to the layer of the hierarchical structure which they modify. The layered structure of the clause has been used as a descriptive framework for carrying out studies on specific types of subordinate clauses, such as complement clauses (Dik and Hengeveld 1991) and adverbial clauses (Hengeveld 1993; 1996; 1998; Hengeveld and Wanders 1997).16 In his study of the internal structure of adverbial clauses, Hengeveld (1996: 121) puts forward the following classification of subordinate clauses: Table 1.5: Classification of subordinate clauses (Hengeveld 1996) Superordinate Subordinate

Open Closed

Governing Governed

Obligatory Optional

Main clause Relative clause Predicate clause Complement clause Adverbial clause

Hengeveld argues that the study of adverbial clauses is in many respects parallel to that of complement clauses since they have one characteristic in common, namely, that both are governed clauses, in the sense that their underlying structure is determined by elements belonging to the main clause. Using this classification as a basis, Hengeveld (1998), in his typological study of adverbial clauses, defines a subordinate clause as one whose existence depends on another, inasmuch as it satisfies the requirements of the predicate frame of the matrix predicate, and an adverbial clause as one which can be 16

Other studies of subordinate clauses within the framework of FG can be mentioned such as those of Zimmermann (1985), Bolkestein (1986), Rijksbaron (1986), Wakker (1987; 1992; 1996), Harder (1989; 1996), Dik (1990), Vester (1990), Cuvalay (1996), Genee (1998). Although these are more specific in the sense that they concentrate on the analysis of a single language or a specific type of construction. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries

17

removed without affecting the grammaticality of the main clause, since, as is the case with the category of adverbs, it functions as a satellite. Apart from Hengeveld’s proposal, adverbial subordination has not received much attention in the framework of FG. In Dik (1997b), a work dedicated to the study of derived and complex constructions, it is pointed out that adverbial clauses are subject to the same analysis as other types of subordination, such as relative clauses17 and complement clauses, since they are considered to be embedded constructions or complex terms.18 Regarding this, Dik (1997b: 95) claims: Adverbial clauses will not be discussed in the present context. There is no reason to assume, however, that they cannot be dealt with in terms of the parameters that will be presented in this and the next two chapters in the description of complex terms occupying argument positions. The clauses presented as complex terms occupying argument positions which Dik analyses in detail are complement clauses. This analysis takes into consideration three important aspects of subordinate clauses: semantic, functional and formal aspects. From a semantic point of view, Dik classifies embedded constructions according to the layer of the hierarchical structure of the clause (clause, proposition, predication) which they designate, while from a functional point of view, he considers the function (semantic, syntactic and pragmatic) fulfilled by these clauses. Finally, from a formal perspective Dik analyses the general features which characterise the expression of embedded constructions. These formal features include: the position of the embedded clause in the matrix domain, the presence of subordination markers, the internal order of the constituents of the embedded construction, the presence of finite or non-finite verbal forms and verbal mood. In this book, the study of adverbial subordination is carried out using the same model of analysis which was applied by Dik to complement clauses. However, this study concentrates on the analysis of formal aspects (Chapter 2) and semantic aspects (Chapter 3), given that from a functional point of view, adverbial clauses do not offer the same variability as complement clauses. Firstly, adverbial clauses cannot be analysed from the point of view of their syntactic functions, since it is not possible to assign them any of the functions (Subject/Object) recognised within FG. From the point of view of their semantic functions, adverbial clauses function as satellites, optional elements to which a function derived from their semantic value is assigned. Finally, regarding the assignation of pragmatic functions, Dik (1997b: 124) points out:

17

Relative clauses are analysed as embedded constructions, since they function as restrictors within a term. 18 Term is understood in its widest sense, as used by Dik (1997a/b). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

18

María Jesús Pérez Quintero When the embedded construction functions as a satellite, it is even the rule rather than the exception that the satellite present the salient, focal, foregrounded information. In general, satellites have a certain degree of “intrinsic focality” because, if the satellite information were not important, there would be no point in adding it at all.

However, the pragmatic functions associated with adverbial clauses are not analysed here, since such an analysis should contemplate the domain of discourse and, therefore, is beyond the scope of this work. Summarising, the term subordination is used here, in opposition to the term coordination, to refer to a clause which is in a hypotactic relation to another clause, and which realises a function within it (whether it be subject, object, complement or adverbial). And, according to the functional model adopted, a clause is considered adverbial if it fulfils the function of satellite within the main clause and therefore can be omitted without affecting the grammaticality of the main clause. 1.3.2 Delimitation of the object of study Taking into account the definition of adverbial clause given in the previous section, a number of constructions, often considered adverbial, have been excluded. 1.3.2.1 Embedded clauses The first type of clause that has been excluded consists of those clauses which fulfil a function within a non-verbal phrase, whether nominal or adjectival. Even though the phrase in which they are embedded realises a semantic function similar to that of an adverbial clause, these clauses do not themselves belong to the domain of the matrix clause and, therefore, they do not have the status of satellites. (13) (14)

The time we first met he hardly spoke to me at all (Halliday 1994: 247) (function of post-modifier in a noun phrase) Angry at being suspected, he could hardly speak (function of postmodifier in an adjective phrase)

However, it is not always easy to determine whether a clause is post-modifying the head of a noun phrase which functions as an adverbial, or whether it is a construction with a nominal conjunction in structures which have been grammaticalised. Quirk et al. (1991) consider that structures such as the moment (that), every time (that), during the period when, until such time as, the fact that . . . are examples of free syntactic constructions and not complex subordinate conjunctions. However, they do not explain the difference between such constructions and others with a similar structure which they do include in their classification of subordinate conjunctions (e.g. in case, in the event that, on condition (that). . . ). Halliday (1994: 238) includes both types of structure in his María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries

19

classification of complex conjunctions, stating that they are structures which have been formed from prepositional phrases which appeared with an embedded clause, but what they actually do is introduce hypotactic clauses like any other conjunction. The examples he gives are in case, in the event that, to the extent that and the combination of the definite article with various nouns which indicate time and manner, such as the day, the moment, the way. However, when dealing with cases of embedded clauses with adverbial meaning (embedded enhancing), Halliday points out that these are structures which are formed by a noun postmodified by an embedded clause and that the relation between the two members of this construction has a circumstantial meaning of time, place, manner, cause or condition. He believes that there are two different types of embedded structures: (i) those in which the adverbial meaning is expressed by a nominal head (e.g. the time when/that, the place where, reason why/that . . . ) and (ii) those in which it is the embedded clause that carries the circumstantial meaning (e.g. the house where/in which she lived). However, Halliday does not explain the difference that exists between these embedded constructions, which are not examples of adverbial subordination, and the complex prepositions consisting of a nominal head which express time and manner, which he mentions when dealing with the different types of adverbial conjunction. Given the aim of this book, it is fundamental to establish a clear distinction between nominal conjunctions, constructions which have suffered a process of grammaticalisation and which, therefore, introduce subordinate clauses, and the structures formed by a noun phrase whose head is post-modified by an embedded clause and which, therefore, are excluded. As a valid criterion for establishing this differentiation, it should be established whether the nominal part of a complex conjunction has lost its nominal features and is thus part of a fixed construction which functions as a subordinating conjunction. This criterion is adopted by Huddleston (1985), when establishing a distinction between complex prepositions and structures of the type ‘preposition + noun + preposition’. He points out: “we may think of complex prepositions as arising historically through the ‘lexicalisation’ – the fusion into a single lexical item – of the first words of some productive construction ” (1985: 342). The need to establish a distinction between simple and complex prepositions is also found in Quirk et al. (1991: 671): In the strictest definition, a complex preposition is a sequence that is indivisible both in terms of syntax and in terms of meaning. However, there is no absolute distinction between complex prepositions and constructions which can be varied, abbreviated, and extended according to the nominal rules of syntax. Rather, there is a scale of ‘cohesiveness’ running from a sequence which behaves in every way like a simple preposition, e.g.: in spite of (the weather), to one which behaves in every way like a set of grammatically separate units, e.g.: on the shelf of (the door).

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

20

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

The tests which Huddleston sets out in order to identify complex prepositions are applied below in order to distinguish nominal conjunctions. By way of illustration, Huddleston uses the constructions by dint of hard work (complex preposition + noun phrase) and after years of hard work (preposition + noun phrase + preposition + noun phrase): (i)

(ii)

(iii)

A complex preposition cannot realise the syntactic functions typically associated with a noun phrase, such as subject or complement. Thus, dint of hard work cannot realise the function of subject or complement in a clause, but years of hard work (e.g. Years of hard work had taken their toll (subject); He had wasted years of hard work (complement)) can fulfil these functions. Similarly, if in case (complex conjunction) is compared with the time (that) (noun phrase), it can be seen that the former structure cannot function as subject but the latter can (e.g. The time to be ready is four o’clock). Complex prepositions do not allow the same variety of determiners as the head of a noun phrase does. The indefinite construction years of hard work contrasts with the definite construction the years of hard work, allowing also the use of other kinds of determiner such as these, a few, several . . . However, this variation is not possible with dint of hard work. Huddleston points out that the possibility of variation has to be determined bearing in mind that the original meaning must be maintained. Thus, for example, the conjunction in case does not allow a great variety of modifiers while preserving its conditional value. It can be quantified by most of, in which case a nominal construction is obtained which has a different meaning (e.g. in most of the cases – temporal sense). The head of the nominal construction the time can be quantified as in most of the time, while at the same time allowing a greater variety of modifiers, such as every time (that), such time as, the very first time. In all these cases the basic meaning of the construction is maintained. The nominal part of a complex preposition does not allow variation in number. While the plural form years of hard work can be substituted by a singular a year of hard work, the singular form of dint of hard work does not have a plural alternative. It can also be seen that in the examples of complex conjunctions in case cannot be substituted by in cases, while the noun phrase the day has alternative plural expressions, such as since the days (when).

To Huddleston’s criteria, others can be added from among those presented by Quirk et al. (1991: 671-2), who use the complex preposition in spite of (the weather) and the nominal construction on the shelf of (the door) as examples: (iv)

The preposition which introduces a nominal construction allows variation. Thus, for example, the change of the preposition on in the structure on the shelf of for under (e.g. under the shelf by (the door)) is possible, but it is not possible in the case of the complex preposition (e.g. in spite of cannot María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries

(v)

(vi)

21

become *for spite of). In the case of conjunctions, it can be observed that the noun phrases which form part of grammaticalised structures do not allow variation regarding the preposition which introduces them, since they are fixed expressions (e.g. in case, on condition, but not *on case, *in condition). However, non-grammaticalised nominal expressions show a greater diversity of introductory elements (e.g. every time, until such time, by the time, since the last time, before the time, throughout the time (that), from the very first time). In the case of a combination of single prepositions, the prepositional complement and the second prepositional phrase can be substituted by a pronoun (e.g. on the surface of the table – on its surface), but this is not a possibility in the case of a complex preposition (e.g. in spite of the result – *in its spite). Similarly, Huddleston (1985) points out the possibility that a phrase introduced by the preposition of presents an alternative possessive construction (e.g. after the arrival of the prime minister / after the prime minister’s arrival). However, this criterion will not be taken into account in the present work because it is considered irrelevant to the case of nominal conjunctions, and also of little use, as Huddleston and Quirk et al. point out, when dealing with some examples of complex prepositions which show the following variation (e.g. on behalf of my father / on my father’s behalf). The noun which forms part of a nominal construction can be pre-modified by adjectives (e.g. on the low shelf by (the door)), but this is not the case with one which forms part of a grammaticalised structure (e.g. *in evident spite of). In the same way, a complex conjunction does not allow the incorporation of adjectives which function as modifiers of the nominal term (e.g. *in good case), while the presence of an adjective which modifies the head is frequently part of a noun phrase (e.g. the last time).

1.3.2.2 Complement clauses Complement clauses are examples of embedding and, therefore, do not fit the definition of adverbial subordinate clauses which is proposed here. (15)

I don’t believe that Mary is pregnant

Regarding those cases of complement clauses in which a verbal predicate presents an argument realised by a clause, a similar problem to the one mentioned in the previous section might be noted – that is, those constructions formed by a past or present participle which no longer functions as a verbal predicate, but that has acquired the status of a conjunction (e.g. assuming (that), given (that), provided (that), providing (that), supposing (that)) or a preposition (e.g. regarding, concerning). Quirk et al. state that those participles which have been grammaticalised as conjunctions have lost their verbal features, as can be seen by the fact that although they do not contain an explicit subject, they do not require identification with the subject of the main clause. Thus, for example, in Covered with confusion, they apologized abjectly, the participle ending in -ed is a verbal María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

22

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

form which requires identification of the subject with that of the main clause, while in Provided that the film entertains, few people care about its merits, identification of a subject is not necessary. Similarly, König and Kortmann (1991) point out some features which indicate that a verb has been re-analysed as a preposition: change in the word order, change of grammatical relations and phonological and morphological criteria. These features, as well as some additional ones, are analysed by Kortmann and König (1992: 686), who state: Many of the changes leading to a recategorization of verbs as prepositions can be seen as a loss of certain properties: a loss of semantic, phonological, and morphological substance, a loss of the ability to inflect for case, number, and gender, a loss for agreement with a subject, a loss of the ability to be marked for tense and aspect. Nevertheless, Kortmann (1991) points out that not all participles which are used as conjunctions show the same degree of lexicalisation, and mentions two parameters which prove this. Firstly, in some cases the identification of an implicit subject is established with an indefinite pronoun or with the speaker (e.g. . . . as if I couldn’t figure out for myself that things had better be just so, considering who’s coming – Kortmann 1991: 51), and secondly, the participle can appear in contexts in which it still functions as a verbal form (e.g. The new airship . . . could keep station above the fleet wherever the US chose to go, providing early warning of aircraft or missile attack – Kortmann 1991: 52). Kortmann and König (1992: 683) comment: Deverbal prepositions are not only marginal members in their lexical class, they are also an extremely heterogeneous group as a result of the fact that the various changes discussed in section 1 have not affected each individual item in the same way and to the same degree. This characteristic of subordinating particles derived from a participle makes it difficult to distinguish between a complement clause, whose main verb is in a non-finite form, and an adverbial clause, introduced by a non-finite verbal form which has been re-analysed as a preposition. 1.3.2.3 Verbless clauses Of the three types of structure which Quirk et al. (1991) point out as possible realisations of a subordinate clause, those constructions which belong to the third group – verbless clauses – are not included, since the main aim of this work is to study the systematic relations between the semantic type of adverbial subordinate clause and the way in which these clauses are expressed in English, paying special attention to the verbal forms contained in these constructions. Therefore, constructions of the type Although always helpful, he was not much liked, in which the subordinate clause lacks a verbal form, will be excluded.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries

23

1.3.2.4 Copy-cleft sentences Talmy (1978a) analyses a series of constructions which have in common the fact that, from a semantic point of view, they are equivalent to subordinate clauses. He calls these copy-cleft sentences. Talmy argues that the complex clause Mays provided some excitement for the viewers by batting in three runs can have the following possibilities as alternative constructions: (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

Mays batted in three runs; he provided some excitement for the viewers thereby (without any type of linking element) Mays batted in three runs, and provided some excitement for the viewers thereby (with a coordinating conjunction) Mays batted in three runs, providing some excitement for the viewers thereby (non-finite construction – -ing form) Mays batted in three runs, to provide some excitement for the viewers thereby (non-finite construction – infinitive) Mays batted in three runs, whereby he provided some excitement to the viewers thereby (relative construction)

Of these five types, only the non-finite constructions (18) and (19) are considered adverbial subordinate clauses. Examples (16) and (17) are examples of paratactic constructions, juxtaposition and coordination, respectively, which do not form part of the set of structures under study. Example (20) represents an example of a relative clause in which the presence of an anaphoric element can be seen. Relative constructions constitute a type of subordinate clause different from adverbial clauses. 1.3.2.5 Independent relative clauses Geis (1970), when presenting types of constructions which he considers to be adverbial clauses, mentions one type which he calls independent relative clause, to which clauses such as John lives where Harry said he did or I found him where he said he would be, belong. These types of structures have been excluded because they are examples of relative clauses which form part of a group of subordinate clauses that are not adverbial. Moreover, in the first example, the temporal expression introduced by the relative pronoun does not function as a satellite, an optional element added to the predication, but as an argument, an obligatory constituent required by the predicate. Other excluded constructions are those which Quirk et al. (1991) call sentential relative clauses, that is, clauses which do not have a noun phrase as an antecedent, but refer to the predicate (e.g. They say he plays truant, which he doesn’t), to the predication (e.g. He walks for an hour each morning, which would bore me), to a complete clause (e.g. Things then improved, which surprises me) or even to a series of clauses (e.g. Colin married my sister and I married his brother, which makes Colin and me double in-laws).

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

24

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

1.3.2.6 Clauses of Comparison and Comparative clauses A distinction should be established, as Quirk et al. (1991) propose, between adverbial clauses of Comparison (e.g. He bent down as if tightening his shoe laces) and Comparative clauses, in which a relation of comparison between a proposition from the main clause and one from the subordinate clause is established, (e.g. Marilyn was too polite to say anything about my clothes). Clauses belonging to this latter type are also excluded, since they are examples of clauses embedded in an adjectival group. 1.3.2.7 Clauses introduced by two conjunctions It can sometimes happen that a clause is introduced by two conjunctions. These clauses are classified only according to the meaning of the second conjunction, since in these examples the value of the first conjunction has been cancelled by that of the second. (21)

Whether Handel planned it as he began the movement or whether it occurred to him as when improvising, this way of integrating the movement was exactly right in this place, and sensible people may call it a symphonic way. (LOB G42 153)

There are also cases in which the meaning of the first conjunction is not lost, but there is only one verbal form that is introduced by the second conjunction. This type of clause is also classified according to the meaning expressed by the second conjunction. (22) (23)

Joyce did, of course, starve; Proust did not, except when the waiters at the Ritz were inattentive. (LOB G41 32) “That will wasn’t made until after I’d gone away!” (LOB L22 163)

1.3.2.8 Grammaticalised constructions Haspelmath and König (1998), in their typological study of ConcessiveConditional clauses, mention the existence of a type of construction, slightly grammaticalised, which expresses this adverbial meaning. They claim that expressions such as “let it rain”, “it may rain”, “let it be that it rains”, “it may be that it rains” express the idea of “even if it rains”. (24)

She may be the world’s leading Etruscologist, but I doubt that she knows what concessive conditionals looked like in Etruscan.

These constructions are not taken into account here, since there seems to be no direct relation between this type of expression and a concessive-conditional meaning. Only finite clauses introduced by a conjunction are analysed, with the exception of Conditional clauses expressed through the inversion of the auxiliary (e.g. Had I known that she was here I wouldn’t have come), because in this case there is a systematic relation between these constructions and the meaning which they express. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries 1.4

25

Functional Grammar and Corpus Linguistics

1.4.1 Corpus analysis in Functional Grammar In his analysis of linguistics as a science, Crystal (1971) mentions three basic conditions that any scientific study should fulfil: explicitness, systematicness and objectivity. Thus, this author points out: I think every linguist would grant explicitness and systematicness a fairly fundamental role in any linguistic approach, though their ways of defining and evaluating them may differ somewhat. But the status of empirical evidence has been called into question by a sufficiently large number of influential people to make it necessary to approach this topic with particular care. (Crystal 1971: 99) Therefore, although any scientific study ought to be characterised by its ability to offer empirical data and observable results, in the field of linguistics two different approaches are found – the corpus-based approach and the intuition-based approach. The choice of one or the other approach is conditioned by the conception of the object of study. A linguistic study carried out within the framework of FG, a theory whose ultimate goal is to be integrated into a general theory of verbal interaction, cannot disregard the analysis of corpora. In this respect, Mackenzie (1992: 10) posits the following questions: Can FG increase its ‘compatibility with a wider theory of interaction’ without including in its formalisms the pragmatic principles underlying speakers’ actual choices of language structure? How can a bridge be built between the process-oriented claims of discourse analysis and the product-oriented contentions of grammar? However, although in theory the analysis of a corpus is considered relevant, in practice many studies carried out within FG have generally been based on intuition or on the analysis of data taken from grammars, dictionaries, etc., and not from corpora. It is only in the field of classical languages that the use of corpora has played an important role since the origin of FG. The general practice has been based on what Givón (1995: 20) considers to be the most common functional approach, called The Pull-em-out-of-the-text functionalist methodology, which he describes in the following way: a. b. c. d.

Make a hypothesis that grammatical Form A has the communicative Function X. Look for some real text (‘communication’) Identify (one, some, or many) instances in the text where Form A is paired with Function X. Declare your hypothesis proven. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

26

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

Givón (1995: 20) warns that this method of analysis raises a series of important questions: First, how many instances of Form A in the text were not paired with Function X, but rather with Functions Y, Z, Q? Second, how many instances of Function X in the text were not paired with Form A, but rather with Forms B, C, D? Third, given the percent of Form A that indeed correlates with Function X, is it statistically significant, in the view of (i) the size of the total population; (ii) the size of the sample; and (iii) the amount of variation within the sample? Without answering these questions, we perpetuate the bad habit of testing hypothesis by attempting to verify them. Whereas what we should be doing is attempting – and hopefully failing – to falsify them. Within the framework of FG this practice is inadequate if the standards of adequacy proposed within the model are taken into account: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

FG aims to be a pragmatically adequate grammar, that is, a grammar taking account of the interaction between speaker and addressee in verbal communication. In order to achieve this aim FG must focus on the analysis of authentic uses of language and not on isolated data extracted from different sources. Moreover, it is important to point out the importance of using oral language corpora, since these probably constitute the most natural form of verbal interaction. In this respect, Butler (1999) questions the extent to which FG reflects what happens in real language. FG aims to be a psychologically adequate theory, that is, it aims to be compatible with the processes of (de)codification which take place in the human mind in the course of communication. Butler (1999) also questions the extent to which FG reflects the choice of linguistic elements in processing language. It is only through experimenting, observation and the exhaustive analysis of the authentic use of language that conclusions about the cognitive processes that are involved in communication can be reached. FG has amongst its aims that of achieving typological adequacy. In order to become a theory which is capable of representing different languages and explaining the differences and similarities between them, it is essential that it starts from (qualitative and quantitative) descriptive studies of particular languages which can only be conveniently analysed using a corpus. Finally, a grammatical model which is based on the use of language, and not on the speaker’s abstract knowledge, ought to be a dynamic model capable of taking account of linguistic variation. Such variation only becomes apparent through the observation of authentic data. In this respect, FG should develop a model which is capable of giving proper account of this variation.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries

27

Today, within the framework of FG, a growing interest in the analysis of corpora can be observed, an interest that must undoubtedly be assessed positively: One effect of this development has been to provide a new manner of testing the empirical claims of FG; another has been to throw up novel questions and often bewildering challenges which are bound to become dominant issues in the FG of the nineties. (Mackenzie 1992: 10) This book contributes to enriching the FG model with the analysis of authentic uses of language. Thus it aims to make a contribution to the analysis of corpora suggested by corpus linguistics, without rejecting introspection, which is a necessary tool for interpreting empirical data. As Johansson (1991: 313) states when discussing the use of linguistic corpora: In spite of the great changes in the less than three decades since the first computer corpus, there is one way in which the role of the corpus in linguistic research has not changed. The corpus remains one of the linguist’s tools, to be used together with introspection and elicitation techniques. Wise linguists, like experienced craftsmen, sharpen their tools and recognize their appropriate uses. 1.4.2 Information about the corpus used The corpus used is the Lancaster – Oslo/Bergen (LOB) Corpus.19 This corpus comes in different versions: horizontal/vertical and tagged/untagged. The present study was carried out using the horizontal tagged version. In this version the corpus comes in the form of a text in which each word is accompanied by a wordtag which has been assigned to it through the use of automatic programmes and manual edition tasks.20 A selection of adverbial clauses in their contexts was carried out using 25% of the total corpus. Butler (1985: 2) puts forward the advantages of using a sample of data in the following terms:

19

Unfortunately, at the moment the research for this book was done, it was impossible to use the British National Corpus (BNC), mainly for technical reasons. Nevertheless, this circumstance may be expected not to affect the findings. Firstly, because subordination is much more common in written than in spoken language. Secondly, given that we are dealing with written data, the fact that the data contained in the LOB corpus is older than that of the BNC is only slightly relevant. 20 For information on the sources and selection of the texts that conform the LOB corpus, see Johansson et al. (1978). For detailed information on the tagged version see Johansson et al. (1986). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

28

María Jesús Pérez Quintero with a finite population21 which is not too large, we may be able to investigate the whole population. But if our population is potentially infinitive, or if it is finite but very large, we shall have to be content with samples drawn from the population concerned. The use of samples, even for the study of finite populations, cuts down the labour and cost involved in obtaining results, and minimises the errors which can easily be made during the processing of large amounts of statistical data.

In order to guarantee the representativity of a sample of data methods of probabilistic sampling are used. As Bisquerra Alzina (1987: 7) explains, these methods are based on the principle of equiprobability, which states that all individuals of a population have the same probability of becoming part of the sample. The probabilistic method used here is the one known as random selection. According to Bizquerra Alzina (1987), this method of sampling consists of: (i) (ii)

(iii)

Dividing the population into different strata. The LOB corpus (population) is divided into different categories (strata) which constitute the different types of text. Selecting a sample from each stratum. To select a sample within each textual category a simple random process has been used. It has not been necessary to assign a number to each text, since texts are already numbered within each category. Using the SPSS programme (Statistical Package for Social Sciences), texts have been selected randomly using these numbers. Deciding on the number of individuals in each stratum. In this study the number of texts to be included in each category is derived by proportional affixation, that is, taking into account the proportion of texts which make up each category.

The results of selecting 25% of the texts for each textual category is given in Appendix I. After randomly selecting the sample of texts from the corpus, the adverbial clauses were identified using the Tact programme (Text Analysis Computing Tools, version 2.1.4, June 1995). The selection of adverbial clauses with an independent verbal form was carried out by searching the tags CS (Subordinating Conjunction) and WRB (Wh-adverb). On the other hand, adverbial clauses with a dependent verbal form were selected through: (i) The tags BEN, HVN and VBN, for past participle forms; (ii) the tags BE, DO, HV and VB, for infinitive forms; and (iii) the order .*ing, for -ing forms. The exclusion of the non-relevant constructions (such as complement clauses introduced by a conjunction, restrictive relative clauses realised by a past 21

The term population is used in a broad sense to refer to “any collection of entities, of whatever kind, that is the object of investigation” (Butler 1985: 1). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Preliminaries

29

participle or an -ing form and by finite verbal forms tagged BE, DO, HV and VB) was carried out manually.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

2.

The formal classification of adverbial clauses

2.1

Introduction

When approaching the definition of adverbial clauses, many authors have tried to describe the formal, as well as the semantic and pragmatic features characteristic of this type of construction.1 Taking Quirk et al’s grammar as a point of reference, the formal indicators of subordination that are mentioned are the presence of a subordinate conjunction,2 a special word order and the presence of specific verb forms. However, since the use of a subordinate conjunction or a specific word order are not uniquely determining features of subordination nor seem to establish a direct relation with the type of adverbial clause in which they occur, in this book the study of the expression formats of adverbial clauses consists of the analysis of the verb forms of these subordinate constructions. Thus, the aim of this study is to show whether or not there exists a systematic relation between the semantic type of an adverbial clause and the verb form contained in that clause. Traditionally, a distinction is established between finite and non-finite verb forms on the basis of the inflectional features which the verb form admits. Thus, finite forms would be those which express person, number, time and mood, and would include indicative and subjunctive forms, while the non-finite forms would be characterised by the absence of such features and would be represented by infinitive forms (with and without to) and participle forms, present (-ing) or past (-ed). However, there are no clear criteria which allow to determine whether a verb form is finite or non-finite. Quirk et al. (1991: 149) suggest the following criteria for determining the difference between a finite and a non-finite form: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Finite verb forms can function as predicates of an independent clause. Finite forms have tense contrast (e.g. the distinction between present and past tense). There is person and number agreement between the subject of a clause and the predicate with a finite form in this clause. Finite verb phrases contain, as their first or only element, a finite form which can be an operator or a simple present or past form.

1

For a description of the different features associated with adverbial clauses in the English grammatical tradition, see Sweet (1892), Poutsma (1929), Kruisinga (1932), Curme (1980-83), Jespersen (1961-74). Similar characterising features are found in Davison (1979), Bolinger (1984), Woodall (1984), Huddleston (1985), Givón (1990), Thompson and Longacre (1990), Quirk et al. (1991), Halliday (1994). 2 Kortmann (1997) gives an exhaustive historical and typological analysis of adverbial subordinate conjunctions in European languages. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

32 (v)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero Finite verb forms express mood, which indicates whether the predication is factual, non-factual or counterfactual. A contrast between the ‘unmarked’ indicative mood, and the ‘marked’ imperative and subjunctive moods can be seen.

However, Quirk et al. point out that these five criteria can lead to inconsistencies since the subjunctive and the imperative would be finite forms according to criteria (i) and (v), while according to criterion (iii), they would be classified as non-finite forms. Thus they state: This inconsistency is not, however, disturbing, but reflects the fact that the finite / nonfinite distinction may be better represented as a scale of ‘FINITENESS’ ranging from the indicative (or ‘most finite’) mood, on the one hand, to the infinitive (or ‘least finite’) verb phrase, on the other. (Quirk 1991: 150) This idea is shared by Givón, who defines finiteness, which he considers to be more a property of the clause than of the verb, as “a complex, multi-featured, scalar grammatical meta-phenomenon (rather than a single, discrete, binary feature)” (1990: 853). Givón considers that different degrees of finiteness can be distinguished, which are determined in relation to their similarity to the prototypical clause, the transitive main clause. This similarity is described taking into account a series of syntactic features which can be divided into verbal inflections (tense-aspect-mood, pronominal agreement, nominalising affixes) and nominal inflections (subject and object case markers, articles, determiners). Givón claims that these features correspond to finiteness in terms of implicative hierarchies. Therefore, depending on their degree of finiteness, the main verb forms can be ordered as follows (Givón 1990: 854): Finiteness ranking of major verb-form categories: Most finite INDICATIVE SUBJUNCTIVE/MODAL PARTICIPIAL INFINITIVE NOMINAL Least finite Figure 2.1: Scale of verb forms according to degree of finiteness (Givón 1990) Hengeveld (1998), in his typological study of adverbial clauses, establishes a distinction between two possible classifications of verb forms: a formal classification and a functional classification. He points out that the former, based on the finiteness category, causes problems when determining whether or not a verb form is finite, especially if one tries to adopt universally valid criteria. Therefore, he proposes a functional classification of verb forms established in María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Formal classification

33

terms of the different functions that these forms can fulfil in a language. The classification which Hengeveld puts forward is the following (Hengeveld 1998: 339): 1. Independent: An independent verb form is one which may be used in main clauses. 2. Dependent: A dependent verb form is one which is used in subordinate constructions only. 2.1. Predicative: A predicative verb form is a dependent verb form which is used as the predicate of a subordinate construction. 2.2. Attributive: An attributive verb form is a dependent verb form which, apart from being the predicate of the subordinate construction, is used directly as an attribute within a noun phrase. 2.3. Adverbial: An adverbial verb form is a dependent verb form which, apart from being the predicate of the subordinate construction, is used directly as an adverbial modifier. This functional classification, which distinguishes between independent forms, which realise a function in a main clause, and dependent forms, which realise a function in a subordinate clause, avoids the problem of having to distinguish between finite and non-finite forms, a distinction which does not offer the same correlation since, although the non-finite forms are exclusive to subordinate clauses, finite forms can appear in both main and subordinate clauses. Following Hengeveld’s (1998) classification, this book analyses the relation between the semantic type of adverbial clause and the use of dependent and independent verb forms in these clauses in English. 2.2

Verbal expression formats in English

The expression of adverbial clauses in English is characterised by the use of independent verb forms – indicative and subjunctive – and dependent verb forms – infinitive, past participle and -ing forms. 2.2.1 Independent forms The group of independent verb forms, which may fulfil a function in a main clause, are the indicative and the subjunctive forms in English. Regarding the classification of the subjunctive as an independent verb form, it is often noted that nowadays its use in main clauses is limited to the expression of fossilised constructions (e.g. Long live the Queen!, Heaven be praised!). Therefore it might be considered more suitable if this verb form were classified as dependent. However, its use in subordinate clauses in modern British English is equally restricted. It can be seen, moreover, that the contexts related to this verb form are María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

34

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

those in which modal verbs occur, since the subjunctive is used mainly to express non-factual or unreal content. Thus, Givón (1990), in his scale of verb forms (Figure 2.1), places the subjunctive alongside modal verbs after the indicative, since these are the verb forms which share many syntactic features with indicative forms.3 These two observations – the restricted use of the subjunctive in English, not only in main clauses but also in subordinate clauses, and the modal value which this implies – justify the classification of this verb form as independent. Regarding the distinction between the indicative and the subjunctive moods Quirk et al. (1991: 149) point out: Finite verb phrases have mood, which indicates the factual, nonfactual, or counterfactual status of the predication. In contrast to the ‘unmarked’ INDICATIVE mood, we distinguish the ‘marked’ moods IMPERATIVE (used to express commands and other directive speech acts; cf 11.24 ff), and SUBJUNCTIVE (used to express a wish, recommendation, etc; cf 3.58 ff). Regarding the conjugation of the subjunctive mood, Quirk et al. (1991) point out that there is a traditional distinction between two subjunctive forms, the present and the past, although the use of these different forms is related more to mood than to tense. Quirk et al. distinguish two classes of present subjunctive (mandative, which is the most frequent use of the subjunctive, typical of subordinate clauses introduced by that, and formulaic, limited to fixed expressions which are mainly independent clauses) whose form corresponds, as does the imperative form, to the basic form of the verb. Therefore, with the exception of the form of the verb to be, the formal distinction between indicative and subjunctive is limited to the third person singular of the verb. Quirk et al. (1991) give the following clauses as examples of the lack of formal distinction between the indicative form and the subjunctive form: (1) (2) (3)

I insist that we reconsider the Council’s decisions, where reconsider can be considered an indicative or subjunctive form. I insist that the Council reconsider its decision, where reconsider is a subjunctive form. I insist that the Council’s decision(s) be reconsidered, where be is a subjunctive form whether the subject is singular or whether it is plural.

Among the typical contexts of these present subjunctive forms, Quirk et al. mention, apart from complement clauses introduced by that: (i) Conditional and Concessive clauses (e.g. (Even) if that be the official view, it cannot be accepted – formal) and (ii) Conditional or Negative Purpose clauses introduced by lest or for fear that (e.g. The President must reject this proposal, lest it cause strife and violence – formal). 3

Givón (1995) presents an analysis of the subjunctive from a functional perspective, considered as a way of expressing modality. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Formal classification

35

The past subjunctive form is limited to the use of were, contrasting with the indicative form only in the first and third person singular (e.g. If I / he / she was leaving, you would have heard about it (indicative) / If I / he / she were leaving, . . . (subjunctive) – Quirk et al. 1991). Quirk et al. consider that this form possesses a hypothetical or unreal meaning, typical of adverbial clauses introduced by if, as if, as though, though, and of complement clauses which modify verbs such as wish and suppose. However, they also point out that this past subjunctive form must be considered a fossilised inflection, which is used less frequently than the hypothetical past form of the indicative mood, and that the use of were with the second person singular or with a plural subject must be analysed as an indicative form and not as a neutralisation of the indicative and the subjunctive. Adverbial clauses whose verbal predicate is an independent form are introduced by a subordinating conjunction which expresses the condition of dependence as well as the type of adverbial relation. From a formal point of view, the following classification of subordinating conjunctions can be established: (i) (ii) (iii)

(iv)

Simple conjunctions (because, when, if . . .) Conjunctive groups (as if, even if, soon after . . .) Complex conjunctions, which have been derived from imperative (suppose (that)) or from participial verb forms (provided, considering (that)), derived from noun phrases (in case, in the event (that)) or derived from adverbs (as/so long as. . .) Correlative conjunctions (as . . . so, as/so/such . . . as, no sooner . . . than/when . . .). Correlative clauses are excluded here since they constitute an example of complex clauses in which the independent status of the main clause is not clearly demonstrated, because the subordinate clause cannot be omitted without a change of meaning.

2.2.2 Dependent forms The group of dependent verb forms is made up of the forms traditionally denominated non-finite.4 Adverbial clauses whose verbal predicate is a dependent form can be introduced by:

4

The study of clauses, not just adverbial clauses but also embedded or relative clauses, in which a non-finite verb constitutes the verbal form, has aroused the interest of many linguists, amongst whom might be mentioned Berent (1973; 1975), Thompson (1973; 1983), Grady (1976), Beukema (1980; 1982; 1985), Reuland (1983), Bäcklund (1984), König and Van der Auwera (1990), Mittwoch (1990) and Kortmann (1991; 1994). However, these works generally limit themselves to the description of formal aspects of the aforementioned clauses, without taking into account the semantic implications as well as their communicative function as contrasted with clauses with independent forms. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

36 (i) (ii) (iii)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero Subordinating conjunctions (when, while, though . . .) Prepositions which function as conjunctions (from, by, in, on, with, without) No linking element

Moreover, constructions with dependent verb forms may or may not have an explicit subject. In cases where the subject of the verb form is not explicit, it is usually identical to some element of the main clause. In the FG framework (Dik 1997b: 147), the closed predication / open predication distinction is used to characterise respectively the presence / absence of an explicit subject. Thus it is considered that a construction with a subject is a closed predication, that is, a predication in which all argument positions are occupied by terms. On the other hand, a construction without an explicit subject is an open predication, that is, a predication in which at least one of the argument positions is empty. Since FG constitutes the theoretical framework of this book, the opposition in terms of the open predication / closed predication distinction is followed. Other authors, such as Kortmann (1991) in his exhaustive study of nonfinite adverbial constructions, maintain the traditional distinction between absolutes (constructions with a subject) and free adjuncts (constructions without a subject).5 Taking into account the different possibilities of expression, the following types of structures expressed by different dependent forms can be distinguished. Note that, for reasons that will be given in 2.3.1, I consider the particle to to be part of the infinitive verb form. (i) a.

b.

Dependent infinitive form: Without a subordinating particle: Open predication: He went to Vienna last year to study Baron Ochs under Alfred Jerger (LOB A39 66) Closed predication: They make us the altar for God to emit the light which can be read in every language (LOB D04 44) With a subordinating particle: Open predication: The women were always somewhat hypersensitive to criticism, and as if to refute any suggestion of collusion conspiracy, Miss Moberly deposited their letters and papers in the Bodleian (LOB F11 28) Closed predication: ..., then each man will gather-in for himself, instead of all to help to gather your corn, your wine and your oil (LOB D04 69)

5

Another exhaustive study of adverbial clauses expressed by non-finite verbal forms is the analysis of abbreviated clauses carried out by Bäcklund (1984). However, this doctoral thesis limits itself to the study of adverbial clauses with a non-finite verb form (and verbless ones) which are introduced by some subordinating element and which do not contain an explicit subject. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Formal classification (ii) a.

b.

(iii) a.

b.

37

Dependent -ing form (present participle or gerund): Without a subordinating particle: Open predication: Her mother died when Anne was eight years old, leaving three children who were placed in the workhouse (LOB G29 68) Closed predication: Prizes being what they are, Berlin is unusually generous in giving everyone something, and silver bears are awarded in every direction (LOB C02 104) With a subordinating particle: Open predication: So at least I felt more strongly than ever when reading the book under review (LOB C08 9) Closed predication: Certainly there are things wrong with the film, but the print arrived from the cutting room only a few hours before its showing and could not be considered in finished state (LOB C02 65) Dependent past participle form: Without a subordinating particle: Open predication: Nettled by some remarks by de Gaulle, the Soviet Premier had declared that France would be obliterated in another war and added: ... (LOB A26 129) Closed predication: Then he stopped singing, the world stilled to one piece – as now (LOB G26 163) With a subordinating particle: Open predication: But what matters even more than their individual merits is the cumulative effect which they achieve when brought together in this way (LOB C43 174) Closed predication: With that settled Fred was soon married. (LOB L01 178)

Regarding the clauses expressed by dependent forms which designate an open predication, Quirk et al. (1991) postulate the existence of an attachment rule which implies the identification of the subject of the subordinate clause with that of the main clause (e.g. Driving home after work, I accidentally went through a red light). However, they point out that this identification does not always take place, which results in examples of doubtful acceptability (e.g. ?Driving to Chicago that night, a sudden thought struck me) and others which are totally acceptable (e.g. When dining in the restaurant, a jacket and a tie are required), depending on the difficulty the addressee has in identifying the subject of the subordinate clause. Kortmann (1991) analyses the problem involved in identifying a ‘controller’ for these dependent verb forms with no subject, which he calls free adjuncts. He establishes a distinction between related free adjuncts, in which the subject of a dependent clause can be identified with that of the main clause (e.g. To finance these adventures, Americans are digging deeper into their pockets), and unrelated free adjuncts, in which the subject of the dependent clause is not coreferential with that of the main clause. Within the group of unrelated free adjuncts, three types of relation can be distinguished: (i) constructions without a subject, which do not show any type of controlling entity; (ii) constructions whose subject corresponds to some indefinite pronoun María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

38

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

(one/you), the speaker (I) or the addressee (you) and (iii) constructions whose subject can be identified with some element (other than the subject) of the main clause or of the co-text. Regarding constructions expressed by dependent forms which constitute a closed predication – absolutes – Kortmann (1991) analyses the type of noun phrase which can fulfil the function of subject, establishing a scale from non coreferential structures, those whose subject does not present any kind of relation with the constituents of the main clause (e.g. With profit margins getting ever smaller in traditional consumer banking, such economies are very welcome) to fully coreferential structures, which show a subject identical to a constituent of the main clause (e.g. Rob slammed the door when he came in, the bastard doing everything in his power to wake us up).6 2.2.3 Summary Taking into account the expression formats characteristic of adverbial clauses in English, the following formal classification of this type of subordinate clauses can be established: Table 2.1: Formal classification of adverbial clauses Independent Forms: Dependent Forms:

2.3

Indicative [+ subordinating particle] Subjunctive [+ subordinating particle] Open Predication [+/–subordinating participle] Closed Predication [+/–subordinating participle]

Problems relating to the expression of adverbial clauses through dependent forms

The realisation of adverbial clauses through dependent forms presents several problems which require some delimitation: the infinitive with to / infinitive without to distinction (2.3.1), the present participle / nominal form distinction (2.3.2), the lack of a subordinating particle (2.3.3) and the presence of a subordinating particle (2.3.4). 2.3.1 The infinitive with ‘to’ / infinitive without ‘to’ distinction The infinitive has traditionally been considered a non-finite verb form which may or may not be accompanied by the particle to, distinguishing contexts in which 6

This idea can be found already in Berent (1975: 14), who establishes a hierarchy of coreference which includes: overt coreference, part-whole coreference, implied coreference, no coreference. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Formal classification

39

both forms are accepted (e.g. Martin must stay and help me pack his school trunk / He helped the prince to slim by horse-riding – Scheurweghs 1961: 239) from others in which only one of the two forms can be used (e.g. His principal pastime is to drive into the country / She felt her whole body relax into the sweetest kind of peace – Scheurweghs 1961: 204 / 239). In his study of the infinitive in English, Duffley (1992) points out that it is not clear whether the two forms of infinitive constitute two different verb forms or two variants of the same verb form. This author mentions Joos’ (1964) position, who considers that two independent verb forms should be distinguished: (i) the infinitive (supine infinitive in Sweet’s 1892 terminology), which is always introduced by the marker to, and (ii) the presentative infinitive (infinitive in Sweet’s 1892 terminology), which is characterised by the absence of a marker. Moreover, Joos points out that the infinitive can be constituted by up to four words (e.g. to have been outlined, to have been getting – Joos 1964: 31), while the presentative infinitive in modern English is formed by only one word, extending to two in the imperative in its negative passive form (e.g. Don’t be seen! – Joos 1964: 31) and in the imperative in its temporal use (e.g. Be working busily when the boss comes in – Joos 1964: 31). From a semantic point of view, Joos claims that the difference lies in the fact that the infinitive is always related to a member of the clause, while the use of the presentative infinitive does not imply such a relation. Duffley (1992) argues that Joos’ position, which is characterised by its consideration of the infinitive with and without to as two independent verb forms, is inadequate for two main reasons: (i) Firstly, he emphasises that what Joos considers to be an infinitive is formed by two words (to + bare infinitive), as is shown by the fact that an adverb can be inserted between the two words (e.g. I want to really scare him) and that the to element can be found without any infinitive (e.g. I don’t want to); (ii) Secondly, he considers that Joos’ proposal does not explain the fact that there are pairs of clauses such as Thus by reducing the temperature of matter in the gaseous state it can be made to pass / one can make it pass through all three physical states. Duffley, therefore, affirms that these two forms must be analysed, not as independent, but as variants of the same verb form. As regards the significance of this variation, Duffley points out that many grammarians consider the two infinitive forms to be mere variations which do not imply any difference in meaning, limiting themselves to describing the contexts in which one or other form might appear. Moreover, he notes that some grammarians consider the use of to to be significant in some contexts and not in others. Thus, for example, Poutsma (1923), after discussing some of the aspects related to the evolution of the use of to with the infinitive, points out that in modern English, when the infinitive functions as subject and direct object, the particle to has completely lost its meaning and has become just a marker or simply a prefix of the infinitive, while when it appears after an intransitive verb or a verb in the passive voice, it maintains its prepositional category. Duffley (1992) states that this consideration of some uses of to as being meaningful and others not is contradictory, since if this were true it would be reasonable to expect María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

40

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

a tendency to lose the to in those contexts in which it does not carry meaning, yet this is not the case. Likewise, if such a distinction were accepted, it would be difficult to understand the fact that the two forms can be found in the same context, implying a difference in meaning (e.g. I saw him be impolite / I saw him to be impolite). Duffley (1992: 146), therefore, concludes that: The to infinitive, therefore, is not strictly speaking a verb but rather a syntactic construction: it involves two parts, the infinitive, a verbal form which evokes a representation of an event produced by means of the verb system, and to, a preposition which indicates a relationship between the place in time where the support has to be situated to begin actualizing the infinitive’s event (occupied by the representation of non-ordinalized person incorporated within the infinitive) and some other prior place in time which the support is also represented as occupying or having occupied previous to the realization of this event. Thus only the infinitive is part of the verbal system, and to is an element brought in from outside this system to provide for incidence to a support seen as occupying a place in time before the beginning of the event. Nevertheless, if we take into account the two tests used by Duffley (1992) to demonstrate that what Joos (1964) considers to be an infinitive form is a structure formed by two words in which to is not part of the verb form, it can be observed that these tests are applicable to complex verb forms in general, as can be seen in the possibility of inserting an adverb between the different forms which constitute it (e.g. I have always wondered. . .), as well as the possibility that one part of the verb form might appear on its own (e.g. Yes, I have). Moreover, Duffley’s (1992) study does not take into account the use of the infinitive in adverbial constructions, in which, as Poutsma points out, the use of to is “vague and weak, often to the extent of being hardly discernible” (1923: 9). In their study of adverbial clauses, Thompson and Longacre (1990) state that there are two kinds of subordinating elements: (i) Those which have no lexical significance, such as to in English (e.g. to buy beer) and (ii) those which have lexical content (e.g. before, when, if). If the use of to implies the expression of a meaning different from that expressed without to, it would be difficult to explain why the infinitive preceded by to can be introduced by other elements such as as, but, except, than, so as, as if, as though . . . (e.g. They have a radio set but do not switch it on through the day, so as to save electricity – Scheurweghs 1961: 220). Consequently, in the present work to is considered a marker of the infinitive and not a linking element, since it neither indicates the dependent status of the subordinate clause that contains it nor the semantic relation held with the main clause. Hence, clauses containing this dependent verb form can be introduced by subordinating particles which also accompany other verb forms (e.g. She treats me as if I were a stranger / She winked at me as if to say that I shouldn’t say anything – Quirk et al. 1991). This latter characteristic establishes a María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Formal classification

41

clear difference between the particle to, which is analysed as part of the infinitive, and other particles such as with, which, as will be seen below, carry no type of specific meaning about the semantic relation between the main clause and the subordinate clause, but whose status of linking elements is derived from the impossibility of their being accompanied by other subordinating particles. 2.3.2 The present participle / nominal form distinction The present participle, expressed by the suffix -ing in English, is one of the most frequently used verb forms in adverbial subordinate clauses. However, this presents some difficulties of analysis because the suffix -ing is shared by the gerund, which is a nominal form.7 In his study of free adjuncts and absolutes in English, Kortmann (1991) claims that the participial constructions should be distinguished from other similar structures which he calls nominal -ing clauses. This group of nominal clauses would be made up of: (i)

(ii) (iii)

constructions which fulfil a nominal function: subject, object or complement (e.g. Them trying to sing a song was just too horrible), although they retain their participial features. In traditional grammars these constructions are labelled half-gerund. constructions whose verb form has acquired the status of a nominal head (e.g. Their trying to sing a song was just too horrible), traditionally known as gerund forms. constructions which function as the complement of a preposition (e.g. On arriving in Oxford, the first thing he did was to visit his old supervisor).

Kortmann points out that this last kind of structure is the one that is closer to augmented free adjuncts (structures with a non-finite verb form introduced by a subordinating particle), since they do not represent a constituent of a clause, but constitute a clause themselves. However, this author does not offer any criterion which would allow for differentiation between this kind of nominal structure, which complements a preposition, and the constructions which he calls augmented free adjuncts (e.g. Before returning home, she bought presents for her parents). Matthews (1981: 180) deals with this difference when he analyses the distinction between clausal and non-clausal constructions and he states that there is a gradation which might be expressed in the following way: (i) (ii) (iii)

before I had finished breakfast before finishing breakfast before breakfast

7

In some works dealing with the -ing verbal form, such as Thompson (1973) and Reuland (1983), the term gerund is used in a broad sense, since it includes nominal gerunds and verbal gerunds. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

42

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

Basing himself on these three examples he points out that there are three different kinds of elements: (a) those which only introduce full clauses (example (i)), amongst them because, as, since (in its causal meaning) and when, while and once (taking into account that constructions such as when cycling in the country are cases of contraction of a full clause); (b) those which can only introduce prepositional phrases (example (iii)), such as at, during and through (e.g. through finishing breakfast, a construction which he considers to be different from (ii)); (c) particles which can appear in contexts (ii) and (iii), such as in and on (e.g. on welcoming them to England / on their wedding day), or which can introduce the three kinds of constructions, such as after, before and since (in its temporal sense). He concludes by establishing a classification in which he distinguishes between conjunctions (because, when, while), prepositions (on, at, through) and elements which are at the same time conjunctions and prepositions (before, after). However, Matthews does not provide any clear way of distinguishing between constructions formed by a conjunction + a clause with the verbal -ing form (e.g. I wear it when cycling in the country) and constructions formed by a preposition + a gerund or nominal form (e.g. He left before seeing me), since he thinks that the difference lies in the fact that the former can be interpreted as a reduction of a full clause (e.g. I wear it when I am cycling in the country), whereas the second cannot (e.g. *He left before he was seeing me). A similar approach is taken by Poutsma (1929), who, when analysing the different types of undeveloped clauses that can function as adverbial clauses, distinguishes between infinitive, gerund, participial and nominal undeveloped clauses. The distinction between the present participle and the gerund seems to be based on the fact that the latter is introduced by a preposition which indicates the type of adverbial relation involved. In the present book, no distinction is made between these two different structures, because it is considered that both are cases of dependent verb forms. The more problematical -ing forms are those which are clear cases of the gerund – verb forms which have acquired features typical of the nominal category. In dealing with the communicative functions of subordinate clauses, Mackenzie (1984) points out that subordination can be considered a gradual phenomenon, since the more backgrounded the information expressed by a subordinate clause is, the less verbal properties and the more nominal properties the predicate contains. Mackenzie gives a scale composed of a series of features (agreement, mood, aspect, required arguments, . . .), which become fewer as the subordinate clause takes on a more nominal form. He believes that this scale offers the possibility of establishing various groups around three points on the scale: verbal subordinate forms, subordinate forms which combine verbal and nominal features, and nominal subordinate forms. Regarding this classification, Givón (1990), who believes that there is a gradation between finite and nominal forms, mentions a series of changes which take place in a prototypical finite clause before it becomes nominal. Some of these features, mentioned below, can be used to distinguish between a present participle and a gerund:

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Formal classification (i)

(ii)

(iii)

43

The case marker of the subject and direct object usually adapts to that of the genitive in the most nominal forms. Thus, for example, the gerund form presents the subject in the genitive (e.g. Bill’s doing some work was a surprise / Their cooking dinner was a great help – Matthews 1981: 179), also expressed through a prepositional phrase introduced by of or through a possessive pronoun (e.g. The coming of the Piper and his going was not open to any such doubt – Scheurwerghs 1961: 181). In the case of the present participle, on the other hand, the subject appears in the accusative (e.g. Them cooking dinner was a great help – Matthews 1981: 179). There is a relation between the degree of nominalisation of an expression and its ability to combine with determiners. This feature of the gerund can be seen in The typing of this chapter is very boring (Matthews 1981: 179), introduced by the definite article and accompanied by a genitive complement, a construction which contrasts with that formed by the present participle Typing this letter is very boring (Matthews 1981: 179), in which the verb form does not allow for the presence of a determiner and whose complement is in the accusative (e.g. Typing them . . .). Manner adverbs tend to become modifying adjectives in the more nominal structures. The gerund construction The illegal trapping of red deer, in which the nominal -ing form is modified by an adjective, would correspond to trapping red deer illegally or illegally trapping red deer (Matthews 1981: 178), in which the verbal -ing form is complemented by an adverb.

Although Matthews (1981) is conscious of the differences between these two structures, he believes that neither is a clear example of a clause or phrase, but that they can be classed as an intermediate category. In the present work both types of construction are taken into consideration, because although the gerund forms show certain features belonging to the nominal category, it is not always easy to distinguish them from verbal -ing forms. König and Van der Auwera explain that in English “there is no clear formal distinction between adverbial and attributive participles, between verbal nouns (called “gerunds”) and predicative uses of the -ing constructions” (1990: 346). It can be stated that, since the distinction between present participle and gerund does not correspond to functional aspects, and, since in English the verb forms present no formal difference, there is no reason to distinguish between these categories. In this work, therefore, reference is made to verbal -ing forms, without establishing a distinction between present participle and gerund. 2.3.3 Lack of subordinating particle Of the possible realisations of adverbial clauses with a dependent verb form, those which are most difficult to analyse are participial clauses, present or past, which are not introduced by a conjunction or a preposition which indicates the type of relation they hold with the main clause. Quirk et al. (1991) call these constructions supplementive clauses. As has been pointed out earlier, this kind of María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

44

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

clause can have an explicit subject, resulting in a closed predication, (unaugmented absolutes in Kortmann’s 1991 terminology) or have no subject, resulting in an open predication, (unaugmented free adjuncts for Kortmann 1991), in which case the subject of the subordinate clause is usually identified with the subject of the main clause. The former type of construction, constituted by a subordinate clause which has its own subject, at first glance seems to have similarities with the structure of a nominal phrase in which the head is postmodified by a clause. However, a clear distinction can be established between both of these constructions if it is borne in mind that in the former case the participial verb form cannot be omitted, while it can be in the latter case, as can be seen in the following examples: (4)

(5)

In The discussion completed, the chairman adjourned the meeting for half an hour what can be seen is an adverbial subordinate clause expressed by a dependent verb form (completed) accompanied by its subject (the discussion). In this case the verb form cannot be omitted (*The discussion, the chairman...). In The interpretation given to these facts is hardly convincing what can be seen is a relative clause expressed by a dependent verb form (given) which modifies a head noun (interpretation). In this case it is possible to omit the clause which functions as postmodifier (The interpretation is hardly convincing).

Quirk et al. (1991) point out that the difficulty in analysing these supplementive clauses is greater when they do not have an explicit subject and have a position immediately after their antecedent, that is, after the nominal phrase in the main clause which constitutes the implicit subject of the subordinate clause. Thus, the clause This substance, discovered almost by accident, has revolutionized medicine has two possible analyses: (6) (7)

This substance, which was discovered... (relative clause, postmodifying the noun phrase this substance) Discovered almost by accident, this substance... (in this initial position it is interpreted as an adverbial subordinate clause with a dependent verb form, discovered, whose subject is identified with that of the main clause, this substance)

Regarding this type of structure, Kortmann (1991) explains that it is necessary to distinguish between restrictive relative clauses (e.g. The blonde girl wearing green trousers looks a bit out of place) and non-restrictive relative clauses (e.g. The blonde girl, wearing . . ., looks a bit out of place), since in the latter case the dependent clause can adopt an initial or final position, and therefore is an example of a dependent construction with adverbial meaning. Dik (1997b: 39) points out that the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive constructions can be seen in the prosodic features of these constructions:

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Formal classification

45

Whereas restrictors are integrated into the prosodic contour of the term structure in which they occur, non-restrictors are characteristically “punctuated”, set off within that structure by prosodic inflections which more or less literally put them between brackets. This prosodic difference, which is generally similar across languages, iconically symbolizes the less integrated, more independent status of the information contained in non-restrictors. It can be stated, therefore, that non-restrictive constructions, while showing a greater independence with respect to the element to which they refer, are more like adverbial constructions. In the present work, non-finite restrictive clauses are not analysed, since they are considered to be clauses embedded in a nominal group which they modify, given their formal and semantic dependence with respect to the element which they modify. Nevertheless, non-finite non-restrictive clauses are taken into account, since it is believed that the distinction between non-restrictive relative clauses and adverbial clauses has been neutralised in those cases in which the non-finite verb form takes a position immediately after the noun. Moreover, an adverbial interpretation is often implied by dependent constructions which come after the noun to which they refer (e.g. The children, having eaten their fill, were allowed to leave the table – Quirk et al. 1991: 1125). The problem inherent in dependent constructions which are in an intermediate position disappears when they are in an initial or final position, contexts typical of adverbial subordinate clauses, where there is a different interpretation. Thus for example, The blonde girl, (who was) wearing green trousers, looks a bit out of place (non-restrictive relative clause) does not have the same meaning as Wearing green trousers, the blonde girl looks a bit out of place (adverbial clause). Quirk et al. (1991) point out that in final position these supplementive clauses can also be confused with part of the complementation of the verb. Thus, the clause I saw Pam going home, can be interpreted as: (8) (9)

I saw Pam when I was going home, in which case it is understood that going home is an adverbial clause whose subject coincides with that of the main clause. I saw Pam when she was going home, in which case Pam going home is a constituent of the clause and therefore part of the complementation of the verb.

Thompson (1983), in her study of the discursive function of detached participial clauses, claims that the main characteristic of these constructions stems from the fact that they are detached, showing the same intonation pattern as independent clauses when they are separated by commas. She points out that this characteristic is what allows these constructions with -ing forms to be distinguished from other uses of this verb form, amongst which she notes (Thompson 1983: 44):

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

46 a. b. c. d.

e.

f. g. h.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero Relative Clauses The woman standing in the corner is my boss Complement to there is There’s a guy picking pears Complements to verbs of perception She sees them walking away Complements to “phase” verbs They start eating them They keep walking back He was busy cleaning his desk Complements to verbs of “appearance” She just stood there staring at me He came in limping She went riding past the tree Combined with BE in a progressive They’re all standing around We couldn’t figure out what was happening Prenominal modifier What will you do with the two remaining avocados? Gerunds He thanked the boys for helping him Cats don’t like getting wet

Moreover, she believes that the main function of these constructions is that of presenting backgrounded information,8 that is, information “that serves to further explicate, amplify, or elaborate what is in the main clause, or that represents an event occurring simultaneously with or providing a comment on or motivation for the event in the main clause” (1983: 44). This function can be extensive in constructions whose head is another dependent non-finite form (infinitive or past participle). Hengeveld (1998: 341) believes that these non-finite structures, characterised by the absence of a subordinating element which introduces them, are cases of contextual adverbial verb forms (a term adopted from Nedjalkov 1998) which can express a large number of different adverbial functions and, therefore, pose a problem when trying to establish a semantic classification, an aspect which is analysed in the following chapter. 2.3.4 Presence of a subordinating particle As has been mentioned, adverbial clauses expressed through dependent forms present difficulties when determining the meaning which they express because very often they are not introduced by any subordinating particle. However, this 8

As has already been mentioned, Dik attributes the opposite function to these constructions, that of presenting “the salient, focal, foregrounded information” (1997b: 124). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Formal classification

47

difficulty of interpretation is obvious even on occasions when the subordinate clause is introduced by a subordinating element. Kortmann (1991) establishes a distinction between augmented free adjuncts, non-finite dependent forms with no explicit subject introduced by a particle, and augmented absolutes, non-finite dependent forms with explicit subject introduced by a particle.9 He believes that the difference lies in the fact that whereas the use of a subordinating particle facilitates the interpretation of a free adjunct, this does not happen in the case of absolutes. Regarding the use of subordinating elements with free adjuncts, Kortmann (1991: 194) observes: Even if it is not always the case that the presence of an augmenting conjunction may wholly determine the semantic relation they express, it undoubtedly imposes strong limitations on the search domain for interpretations available to the adjunct in question. Beukema (1982; 1985) distinguishes three types of free adjuncts: (i) those introduced by a complementiser ((al)though, when, while, if, once,...), (ii) those introduced by a preposition (with, without, before, after, on,...) and (iii) those which are neither introduced by a complementiser nor by a preposition. However, Kortmann points out that dependent forms with an explicit subject (absolutes) can only be introduced by a very small number of subordinating elements (with, without, what with (colloquial English) and and (especially in Irish English)) which do not in themselves facilitate the interpretation of the meaning of the adverbial clause. Thus, for example, Quirk et al. (1991) state that clauses introduced by with and without do not, in the majority of cases, express more than a circumstantial value (e.g. With so many children to support, they both have to work full time), although they can occasionally express more specific semantic relations (e.g. With them on our side, we are secure – conditional meaning).10 Nevertheless, in the present work with, but not without, will be considered as being characterised by this lack of semantic determination, since in the case of without it can be seen that this particle introduces clauses which express Negative Circumstance, that is, they express a circumstance which is not real in relation to the main clause. 9

Berent (1973), in his analysis of absolute constructions, establishes a distinction between these constructions and paratactic and hypotactic conjunctions. He points out that absolute constructions, like hypotactic conjunctions, mark a clause as being subordinate, but, like paratactic conjunctions, do not facilitate the precise interpretation of the kind of relation which is established. 10 König and Van der Auwera (1990), in their typological study of absolute constructions, state that connectors such as with (or avec in French) are compatible with any adverbial interpretation. However, they add that the presence or absence of with (or avec) determines whether an absolute construction can have a conditional interpretation or not, since only constructions introduced by that particle can have a conditional meaning. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

48

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

It should also be mentioned that the number of subordinating particles which introduce dependent verb forms with an explicit subject is not as small as Kortmann states, since Quirk et al. (1991) add the use of after, before, since, on and through, elements which have a broader meaning. Nevertheless, the difference lies in the fact that, as was mentioned earlier, Kortmann excludes absolutes, those constructions which function as the complement of a preposition, from his study, while he later (1994: 67) considers with and without to be intermediate cases between the preposition and conjunction categories.11 In the present work this kind of adverbial construction which is expressed through a dependent non-finite verb form with an explicit subject and which is introduced by a subordinating particle that has no specific semantic value (e.g. with) receives the same kind of analysis as those structures which are characterised by the absence of a subordinating element.

11

Berent points out that “This with is not to be equated with the preposition with since it can precede an absolute beginning with the expletive there” (1975: 11), a construction which he exemplifies with the following clause: With there being so many people in the room, we couldn’t hear each other.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

3.

The semantic classification of adverbial clauses

3.1

Introduction

Semantic classifications of adverbial clauses have traditionally been based on the kind of semantic relation which exists between the subordinate clause and the main clause, taking as a reference the type of subordinate conjunction which introduces them. However, there seem to be no clear classifying parameters which can be applied in a systematic way in order to arrive at a complete and exhaustive typology of these subordinate clauses. Recently, a new semantic classification of adverbial clauses has been proposed by Hengeveld (1998), who establishes a semantic classification of these subordinate clauses based on the application of four parameters which constitute four hierarchies that operate interactively.1 3.2

Parameters and hierarchies

The four classifying parameters proposed by Hengeveld (1998), in his study of semantic types and expression formats of adverbial clauses, are: Entity Type (3.2.1), Time Dependency (3.2.2), Factuality (3.2.3) and Presupposition (3.2.4). The last three parameters correspond to the different types of dependency which Noonan (1990), in his study of complementation, considers to be relevant for the relation between a predicate and the complement clause it requires. He distinguishes between time reference dependency, truth-value (epistemic) dependency and discourse dependency. 3.2.1 Entity Type Taking the classification of the different entity types shown in Table 3.1 as his point of departure, Hengeveld (1998: 345) claims that four different types of adverbial clause can be distinguished, depending on the kind of entity that they designate.

1

In a first approach to the study of semantic types of adverbial clauses, Hengeveld (1993) proposes the existence of only two parameters, Entity Type and Factivity, although he also mentions Temporal Dependency in relation to the first of these parameters. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

50

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

Table 3.1: Classification of Entity types (Hengeveld 1998) Entity type Zero order First order Second order Third order Fourth order

Description Property or relation Individual State of affairs Propositional content Speech act

Evaluation Applicability Existence Reality Truth Informativeness

According to this classification of entities four large groups of adverbial subordinate clauses might be expected: zero order, second order, third order and fourth order clauses. There are no first order subordinate clauses because first order entities can only be expressed by terms and not by clauses. It is important to mention here that the classification of the different types of entity is applied to the analysis of the internal structure of adverbial clauses and not to their external structure.2 In the latter case the function of the satellite realised by the subordinate clause within the main clause is taken into account, analysing the layer of the hierarchical structure of the clause it modifies (predicate, predication, proposition or illocution).3 The following examples4 show four types of adverbial clauses, characterised in terms of their internal structure as designating entities of different

2

Hengeveld (1989) clearly establishes this distinction when he points out that the hierarchical structure of the clause can be applied to the study of the internal and external structure of adverbial clauses. On the other hand, it can only be applied to the study of the internal structure of complement clauses, since, from the point of view of their external structure, these clauses always function as arguments and not as satellites. 3 Not taking this distinction into account can lead to confusion and to establish parallelisms between studies which are actually based on different aspects of adverbial clauses. Thus, Kortmann (1997: 31) notes a parallelism between Hengeveld’s classification and that proposed by other grammarians: Haegeman (content / epistemic), Schiffrin (fact-based / knowledge-based / action-based), Sweetser (content / epistemic / speech-act). However, this correspondence is incorrect, because Hengeveld’s classification is based on the internal structure of adverbial clauses (the type of entity designated by the adverbial clause) while Kortmann seems to refer to the external structure (the relation which the adverbial clause has with the main clause), as the following statement implies: “what Haegeman’s account ultimately amounts to is that certain interclausal relations inherently operate on either the content or the epistemic level, or at least that interclausal relations differ as to their potential for being used on one of these two planes of discourse” (1997: 30). 4 The examples in this chapter which are not accompanied by a reference have been taken from Hengeveld (1998). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

51

orders, which in turn can be associated with different layers of the hierarchical structure of the clause: (1) (2) (3) (4)

They escaped by sliding down a rope (Means – Zero order) The fuse blew because we had overloaded the circuit (Cause – Second order) Jenny went home because her sister might visit her (Reason – Third order) Jenny isn’t here, for I don’t see her (Explanation – Fourth order)

The difference between an adverbial clause which designates a zero order entity and one which designates a second order entity lies in the fact that the former is part of a clause which describes one single, even if complex, event, while in the latter case two independent events are described. This difference is reflected in the fact that the predicates in the first type of clause are characterised by the obligatory sharing of arguments (e.g. *They escaped by my sliding down a rope), while the arguments of the predicates in the second type of clause are independently specified. Regarding the difference between second order clauses, which designate states of affairs, and third order clauses, which designate propositional contents, Hengeveld states that there are various ways to establish a distinction between them, such as the fact that the latter allow for the expression of propositional attitudes, while the former do not (e.g. Jenny went home because her sister might visit her / *The fuse blew because we might have overloaded the circuit). As far as the distinction between clauses which designate third order and fourth order entities is concerned, the fact that fourth order entities constitute a speech act different from that of the main clause can be seen in the possibility of inserting illocutionary modifications in the subordinate clause (e.g. Jenny isn’t here, for, honestly, I don’t see her / *Jenny went home because, frankly, her sister might visit her).5 Following this classification based on the types of entities designated by adverbial subordinate clauses, the following hierarchy can be established in relation to the distribution of expression formats: Entity Type Hierarchy Zero order > Second order > Third order > Fourth order According to this hierarchy, as well as to those derived from the parameters which will be discussed below, dependent forms are more likely to appear in adverbial clauses of the type lying further to the left on the hierarchy (e.g. zero order) than in those situated further to the right. As I will show later, the Entity 5

Although in the case of Jenny went home because, frankly, her sister would visit her the clause is not strictly considered ungrammatical, the clause satellite includes within its scope the whole complex clause (main + subordinate), while in Jenny isn’t here, for, honestly, I don’t see her, only the subordinate clause is included within the scope of the adverb. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

52

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

Type parameter and the hierarchy derived from its application is fairly productive in describing the distribution of the expression formats of the different types of adverbial clause.6 3.2.2 Time Dependency As was pointed out above, Noonan (1990), in his analysis of complement clauses, claims that a complement, in relation to the predicate on which it depends, can exhibit a relation which he calls time reference dependency and which he describes as follows: “A complement has dependent or determined time reference (DTR) if its time reference is a necessary consequence of the meaning of the CTP” (Noonan 1990: 92) (CTP = complement-taking predicate). Hengeveld (1998), after examining adverbial clauses (Cause and Simultaneity) which designate the same type of entity but which in some languages have different expression formats, also considers the need for the application of a new differentiating parameter. This second parameter is that of Time Dependency, which establishes that certain adverbial clauses exhibit Dependent Time Reference (DTR) , while others show Independent Time Refererence (ITR), as can be seen in the following examples: (5) (6)

He cut himself while shaving (Simultaneity – DTR) The streets are wet because it is raining / because it was raining (Cause – ITR)

This parameter is, however, only relevant for second order adverbial clauses, since zero order clauses necessarily have DTR and third and fourth order clauses necessarily have ITR. According to this parameter the following hierarchy can be established: Time Dependency Hierarchy Dependent Time Reference > Independent Time Reference

6

This hierarchy can also be applied to the analysis of other types of subordinate clause, such as complement clauses, as Mairal Usón (1993) shows when analysing the extensional (designation) properties of complement clauses in English.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

53

3.2.3 Factuality7 The third parameter in the classification of semantic types of adverbial clauses is Factuality (truth-value (epistemic) dependency in Noonan’s 1990 terminology), an independent parameter which is applicable to all types of entity, and which distinguishes between factual clauses (which describe a property or relation as applicable; a state of affairs as real; a propositional content as true and a speech act as assertive) and non-factual clauses (which describe the different types of entities in opposing terms). Factuality differences can be illustrated by contrasting two types of clause, of Cause and Potential Circumstance, which designate second order entities, exhibit ITR and are non-presupposed (fourth parameter): (7) (8)

The fuse blew because we had overloaded the circuit (Cause – Factual) I’ll come tomorrow in case Ann wants me (Potential Circumstance – NonFactual)

The Factuality parameter determines the following hierarchy, according to which it is more probable that dependent forms appear in factual adverbial clauses than in non-factual ones, situated to the right of the hierarchy. Factuality Hierarchy Factual > Non-Factual 3.2.4 Presupposition8 3.2.4.1 The concept of presupposition Although Hengeveld (1998) proposes the application of the Presupposition parameter to the analysis of adverbial clauses, he unfortunately does not offer a precise definition of it. However, given that the concept of presupposition, as various authors point out,9 has been given very different interpretations and definitions, it is necessary to provide a clear definition of this concept. 7

In Hengeveld (1993) the Factuality parameter is not taken into account. What is discussed is the degree of Factivity, which is defined in relation to Presupposition: “Within non-factive clauses the speaker asserts certain pieces of information, within factive clauses he presupposes certain pieces of information. Factive adverbial clauses describe either events that are presupposed by the speaker to be real (second order-true factive) or propositional contents presupposed by the speaker to be true (third order-semi-factive).” (Hengeveld 1993: 123) 8 Hengeveld and Wanders (1997) refer to this fourth parameter as Factuality Dependency. 9 Cf. Karttunen 1971a; Keenan 1971; Garner 1971; Kempson 1975, 1979; Karttunen and Peters 1979; Gazdar 1979; Van der Auwera 1979; Bickerton 1979; Saeed 1997. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

54

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

When defining the concept of presupposition, the point of departure can be an informal or general use of the term, a position which is described by Keenan (1971: 45) in the following way: In general I want to consider that the presuppositions of a sentence are those conditions that the world must meet in order for the sentence to make literal sense. Thus if some such condition is not met, for some sentence S, then either S makes no sense at all or else it is understood in some nonliteral way, for example as a joke or metaphor. Or as Saeed (1997: 93) puts it: “In ordinary language, of course, to presuppose something means to assume it”. Nevertheless, although these descriptions reflect the intuitive meaning that the term presupposition has for the speaker, they are too abstract and, therefore, insufficient for the definition of a classifying parameter which must be applied in a systematic way to the analysis of adverbial clauses. On the other hand, these definitions are so vague and general that they could form part of any of the approaches which have dealt with the subject. Apart from this non-technical view of presupposition, some authors (Keenan 1971; Kempson 1975; Saeed 1997) state that the different studies of presupposition can be grouped into two main approaches: a pragmatic and a semantic one. A semantic or logico-semantic approach10 considers presupposition not in relation to utterances but in relation to clauses and lexical elements. Clauses and lexical elements are analysed, therefore, as products, without taking into account the process of production nor the participants (speaker/addressee) in that process. Thus, “Meaning is seen as an attribute of sentences rather than something constructed by the participants. Semantics then consists of relating a sentenceobject to other sentence-objects and to the world” (Saeed 1997: 94). A (logico-)semantic definition of presupposition could be established in the following way: A sentence S logically presupposes a sentence S’ just in case S logically implies S’ and the negation of S, ~S, also logically implies S’. In other words, the truth of S’ is a necessary condition on the truth or falsity of S. Thus if S’ is not true then S can be neither true nor false (and must in the formal logic be assigned a third or “nonsense” value). (Keenan 1971: 45-6) In contrast to studies of the concept of presupposition based on a semantic approach, it is worthwhile noting the position of other linguists11 who have 10

The semantic approach can be seen in, amongst others, the works of Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970), Karttunen (1971a) and Katz (1979). 11 See, for example, Kempson 1975; Platteau 1978; Karttunen and Peters 1979; Van der Auwera 1979; Gazdar 1979; Schiebe 1979; Wilson and Sperber 1979; Saeed 1997. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

55

proposed a pragmatic analysis. The pragmatic approach considers presupposition to be a property of utterances. Clauses are not analysed in isolation but as utterances expressed by individuals in a communicative act. Saeed (1997: 94) refers to this type of approach in the following way: The aim here is about modelling the strategies that speakers and hearers use to communicate with one another. So we might look at communication from the speaker’s viewpoint and talk about presupposition as part of the task of packaging an utterance; or adopt the listener’s viewpoint and see presupposition as one of a number of inferences that the listener might make on the basis of what the speaker has just said. In the present study of adverbial clauses a pragmatic approach to the concept of presupposition is adopted, since it implies the description of presupposition “in terms of a speaker’s strategies to package her message against her estimate of what her audience knows” (Saeed 1997: 102). Therefore, this approach allows the analysis of the presupposition of a clause, not in abstraction of but in relation to the speaker’s estimate of the information that the addressee makes use of (which is what Van der Auwera 1979 calls irrefutable meaning).12 A pragmatic approach to presupposition, therefore, is more appropriate from the FG perspective, since it takes into account the analysis of a linguistic phenomenon from the point of view of communication between individuals.13 The FG view on communication is reflected in Dik’s (1997a) model of verbal interaction, in which the speaker’s pragmatic information, consisting of three different kinds of information (general, situational and contextual), includes a theory about the addressee’s pragmatic information, and vice versa. This theory plays an essential role in verbal interaction, because it allows the speaker to anticipate the possible interpretations that the addressee will make of his expression, and allows the addressee to reconstruct the communicative intention of the speaker. This interrelation between speaker and addressee is represented as follows (Dik 1997a: 11):

12

Van der Auwera (1979), basing himself on Grice’s distinction between what is said or meant and what is suggested, implied and meant, suggests distinguishing between irrefutable meaning, which exists because of some suppositions on the part of the addressee, and refutable meaning, which owes its existence to some suppositions on the part of the speaker. He concludes that pragmatic presupposition is, therefore, irrefutable meaning. 13 Mairal Usón (1993), in his analysis of complement clauses within FG, also claims that the logico-semantic approach is too limited, although useful in some respects, from a functional perspective. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

56

María Jesús Pérez Quintero Speaker

PS

Addressee

(PA)S

(PS)A

PA

PS= speaker’s pragmatic information PA= addressee’s pragmatic information (PA)S= what the speaker thinks about the addressee’s pragmatic information (PS)A= what the addressee thinks about the speaker’s pragmatic information Figure 3.1: Mutual knowledge of speaker and addressee (Dik 1997a) The relevance of this interrelation between the speaker and the addressee to linguistic expressions is expressed by Dik (1997a: 11) in the following way: Since participants have a theory about the pragmatic information of the other, they can also estimate what is shared and what is not shared between their own and the other’s pragmatic information. This estimate of shared and non-shared information is of obvious importance for the success of verbal interaction. One rather common strategy is for S to start from estimated shared information, and to proceed from there to estimated non-shared information in order to have this added to, or substituted for, pieces of A’s pragmatic information. This strategy, [...], also has to impact on the pragmatically relevant structuring of linguistic expressions. Note that a pragmatic approach to presupposition does not imply a general rejection of the considerations associated with a semantic approach (e.g. Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970). In fact, semantic presupposition could be understood as yet another aspect of pragmatic presupposition. The analysis of a clause from a communicative point of view does not mean setting aside the semantic value of that clause, that is, the relation between the different lexical items, but analysing it taking its context into account. Thus, the approach adopted is consistent with the FG model because, as was mentioned earlier (Chapter 1), in the functional paradigm pragmatics is seen as an all-encompassing frame within which semantics and syntax should be studied. 3.2.4.2 The Presupposition parameter Thus, the fourth parameter needed for establishing the semantic classification of adverbial clauses is the concept of presupposition considered from a pragmatic María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

57

point of view. Noonan, in his study on complementation, mentions the concept of discourse dependency, which could be identified with pragmatic presupposition, and he comments that “A complement is discourse dependent if it is part of the background or common ground of the participants” (1990: 92). Hengeveld (1996; 1998), without making explicit his definition of presupposition, argues that this is a very useful parameter for the study of complement clauses as well as adverbial subordinate clauses. The difference between presupposed and non-presupposed adverbial clauses can be illustrated by contrasting an adverbial clause of Purpose with one of Negative Circumstance, since both designate second order entities, show DTR and are non-factual: (9) (10)

I left early to catch the train (Purpose – Non-Presupposed) She left without saying goodbye (Negative Circumstance – Presupposed)

In (9) it is not presupposed that the state of affairs designated in the subordinate clause is a fact (e.g. I left early to catch the train but then I decided to go by foot / but I didn’t catch it), while in (10) the opposite of what is expressed in the subordinate clause (that is, saying goodbye) is presupposed (e.g. *She left without saying goodbye but she said goodbye). Presupposition determines the following hierarchy: Presupposition Hierarchy Presupposed > Non-Presupposed According to this hierarchy, it is more likely that dependent verb forms occur in presupposed than in non-presupposed adverbial clauses. This hierarchy can be applied to different types of adverbial clauses determined by the other classifying parameters: Factuality, Entity Type and Time Dependency. In the Factual domain, presupposition implies factivity, the presupposition that an event is real (second order) or that a propositional content is true (third order). In the Nonfactual domain, presupposition implies counter-factivity, the presupposition that an event is unreal or that a propositional content is false. 14 Finally, the hierarchy can be applied, within the class of adverbial clause designating second order entities, to adverbial clauses with both DTR and ITR. The application of this parameter to the different types of adverbial clause can be illustrated in the following examples taken from Hengeveld (1998):15

14

Hengeveld (1998) does not apply the parameter of Presupposition parameter to clauses which designate fourth order entities, because he only distinguishes one type, Explanation (non-presupposed). 15 Note, however, that the different types of adverbial clause do not correspond exactly to those distinguished in the present work. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

58

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

Factual domain: (i) Third order entities: Jenny went home because her sister would visit her (Reason – Nonpresupposed) / He got the job although he had no qualifications (Concession – Presupposed). The difference between these two clauses lies in the fact that in the first the speaker does not presuppose the truth of the propositional content expressed in the subordinate clause (he/she does not presuppose that the visit of her sister is a fact), while in the second such presupposition can be observed (the speaker presupposes he had no qualifications to be a fact). (ii) Second order entities: a. Dependent Time Reference: He cut himself while shaving (Simultaneity – Non-presupposed) / After doing the cooking I looked after the garden (Anteriority – Presupposed). b. Independent Time Reference: The fuse blew because of our overloading the circuit (Cause – Nonpresupposed) / Apart from doing the cooking I look after the garden (Addition – Presupposed). In the first clause in each pair, the speaker does not presuppose that the state of affairs described in the subordinate clause is real, while in the second clause in each pair the speaker does presuppose that the state of affairs described in the subordinate clause is real. Non-factual domain: (i) Third order entities: He won’t get the job if he has no qualifications (Potential Condition – Non-presupposed) / He wouldn’t get the job if he had no qualification (Unreal Condition – Presupposed). In the first clause the speaker does not presuppose that the propositional content expressed in the subordinate clause is not true (the speaker does not presuppose that he has no qualifications is not true), while in the second clause the speaker does presuppose that the propositional content is not true (the speaker presupposes that he had no qualifications is not true). (ii) Second order entities: a. Dependent Time Reference: I left early to catch the train (Purpose – Non-presupposed) / She left without saying goodbye (Negative Circumstance – Presupposed). b. Independent Time Reference: I’ll come tomorrow in case Ann wants me (Potential Circumstance – Nonpresupposed) / She always greets me as if I were her best friend (Unreal Circumstance – Presupposed). In the first clause in each pair the state of affairs is presented as unreal, but the speaker does not presuppose it to be unreal. In the second clause of each pair the speaker does presuppose that the state of affairs described in the subordinate clause is unreal.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

59

3.2.5 Summary Applying the four parameters presented in the previous sections, Hengeveld (1998: 353) arrives at the semantic classification of adverbial subordinate clauses presented in Table 3.2. In section 3.3 I show that this classification is incomplete, and a number of additional classes of adverbial clauses have to be included in order to provide a complete classification of adverbial clauses in English. Table 3.2: Semantic classification of adverbial clauses (Hengeveld 1998)

Factual

NonPresupposed

Zero Second order order Means ITR Cause

Presupposed NonFactual

NonPresupposed Presupposed

DTR Simultaneity ITR Addition DTR Anteriority ITR Potential circumstance DTR Purpose ITR Unreal circumstance DTR Negative circumstance

Third order

Fourth order

Reason

Explanation

Concession Potential condition Unreal condition

ITR= Independent Time Reference; DTR: Dependent Time Reference

3.3 Classification This section offers the classification of adverbial clauses in English which results from the application of the four parameters proposed by Hengeveld (1998) from a typological perspective. 3.3.1 Clauses of Means This type of adverbial clause designates “a secondary relation in which one of the main clause participants is engaged, the entire clause thus describing a single event” (Hengeveld 1998: 346). (11)

They escaped by sliding down a rope

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

60

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Means: Zero order / Factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.2 Clauses of Time A Temporal clause expresses a relation between the time of the event described in that clause and that of the main clause. Quirk et al. point out that these clauses function as adjuncts, predication satellites in FG’s terminology. The temporal relation expressed by the subordinate clause can be one of Anteriority, Simultaneity or Posteriority. 3.3.2.1 Anteriority This type of clause indicates that the situation expressed in the subordinate clause takes place before the one expressed in the main clause. Conjunctions which introduce this type of clause are after, as soon as, directly, immediately, once, since,16 when, whenever and now (that).17 (12)

Come over right after you’ve finished working (Quirk et al. 1991)

Semantic characterisation of adverbial clauses of Anteriority: Second order / DTR / Factuality / Presupposition 3.3.2.2 Simultaneity These clauses indicate that the situation expressed in the main clause and the one expressed in the subordinate clause take place at the same time. Subordinating conjunctions which express simultaneity are as, as long as, so long as, while, whilst, when, whenever and now (that). (13)

While we were eating, we heard a noise outside the window (Thompson and Longrace 1990)

The semantic features which characterise adverbial clauses of Simultaneity are: Second order / DTR / Factuality / Non-presupposition

16

Aarts (1979: 604) states that, although both after and since refer to a period of time before the main clause, since specifies the point at which this period begins which, moreover, covers the now and then. Nevertheless, in the case of after, this period belongs to the past (e.g. John has been ill since we left England / John was ill after we left England). 17 The conjunctions cited in this chapter are those quoted by Quirk et al. (1991). In Chapter 4, the conjunctions which introduce the different adverbial clauses found in the corpus are given. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

61

3.3.2.3 Posteriority This type of Temporal clause indicates that the situation described in the subordinate clause takes place after the one described in the main clause. The most frequent conjunctions are until,18 till and before. (14) (15)

I didn’t start my meal until Adam arrived (Quirk et al. 1991) I started my meal before Adam arrived (Quirk et al. 1991)

The characterisation of adverbial clauses of Posteriority is as follows: Second order / DTR / Non-factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.3 Clauses of Manner This group of adverbial subordinate clauses would include those which Quirk et al. call Similarity clauses, introduced by as and like. Although clauses of Manner have generally been considered to be a homogeneous category, here a distinction is made between clauses of Eventive Manner, Epistemic Manner and Illocutionary Manner. 3.3.3.1 Eventive Manner Adverbial clauses of Eventive Manner describe a state of affairs which expresses the way in which the state of affairs described in the main clause is realised. (16)

She cooked a turkey as her mother did (Quirk et al. 1991)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Eventive Manner: Second order / ITR / Factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.3.2 Epistemic Manner This subclass of clauses of Manner expresses a propositional content, indicating therefore the idea that is in the mind of the speaker about the manner in which the state of affairs expressed in the main clause is realised. (17)

He knew the truth as few could do (LOB K18 38)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Epistemic Manner: Third order / Factuality / Non-presupposition 18

Karttunen (1974) suggests that there are two forms of until, one durative (e.g. The princess slept until the prince kissed her) and the other punctual, of negative polarity, (e.g. The princess didn’t wake up until the prince kissed her), instead of considering that in both cases until accompanies a durative predicate (slept and didn’t wake up). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

62

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

3.3.3.3 Illocutionary Manner This subtype of clauses of Manner designate a fourth order entity, because in themselves they constitute speech acts. (18)

He was, as I was later to discover, extraordinarily kind, but hated either to acknowledge or have it acknowledged (LOB G16 91)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Illocutionary Manner: Fourth order / Factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.4 Clauses of Comparison Quirk et al. point out that comparison clauses, which are introduced mainly by the conjunctions as if and as though, can be factual and non-factual. However, in accordance with the parameters used here it is claimed that Comparison clauses show no difference as regards Factuality, since all of the constructions belonging to this category are non-factual. The difference is determined by the concept of presupposition, according to which two types of Comparison clause can be distinguished: Potential Comparison and Unreal Comparison. 3.3.4.1 Potential Comparison Subordinate clauses which are included in this subclass of adverbial clauses are non-presupposed, since it is not presupposed that the state of affairs described in the subordinate clause is not a fact. (19)

He bent down as if tightening his shoe laces (Quirk et al. 1991)

The semantic characterisation of clauses of Potential Comparison is as follows: Second order / ITR / Non-factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.4.2 Unreal Comparison Contrary to what happens in clauses of Potential Comparison, this subclass of adverbial subordinate clauses describes a state of affairs which is presupposed to be unreal.19 (20)

She greets me as if I were her best friend (Quirk et al. 1991)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Unreal Comparison: Second order / ITR / Non-factuality / Presupposition

19

Pfeffer (1985) emphasises the unreal value of these clauses which he calls (Hypothetical) clauses of Comparison. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

63

3.3.5 Clauses of Negative Circumstance Hengeveld (1998: 355) distinguishes one type of clause, called Negative Circumstance, which expresses an unreal circumstance in relation to the main clause. (21)

She left without saying goodbye

Semantic characterisation of Negative Circumstance clauses: Second order / DTR / Non-factuality / Presupposition 3.3.6 Clauses of Purpose Subordinate clauses which express purpose with respect to the main clause are realised, in the majority of cases, by dependent verb forms (infinitive), introduced by (in order) to and so as to. Clauses of Purpose expressed by means of finite verb forms are usually introduced by so that, so and in order that.20 (22) (23)

To open the carton, pull this tab (Quirk et al. 1991) The jury and the witnesses were removed from the court in order that they might not hear the arguments of the lawyers on the prosecution’s motion for an adjournment (Quirk et al. 1991)

Moreover, Quirk et al. mention a type of clause, Negative Purpose, which is usually introduced by in order not to and so as not to, if the verb form is in the infinitive, or by in order that . . . not, for fear (that), in case and lest, if the verb form is finite. Depending on the type of entity designated by the subordinate clause, two subclasses of purpose clause can be distinguished: Eventive Purpose and Epistemic Purpose. 3.3.6.1 Eventive Purpose This subclass of adverbial clause describes a state of affairs which constitutes an aim to be achieved with respect to the main clause. (24)

“I added lemon juice to increase the vitamin content”, said Magda proudly (LOB K10 99)

20

Thompson, when analysing the position of Purpose clauses in written discourse, states that the unmarked position is the position coming after the main clause, since in this position this type of clause fulfils only one function at the ideational (content) level, in Halliday’s terminology. However, Purpose clauses in an initial position are marked, since “[they] operate simultaneously at the ideational and at the textual level” (1985: 61). Wakker (1987) explains the different positions of these constructions from the point of view of FG pragmatic functions. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

64

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Eventive Purpose: Second order / DTR / Non-factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.6.2 Epistemic Purpose Like clauses of Eventive Purpose, this subgroup of adverbial clauses designates an aim with respect to the main clause, but in this case the entity designated by the subordinate clause is of the third order, a propositional content which expresses the speaker’s opinion. (25)

All she wanted was a companion so that she could move freely in the evenings (LOB P20 55)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Epistemic Purpose: Third order / Non-factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.7 Clauses of Consequence Consecutive clauses are introduced by the conjunctions that are typical of Purpose clauses, so that and so. The difference between this type of clause and the Purpose clause is that Consecutive clauses are factual, they express a result which has been, is, or will be obtained, while adverbial clauses of Purpose are non-factual, they express a result still to be realised at some point in time. (26) (27)

We paid him immediately, so (that) he left contented (Quirk et al. 1991) (Consequence – Factual) We paid him immediately so (that) he would leave contented (Quirk et al. 1991) (Purpose – Non-factual)

In cases of Consecutive clauses separated by a comma from the main clause in which so appears without that, the status of so as a subordinating conjunction is unclear, as can be seen in the fact that this particle can introduce a coordinated clause (e.g. We paid him immediately, so why does he complain?).21 Although traditionally Consecutive clauses have been analysed, like Manner and Purpose clauses, as a uniform category, here three types are distinguished: Eventive Consequence, Epistemic Consequence and Illocutionary Consequence. 3.3.7.1 Eventive Consequence Clauses which express Eventive Consequence describe a state of affairs which is a result arrived at with respect to the main clause. 21

With respect to this issue, the cases which are considered here are those in which so appears with the SC (subordinating conjunction) tag and not with the CC (coordinating conjunction) tag. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

(28)

65

He moved a little in his chair so that he was facing Farland (LOB L16 72)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Eventive Consequence: Second order / DTR / Factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.7.2 Epistemic Consequence This type of adverbial clause designates a third order entity, that is, it does not describe a state of affairs but a propositional content expressing a result with respect to the main clause. (29)

She sent me to London so she could accuse me of trying to kill the old lady! (LOB L22 173)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Epistemic Consequence: Third order / Factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.7.3 Illocutionary Consequence Adverbial clauses of Illocutionary Consequence designate a speech act in themselves, which constitutes a conclusion in relation to the main clause. (30)

And the grounds are guarded by a pair of fierce dogs, so there is no escape (LOB L22 13)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Illocutionary Consequence: Fourth order / Factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.8 Clauses of Addition Adverbial clauses which express a situation additional to that expressed in the main clause are usually introduced by apart from, besides and in addition to. (31)

Apart from doing the cooking I look after the garden (Hengeveld 1998: 354)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Addition: Second order / DTR / Factuality / Presupposition

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

66

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

3.3.9 Clauses of Substitution Thompson and Longacre (1990) mention this semantic type of adverbial clause which expresses the substitution of an expected event for an unexpected one. This kind of subordinate clause, known as a Preference clause in Quirk et al.’s terminology, is introduced by rather than,22 instead of and sooner than in combination with an infinitive without to or the -ing form.23 (32)

Harry decided to eat the salad rather than send it back to the kitchen (Thompson and Langacre 1990)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Substitution: Second order / DTR / Non-factuality / Presupposition 3.3.10 Clauses of Exception Certain subordinating conjunctions, but that, except (that), excepting (that), save that, introduce clauses which express an exception in relation to the situation described in the main clause. (33)

Cooling water in vast quantities will be discharged into Southampton Water but except for being warmed it will be unchanged (LOB E18 125)

Not all clauses introduced by this kind of conjunction are considered adverbial clauses here, since certain cases which Quirk et al. consider to be adverbial clauses of Exception are nothing but examples of coordinated clauses, as can be seen by the fact that the conjunction can be substituted by a coordinating conjunction (e.g. I would pay you now, except I don’t have any money on me – Quirk et al. 1991; I would pay you now, but I don’t have any money on me). Semantic characterisation of clauses of Exception: Second order / DTR / Factuality / Presupposition

22

Dieterich and Napoli (1982) argue that constructions introduced by rather than should be analysed as comparative structures. 23 Thompson (1972) claims that instead of and rather than form part of the group of elements which are characterised by being accompanied by a non-finite verb form, along with in addition to, besides, by, without. However, these two elements are differentiated from the others because they sometimes allow finite forms, what Thompson considers to be a marked construction, to negate a previous affirmation (e.g. It rained rather than snowed). Nevertheless, Schapiro (1974) believes that the use of instead of and rather than with finite verb forms should be considered a case of coordination. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

67

3.3.11 Clauses of Cause Causal clauses form part of the group which Quirk et al. call clauses of Reason. They use the term Reason in a general sense which covers different types of adverbial clause that establish similar relations with the main clause and are introduced by the conjunctions because, for, since, as, seeing (that), as long as and inasmuch as.24 Among the adverbial clauses which are included within this group are clauses of: Eventive Cause, Epistemic Cause and Illocutionary Cause. 3.3.11.1 Eventive Cause Eventive Causal clauses (causal clauses in Quirk et al.’s terminology) express the perception of an objective connection inherent in the real world. (34)

The flowers are growing so well because I sprayed them (Quirk et al. 1991)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Eventive Cause: Second order / ITR / Factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.11.2 Epistemic Cause This type of causal clause, called a clause of Reason by Quirk et al., expresses the speaker’s inference about a connection. (35)

Jenny went home because her sister would visit her (Hengeveld 1998)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Epistemic Cause: Third order / Factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.11.3 Illocutionary Cause This type of adverbial clause, called a clause of Indirect Reason by Quirk et al. and of Explanation by Hengeveld (1998), expresses a reason that does not refer to the situation described in the main clause, but to the speech act and, therefore, in itself constitutes a speech act, that is, it designates a fourth order entity. Clauses of Illocutionary Cause are usually introduced by the conjunction for.25

24

Altenberg (1984) notes that Causal clauses introduced by for and so that tend to come after the main clause, while those introduced by because, as, since and clauses with the -ing verb form can appear in the initial, intermediate and final positions. The order in which these clauses appear in discourse depends on the context and, therefore, on pragmatic, cognitive, natural organisation and thematic aspects. 25 Kortmann (1998) classifies this conjunction, wrongly in my opinion, as a coordinating one. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

68 (36)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero Percy is in Washington, for he phoned me from there (Quirk et al. 1991)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Illocutionary Cause: Fourth order / Factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.12 Clauses of Condition26 In their analysis of Conditional clauses, Quirk et al. establish a distinction between two types of construction (introduced by if, unless,27 as long as, assuming (that), given (that), in case, in the event that, just so (that), on condition (that), provided (that), providing (that) and supposing (that)), according to their expression of: (i) (ii)

Direct Condition, in which case the validity of the proposition expressed in the main clause depends on the fulfilment of the condition which is established in the conditional clause. Indirect Condition, in which case the condition expressed in the subordinate clause does not refer to the situation described in the main clause. Quirk et al. state that this type of clause depends on the implicit speech act and, therefore, fulfils the function of style disjunct.

Several authors make this distinction when analysing Conditional clauses, but in different terms: Haegeman (1984) and Haegeman and Wekker (1984) distinguish between central (occurrence-conditionals) and peripheral (utteranceconditionals); Comrie (1986) distinguishes epistemic / speech act; Van der Auwera (1983; 1986) recognises contingency / indeterminacy, and Dancygier (1993) distinguishes between predicative and non-predicative. In the present work the aforementioned distinction is not taken into account, since it refers to the external structure, that is, to the function fulfilled by 26

The study of Conditional clauses has been carried out from various perspectives, apart from the semantic one. For instance, it has been undertaken from a philosophical point of view (Goodman 1947; Austin 1962; Adams 1970; Karttunen 1971b; Rips and Marcus 1977; Braine 1979). On the other hand, and more recently, in the field of linguistics there has been an interest in analysing this type of clause from a pragmatic point of view, taking into account the interaction between the speaker and the addressee, as well as the value of these constructions at the discourse level (Linde 1976; Fillenbaum 1978; Haiman 1978; 1986; Haegeman 1984; Akatsuka 1986; Ford and Thompson 1986; Ramsay 1987). 27 Geis (1973) is of the opinion that unless is not equivalent to if not but to except if. However, Brée (1985), contrary to what Geis states, points out that unless can be substituted by if... not and that, to a lesser extent, if... not can be replaced by unless, which indicates that the meaning of unless is more restricted than that of if... not. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

69

the adverbial clause within the main clause, and not to the internal structure, that is, the type of entity designated by these constructions. However, this important distinction between the internal and external structure is not always considered. It is relevant, in this context, to mention point the tripartite classification put forward by Sweetser (1990): (i)

(ii)

(iii)

Content Conditional, in which “the realization of the event or state of affairs described in the protasis is a sufficient condition for the realization of the event or state of affairs described in the apodosis” (Sweetser 1990: 114). Epistemic Conditional, characterised by “the idea that knowledge of the truth of the hypothetical premise expressed in the protasis would be a sufficient condition for concluding the truth of the proposition expressed in the apodosis” (Sweetser 1990: 116). Speech-Act Conditional, in which “the performance of the speech act represented in the apodosis is conditional on the fulfillment of the state described in the protasis” (Sweetser 1990: 118).

As can be seen, in the case of Content and Epistemic Conditionals reference is made to the internal structure of the clauses (event or state of affairs and hypothetical premise respectively), whereas in the case of Speech-Act Conditionals no reference is made to the internal structure. Cuvalay (1996: 154) represents Sweetser’s approach in terms of the FG model in the following way: (37)

if e1 occurs > e2 occurs if X1 is true > X2 is true if e1 occurs > consider ILL

Cuvalay claims that the definitions proposed by Sweetser describe a limited number of combinations, to which the following should be added (Cuvalay 1996: 155): (38)

if e1 occurs > X2 is true if X1 is true > e2 occurs if X1 is true > consider ILL

The confusion that can be seen in Sweetser’s approach, is also found, within the FG framework, in Dik (1990: 242-243), where he says about Propositional Conditionals that “the propositional conditionals present the truth of one proposition, a , as a sufficient condition for the truth of a second proposition, b ” (my italics). Regarding the definitions of conditional clauses proposed by Dik, Wakker (1996: 179) emphasises that:

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

70

María Jesús Pérez Quintero the above FG description is confusing in that no consistent distinction is made between the type of entity which the satellite itself represents (i.e. the internal complexity of the satellite itself) and the level of the clause to which the satellite is attached

In this book only the internal structure constitutes a relevant parameter for the semantic classification of Conditional clauses, according to which the following classification can be established: Eventive Condition, (Potential and Unreal) 28 Epistemic Condition and Illocutionary Condition. 3.3.12.1 Eventive Condition The type of clause which expresses eventive condition corresponds to the Open Condition category in Quirk et al’s terminology. In this type of Conditional clause it is not specified whether or not the condition is fulfilled and, therefore, the validity of the proposition expressed by the main clause is not established. These adverbial constructions designate a second order entity, since they indicate that if the described state of affairs takes place, the validity of what is expressed by the main clause is confirmed. Included within this group would be clauses which are classified by Hengeveld (1998) as clauses of Potential Circumstance.29 (39)

If you put the baby down, she’ll scream (Quirk et al. 1991)30

28

Some authors propose an alternative classification to the potential/unreal distinction. Funk (1985), for example, distinguishes between neutral or unmarked and hypothetical conditionals, characterised by the features (± real) and (– real) respectively. Van der Auwera (1983) distinguishes two scales: true / indeterminate / false and necessary / contingent / impossible. However, others claim that this distinction should be avoided. Comrie, for example, states that “hypotheticality is a continuum, with (perhaps) no clear-cut divisions” (1986: 88); Dancygier (1993) talks of grades of unassertability; Taylor (1997) proposes a scale which she calls gradience of epistemic likelihood of the protasis. Nevertheless, Wierzbicka argues that “the traditional account, distinguishing ‘real’ and ‘unreal’ conditions, seems to me to be much closer to the truth emerging from recent cross-linguistic studies than any account based on a hypothetical continuum of hypotheticality” (1997: 35). 29 Hengeveld (1998) distinguishes between Potential Circumstance, clauses introduced by in case, and Condition, a category which encompasses all other Conditional clauses which are considered third order entities. 30 Various authors point out that, although in theory non-volitional will (and hypothetical would) cannot appear in the protasis of a Condition clause, there are cases in which they do appear (e.g. If he won’t arrive before nine, there’s no point in ordering dinner for him – Declerck 1984: 285). Declerck (1984) and Haegeman and Wekker (1984) believe that both the present and the future form in a Condition clause refer to the future, and that the difference stems from the fact that the present form is a reduction of the future form, which is possible, and María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification (40)

71

Take your umbrella in case it rains (Quirk et al. 1991)

Wakker (1996) states that all Conditional clauses designate propositions. However, this statement is incorrect because in (39) and (40) it is understood that the condition is that the states of affairs described by the subordinate clause (put the baby down and it rains respectively) take place. 3.3.12.2 Epistemic Condition This type of adverbial clause, which corresponds to what Quirk et al. call Hypothetical Conditionals, implies the speaker’s opinion about the realisation of the condition. Depending on the degree of possibility described by the protasis, that is, depending on whether or not it is presupposed that the propositional content of the subordinate clause is true, a distinction between Potential (nonpresupposed) and Unreal (presupposed) Epistemic Condition can be established. Unreal clauses imply that the speaker believes that the condition has not been fulfilled and, therefore, implies the falseness of the proposition expressed in the main clause.31 (41) (42)

... if she set her mind on swimming the channel or breeding champion poodles, or anything, she’d do it (LOB A39 105) (Potential Epistemic) If the child had lived only a few days or weeks it would have had a name (LOB K24 39) (Unreal Epistemic)

3.3.12.3 Illocutionary Condition Regarding clause of Illocutionary Condition, the work of Van der Auwera (1986) should be mentioned. He establishes an important distinction between speech acts about conditionals and conditional speech acts, which he believes corresponds respectively to the commentative / non-commentative distinction. The first type of clause is characterised by being under the influence of the operator of the main clause. Therefore, within the model proposed here these clauses do not designate fourth order entities (examples taken from Van der Auwera 1986: 198- 200). (43)

If you inherit, will you invest?

indeed obligatory, because of the close temporal link which exists between the states of affairs described in the protasis and in the apodosis. Nieuwint (1986), on the other hand, considers that the difference stems from the fact that present verb form indicates non-past rather than future. Similarly, Harder points out that “the future form of the IC has exactly its usual semantic function: it indicates that the hypothetical assumption which the addressee is asked to make is about a posterior stage [...] rather than the current stage.” (IC=protasis) (1989: 21). 31 Wierzbicka comments on some examples in which this construction has been considered not unreal by other grammarians and concludes “that the normal reading of the ‘if Pluperfect would’ construction is counterfactual, and that it is not the context which imposes on them a counterfactual interpretation” (1997: 28). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

72 (44) (45)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero If you phone Mary, ask her to dinner ! ((you phone Mary) (you ask her to dinner)) (! = imperative operator)

Nevertheless, the so-called conditional speech acts show constructions which contain their own operator and an abstract operator which includes both the main clause and the subordinate clause (examples have been taken from Van der Auwera 1986: 199-200). (46) (47) (48) (49)

If I can speak frankly, he doesn’t have a chance Where were you last night, if you wouldn’t mind telling me? Open the window, if I may ask you to $ ((I may ask you to open the window) (! (you open the window))) ($= variable for the operator of the speech act that indicates assertion)

Wakker (1992: 381) represents certain Conditional clauses (e.g. Do not go there, if I may advise you) by means of the variable E, characteristic of speech acts in the FG model. However, not all the clauses that she represents through this variable are themselves speech acts (e.g. If you leave the house, shut the windows – Wakker 1992: 378). Wakker (1996), on the other hand, believes, wrongly in my opinion, that all Conditional clauses designate propositions. Semantic characterisation of the different types of Conditional clause: Eventive Condition: Second order / ITR / Non-factuality / Non-presupposition Epistemic Condition: Potential: Third order / Non-factuality / Non-presupposition Unreal: Third order / Non-factuality / Presupposition Illocutionary Condition: Fourth order / Non-factuality / Non-presupposition 3.3.12.4 Other cases The type of Conditional clause that Quirk et al. call Rhetorical Conditional, which seems to express a potential condition although it actually implies an assertion, is not analysed here. These authors distinguish two types of Rhetorical Conditional:

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification (i)

Those in which the assertion derives from the subordinate clause, since the proposition expressed in the main clause is absurd, which shows the falseness of the subordinate. (50)

(ii)

73

If they’re Irish, I’m the Pope (Quirk et al. 1991)32

Included in this group could be Temporal clauses introduced by before, which Quirk et al. considered non-presupposed, such as in Pigs will fly before he’ll become a mathematician. Those in which the assertion derives from the main clause, since the proposition expressed in the Conditional clause is clearly true, and thus the proposition expressed in the main clause is true. (51)

He’s ninety if he’s a day (Quirk et al. 1991)

This type of Conditional clause is not taken into account because there is no direct connection between the contents of the protasis and the apodosis. 3.3.13 Clauses of Concessive-Condition Concessive-Conditional clauses share with (potential) Conditional clauses the feature of non-presupposition, as well as non-factuality, but at the same time they express a certain concessive meaning. König (1985a/b; 1986) claims that Concessive-Conditional clauses, although non-factual just like Conditional clauses, establish a relation with a factual main clause, just like Concessive clauses do. Therefore, from the point of view of Factuality, the following distinction can be made regarding both the subordinate and the main clause: (i) (ii) (iii)

Conditional clauses: both the main and the subordinate clause are nonfactual.33 Concessive-Conditional clauses: the main clause is factual and the subordinate clause is non-factual. Concessive clauses: both the main and the subordinate clause are factual.

Moreover, König thinks that one of the main sources of creation of Concessive clauses is Concessive-Conditional clauses when they appear in a context which implies a factual interpretation. In English Concessive-Condition adverbial clauses are mainly introduced by the subordinating conjunction (even) if.34 And since these clauses can 32

This kind of clause is called Ex Absurdo Conditional by Dik (1990). However, some linguists (Karttunen 1971b; Yamanashi 1975; Funk 1985; Dik 1990) state that in Conditional clauses the apodosis is not always non-factual, as can be seen in the following examples: If Harry had known that Sheila survived, he would have gone home, which he did anyway (Karttunen 1971b: 566); If she called yesterday, I was out (Funk 1985: 369). 33

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

74

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

designate different types of entities, the following typology of ConcessiveConditional clauses can be established. 3.3.13.1 Eventive Concessive-Condition This subclass of adverbial clauses which designates a second order entity is characterised by the semantic features: Second order / ITR / Non-factuality / Non-presupposition (52)

Even if you put the baby down, she won’t scream

3.3.13.2 Epistemic Concessive-Condition These adverbial constructions designate a third order entity and, like Epistemic Conditional clauses, can be Potential (non-presupposed) and Unreal (presupposed). Semantic characterisation of clauses of Potential Epistemic ConcessiveCondition: Third order / Non-factuality / Non-presupposition Semantic characterisation of clauses of Unreal Epistemic Concessive-Condition: Third order / Non-factuality / Presupposition (53)

(54)

Even if the Reagan tax program might theoretically produce the desired increase in savings and investments over the long run, there is no indication that it will work quickly (Haspelmath and König 1998) (Potential) Even if he had worked very hard, he would have (still) failed his exam (Haspelmath and König 1998) (Unreal)

3.3.13.3 Illocutionary Concessive-Condition This type of adverbial clause which designates a fourth order entity, a speech act, is characterised by the following semantic features: Fourth order / Non-factuality / Non-presupposition (55)

Even if I cannot say that, he is a little bit stupid

34

Yamanashi (1975: 234) points out that some clauses introduced by if can have an equivalent value to those introduced by even if (e.g. (Even) if they are poor, they are happy; He is a good poet, (even) if not a good novelist). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

75

3.3.13.4 Other cases Within the group of Concessive clauses Quirk et al. establish a distinction between:35 (i)

(ii)

Alternative Concessive-Conditional clauses, which are a means of coordinating two subordinate clauses which offer a choice between two or more conditions that are usually opposed (e.g. Whether Martin pays for the broken vase or (whether) he replaces it with a new vase, I’m not inviting him again). Universal Concessive-Conditional clauses, which offer a choice among a number of conditions (e.g. Whatever I say to them, I can’t keep them quiet).

These two types of clause correspond to what Thompson and Longacre (1990) call Indefinite Concessive clauses. However, their classification as ConcessiveConditional, as suggested by Quirk et al. (1991), is considered more appropriate, since they are non-presupposed. This type of structure is excluded from the present work, because the former are cases of coordinated clauses and the latter are relative clauses. 3.3.14 Clauses of Concession Concessive clauses indicate that the situation described in the main clause is contrary to what is expected in relation to what is expressed in the subordinate clause. König (1985a/b; 1986; 1994) explains that the notion of concessive relation: is shown to be a derived notion and the late development of this category, both ontogenetically and phylogenetically, is shown to be reflected in the morphology of the connectives: concessive connectives derive either from conditional connectives, from expressions asserting remarkable co-occurrence or co-existence, or from notions earlier only applicable to human agents or experiencers. (König 1985a: 1) He also points out that, in contrast to other markers of adverbial relations, concessive particles show a formal structure and a transparent etymology. Therefore, although they are characterised by being complex forms, the different components can be easily identified and related to an original, or at least previous, meaning. Moreover, he notes that the historical development of concessive particles, as well as the original meaning of the components which constitute them, directly reflects various aspects related to the meaning of these

35

This distinction is also shared by Haspelmath and König (1998), who distinguish scalar, alternative and universal concessive conditionals. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

76

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

particles, such as the factual and presupposed character of the clauses which they introduce. Subordinating conjunctions which usually introduce this kind of clause are although, though, if, even though, when, whereas, while, whilst.36 Depending on the type of entity designated, three types of Concessive clauses can be distinguished: Eventive Concession, Epistemic Concession and Illocutionary Concession. 3.3.14.1 Eventive Concession This category includes those adverbial clauses with concessive value which designate second order entities. (56)

Although he stepped on the brake, the car didn’t slow down

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Eventive Concession: Second order / ITR / Factuality / Presupposition 3.3.14.2 Epistemic Concession Epistemic Concessive clauses designate third order entities. (57)

Caroline could do nothing but agree although she would have liked to stay and continue talking with him (LOB P07 88)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Epistemic Concession: Third order / Factuality / Presupposition 3.3.14.3 Illocutionary Concession This subclass of adverbial clauses includes those Concessive clauses which designate a fourth order entity. (58)

She called herself Billie (although her real name is Grace) after her model, her idol, the late Billie Holliday (LOB A39 124)

Semantic characterisation of clauses of Illocutionary Concession: Fourth order / Factuality / Presupposition

36

Kjellmer (1975) points out that, although the conjunction if (...) not is usually assigned a negative conditional value, in certain contexts, in which it cannot be substituted by unless, it has concessive value (e.g. Enscombe, however, was gracious – gracious in fact, if he was not gracious in word – Kjellmer 1975: 140). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

77

3.3.15 Summary and illustrative examples Now that the different types of adverbial clauses in English have been described, the classification proposed by Hengeveld (1998) can be reformulated and expanded as shown in Table 3.3. A summary of the classification of the different adverbial subordinate clauses in English, with the semantic features that characterise them given in brackets and an illustrative example of each, is given below. MEANS (Zero order / Factual / Non-presupposed) (59) They escaped by sliding down the rope TEMPORAL ANTERIORITY (Second order / DTR / Factual / Presupposed) (60) Come over right after you’ve finished working TEMPORAL SIMULTANEITY (Second order / DTR / Factual / Non-presupposed) (61) While we were eating, we heard a noise outside the window TEMPORAL POSTERIORITY (Second order / DTR / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) (62) I shaved before I went to the party EVENTIVE MANNER (Second order / ITR / Factual / Non-presupposed) (63) She cooked a turkey as her mother did EPISTEMIC MANNER (Third order / Factual / Non-presupposed) (64) He knew the truth as few could do ILLOCUTIONARY MANNER (Fourth order / Factual / Non-presupposed) (65) He was, as I was later to discover, extraordinarily kind POTENTIAL COMPARISON (Second order / ITR / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) (66) He bent down as if tightening his shoe laces UNREAL COMPARISON (Second order / ITR / Non-factual / Presupposed) (67) She greets me as if I were her best friend NEGATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE (Second order / DTR / Non-factual / Presupposed) (68) She left without saying goodbye EVENTIVE PURPOSE (Second order / DTR / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) (69) To open the carton, pull this tab EPISTEMIC PURPOSE (Third order / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) (70) All she wanted was a companion so that she could move more freely in the evenings EVENTIVE CONSEQUENCE (Second order / DTR / Factual / Non-presupposed) (71) He moved a little in his chair so that he was facing Farland EPISTEMIC CONSEQUENCE (Third order / Factual / Non-presupposed) (72) She sent me to London so she could accuse me of trying to kill the old lady! ILLOCUTIONARY CONSEQUENCE (Fourth order / Factual / Non-presupposed) (73) And the grounds are guarded by a pair of fierce dogs, so there is no escape ADDITION (Second order / DTR / Factual / Presupposed) (74) Apart from doing the cooking I look after the garden

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

78

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

Presup.

Factual

Non-Presup.

Table 3.3: Semantic classification of adverbial clauses 0 Order

2nd Order ITR

MEANS

EVENTIVE MANNER EVENTIVE CAUSE DTR SIMULTANEITY

EPISTEMIC MANNER

ILLOCUTIONARY MANNER

EPISTEMIC CAUSE

ILLOCUTIONARY CAUSE

EVENTIVE CONSEQUENCE ITR EVENTIVE CONCESSION DTR ANTERIORITY ADDITION EXCEPTION

EPISTEMIC CONSEQUENCE

ILLOCUTIONARY CONSEQUENCE

EPISTEMIC CONCESSION

ILLOCUTIONARY CONCESSION

POTENTIAL EPISTEMIC CONDITION

ILLOCUTIONARY CONDITION

POTENTIAL EPISTEMIC CONCESSIVECONDITION

ILLOCUTIONARY CONCESSIVECONDITION

Non-Presup. Presup.

Non-Factual

ITR POTENTIAL COMPARISON EVENTIVE CONDITION EVENTIVE CONCESSIVECONDITION DTR POSTERIORITY EVENTIVE PURPOSE ITR UNREAL COMPARISON DTR NEGATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE SUBSTITUTION

3rd Order

4th Order

EPISTEMIC PURPOSE UNREAL EPISTEMIC CONDITION UNREAL EPISTEMIC CONCESSIVECONDITION

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

79

SUBSTITUTION (Second order / DTR / Non-factual / Presupposed) (75) Harry decided to eat the salad rather than send it back to the kitchen EXCEPTION (Second order / DTR / Factual / Presupposed) (76) Cooling water in vast quantities will be discharged into Southampton Water but except for being warmed it will be unchanged EVENTIVE CAUSE (Second order / ITR / Factual / Non-presupposed) (77) The flowers are growing so well because I sprayed them EPISTEMIC CAUSE (Third order / Factual / Non-presupposed) (78) Jenny went home because her sister would visit her ILLOCUTIONARY CAUSE (Fourth order / Factual / Non-presupposed) (79) Peter is in Washington, for he phoned me from there EVENTIVE CONDITION (Second order / ITR / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) (80) If you put the baby down, she’ll scream POTENTIAL EPISTEMIC CONDITION (Third order / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) (91) If she set her mind on swimming the channel or breeding champion poodles, or anything, she’d do it UNREAL EPISTEMIC CONDITION (Third order / Non-factual / Presupposed) (82) If the child had lived only a few days or weeks it would have had a name ILLOCUTIONARY CONDITION (Fourth order / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) (83) If I can speak frankly, he doesn´t have a chance EVENTIVE CONCESSIVE-CONDITION (Second order / ITR / Non-factual / Nonpresupposed) (84) Even if you put the baby down, she won’t scream POTENTIAL EPISTEMIC CONCESSIVE-CONDITION (Third order / Non-factual / Nonpresupposed) (85) Even if the Reagan tax program might theoretically produce the desire increase in savings and investments over the long run, there is no indication that it will work quickly UNREAL EPISTEMIC CONCESSIVE -CONDITION (Third order / Non-factual / Presupposed) (86) Even if he had worked very hard, he would have (still) failed his exam ILLOCUTIONARY CONCESSIVE -CONDITION (Fourth order / Non-factual / Nonpresupposed) (87) Even if I cannot say that, he is a little bit stupid EVENTIVE CONCESSION (Second order / ITR / Factual / Presupposed) (88) Although he stepped on the brake, the car didn’t slow down EPISTEMIC CONCESSION (Third order / Factual / Presupposed) (89) Caroline could do nothing but agree although she would have liked to stay and continue talking with him ILLOCUTIONARY CONCESSION (Fourth order / Factual / Presupposed) (90) She called herself Billie (although her real name is Grace) after her model, her idol, the late Billie Holliday

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

80

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

3.4 Excluded constructions In this section, the problem of interpreting adverbial clauses with a dependent verb form is first analysed (3.4.1). Later, a series of other excluded constructions are considered (3.4.2). 3.4.1 Semantic indeterminacy of clauses with a dependent verb form Adverbial clauses whose predicate is a non-finite verb form contain, in many cases, examples of what Nedjalkov (1998) considers to be contextual adverbial verbforms37 because, since they are not usually introduced by any kind of subordinating element, they can express a wide range of adverbial meanings.38 Kortmann (1991: 1), in his study of free adjuncts and absolutes, presents this problem of interpretation, commenting that: The absence of standard subordinators overtly specifying adverbial relations, optional for free adjuncts, obligatory for absolutes, leads to the most fascinating and intricate problem in a semantic analysis of these constructions, i. e. their semantic indeterminacy. He also points out that the dependent clause itself can give rise to a wide range of interpretations depending on the nature of the main clause. Regarding this he gives the following example (Kortmann 1991: 2): (91)

Closing the window, Harry watched the children in the garden (temporal overlap: a. ‘when, while’) Harry drew the curtains (anteriority: (‘(immediately) after’) b. Harry would surely break it (fool that he is) (condition: ‘if’) c. Harry always looked across at the girls in the swimming-pool d. (habitual co-occurrence: ‘whenever’) Harry squeezed his thumb (temporal overlap: ‘when’; causality: e. ‘because’; instrumentality: ‘by -ing’)

Kortmann (1991: 2) also states that the semantic indeterminacy of these structures is made clear even without changing the main clause, as can be seen in the following example: 37

In his study of converbs, non-finite verb forms which are always or very often used with an adverbial function, Nedjalkov distinguishes between contextual converbs, which are characterised by their being vague or polysemic forms from the semantic point of view, and specialized converbs, verb forms characterised by their expressing a specific semantic value. 38 Quirk et al. (1991) state that infinitives, although they can express quite a number of different semantic relations, present no problem in this respect. Nevertheless, they are included by Kortmann (1991) in his analysis. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification (92)

81

Writing the final chapter of his thesis, John happily whistled away (temporal overlap: ‘when, while’; causality: ‘because’)

Analysing these constructions as structures which are syntactically derived from paratactic or subordinate clauses with independent verb forms is of little use in order to arrive at an understanding of the different adverbial values that these clauses can express. Therefore, Kortmann proposes to examine those clauses with a dependent verb form and without any explicit conjunction as syntactically and semantically autonomous constructions and, from there, to determine their meaning. In relation to this, he believes that there are some limitations to the number and type of semantic relations that a dependent clause can express, because “for each individual interpretative process ‘the hearer’s search domain for kinds of semantic linkage between clauses’ [...] is identical with only a subset of the interpretative options available to free adjuncts/absolutes” (Kortmann 1991: 115). Taking as a starting point the idea that a clause with a non-finite verb form can express a limited number of semantic relations only, Kortmann argues that the identification of the meaning of this clause within the limited number of possibilities is determined by “a scale on which the semantic relations in principle available to these construction types can be arranged according to their informativeness or, alternatively, specificness” (1991: 119). According to this scale, a distinction can be established between more informative relations (concession, contrast, condition, instrument and purpose, cause and result, anteriority and posteriority) and less informative relations (manner, exemplification / specification, simultaneity, circumstance and addition) and, consequently, different groups of possible relations can be delimited in order to interpret a specific adverbial clause. The present book takes the view that, even taking into account that the number of possible interpretations which a clause with a dependent verb form can get is limited, this interpretation implies a certain degree of subjectivity. As Kortmann (1991: 105) states: Identifying the semantic relation between two propositions, on the other hand, especially in the absence of a subordinating conjunction or connective specifying some adverbial role, to a much higher degree draws upon the knowledge, experiences, convictions, and even imagination of the language user as well as on his/her capabilities of retrieving and evaluating information that may be relevant for this relation from the (not necessarily immediately) preceding context. It is worthwhile noting here the solution adopted by Thompson and Longacre (1990), who recognise, amongst the different semantic types of adverbial subordinate clause (Conditional, Concessive, Temporal, . . .), a type which they call Absolute clause, which includes those clauses which fulfil the following conditions (Thompson and Longacre 1990: 200):

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

82 (i) (ii) (iii)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero the clause should be marked as subordinate; there is no explicit sign to indicate the type of relation that exists between the main clause and the subordinate clause; therefore the interpretation of this relation has to be inferred from the pragmatic and linguistic context.

Thompson and Longacre also state that in different languages two ways of marking a clause as subordinate without referring to any specific type of relation can be seen: (i) by way of a special verb marker, which is often dependent (e.g. English uses non-finite forms), and (ii) through the use of a general subordinating morpheme (e.g. Luiseco). Thompson and Longacre point out that the interpretation of the relation that exists between this type of Absolute clause and the main clause which it modifies depends upon the inferences taken from the context, and that sometimes these can be non-specific.39 However, they note five types of adverbial meaning with which this kind of construction can be associated (temporal, causal, concessive, conditional and circumstantial). They conclude their analysis of Absolute clauses by stating that “Absolutive constructions are used, then, when there is no need to specify more than that the clauses are related” (1990: 203). It is interesting also to note the work of Wanders (forthcoming), who claims that subordinate clauses with a non-finite verb form, with no subordinating particle (converbs in Nedjalkow’s 1998 terminology), form a type of construction separate from adverbial clauses. In relation to this she states: Asyndetic adverbial clauses are often analyzed as involved in a specific kind of relationship with the clause or clauses with which they form a sentence. This is probably due to the fact that they are mistakenly described as adverbial clauses […]. But, ascribing a function to an asyndetic adverbial clause can only be based on a possible implied relationship between the entities represented in the clauses and suggested by the context in which they appear. Wanders believes that this type of constructions should be analysed, not as adverbial clauses, but as chains of events presented iconically and that, therefore, they should be excluded from a study of adverbial clauses. This is precisely the position adopted in this book.40

39

König (1988: 150) mentions, without going into much detail, the existence of some factors responsible for certain inferences. He notes, for example, that the presence of a negative particle rules out a temporal interpretation and facilitates a causal or reason meaning. 40 Note that Purpose clauses expressed through a dependent form without a subordinating conjunction have not been excluded, because these do not constitute cases of contextual converbs but of specialised converbs. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic classification

83

3.4.2 Other excluded constructions Five types of clause included by Quirk et al. in their classification of adverbial clauses have been excluded: (i)

Clauses of Contingency, which these authors believe express a more abstract meaning which is paraphraseable through the use of in cases when or in circumstances where. Because the temporal, locative or conditional meaning of the conjunctions which introduce them has been neutralised (e.g. If there’s smoke, there’s fire), these constructions are classified according to the basic meaning which the conjunction expresses.

(ii)

Clauses of Place, which are introduced by where, with a specific value, and wherever, with a non-specific value, and which indicate position (e.g. where the fire had been, we saw nothing but blackened ruins) or direction (e.g. they went wherever they could find work). This type of clause is included by Thompson and Longacre (1990) in their classification of adverbial subordinate clauses, since they consider that it constitutes, along with Temporal and Manner clauses, the group which they designate as clauses that are substitutable by a single word. This group of clauses is characterised, not only by the possibility of being substituted by a word with adverbial value, but also by the possibility of being paraphrased by a relative clause: (93) (94)

I’ll meet you where the statue used to be (Thompson and Longacre 1990) (locative adverbial clause) I’ll meet you at the place at which the statue used to be (Thompson and Longacre 1990) (relative clause with relative value)

The present study takes the view that adverbial clauses of Place are in themselves cases of relative clauses and, therefore, they are not taken into account in this analysis of adverbial clauses. (iii)

Clauses of Contrast, which are introduced by some conjunctions that are typical of Concessive clauses (whereas, while and whilst) and express the idea of contrast associated to some concessive meaning (e.g. I ignore them, whereas my husband is always worried about what they think of us – Quirk et al. 1991). Some clauses in this group are classified according to their concessive meaning, while others have been excluded because they constitute cases of coordination, as is shown by the fact that these constructions which establish a contrast can be substituted by coordinating conjunctions (e.g. I ignore them, but my husband is always worried about what they think of us).

(iv)

Clauses of Proportion, which express proportionality or equivalence between two situations. This type of construction has been excluded María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

84

María Jesús Pérez Quintero because it is introduced by correlative conjunctions (as . . . (so), the . . . the), which are not analysed here since they establish relations between two clauses, neither of which can be identified as an independent or main clause.

(v)

Comment clauses, which fulfil the role of content or style disjuncts and can be realised by: a. b. c. d. e. f.

a main clause: There were no other applicants, I believe, for that job. a finite adverbial clause introduced by as: I’m working the night shift, as you know. a nominal relative clause: What was more upsetting, we lost all our luggage. an infinitive clause with to: I’m not sure what to do, to be honest. a present participle clause: I doubt, speaking as a layman, whether television is the right medium for that story. a past participle clause: Stated bluntly, he had no chance of winning.

This type of clause does not express a specific type of semantic relation with respect to the main clause, but rather constitutes an example of a clause satellite which modifies the speech act.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

4.

Adverbial clauses in English

4.1

Description of expression formats

This chapter presents a description of the means of expression of the different types of adverbial clause in English. For each of the semantic types of adverbial clause only illustrative examples of the possible expression formats are offered. Appendix II contains the references to all the examples found in the corpus, classified according to the semantic type of the adverbial clause and the form in which it is expressed. 4.1.1 Clauses of Means Adverbial clauses of Means are expressed in all cases found in the LOB Corpus by means of dependent verb forms, specifically by the non-finite -ing form. The subordinating particles which introduce this type of adverbial clause are, in order of frequency: by, in, through, from and by way of. (1) (2) (3)

(4) (5)

At the age of six months she amused people by greeting them with “how d’ ye”, and delighted her proud parents by shouting “tea, tea, tea”. (G29 56) but your skill as a photographer will be tested to the full in obtaining really first-class results. (E10 117) The individual field, in its turn, is a mosaic of related words or concepts, the individual word getting its meaning only through distinguishing itself from its neighbours, and the field again being divided up completely and without overlapping. (J35 8) I came to love it from drinking it in the war years, but the fact must be faced, it is an acquired taste. (E19 15) He went on to say that, being able to shoot off a dozen or so negatives by way of practising composition, the photographer today had never had it so good. (E10 130)

Although, as was stated in Chapter 3, clauses of Means are characterised by being open predications, since they lack their own subject because they share that of the main clause, in the corpus analysed two examples of closed predications were found, in which the main clause appears in the passive voice. One of these is the following example: (6)

The situation was complicated by Redman himself collapsing. (G10 138) (= Redman himself complicated the situation by collapsing)

A total of 133 clauses of Means were analysed. Table 4.1 shows their distribution according to the particle which introduces them. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

86

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

Table 4.1: Expression of clauses of Means Conjunctions By In Through From By way of Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Inf. – – – – – –

Dependent -ed -ing – 106 – 21 – 3 – 2 – 1 – 133 133 100%

Total 106 21 3 2 1 133 100%

4.1.2 Clauses of Time 4.1.2.1 Anteriority Temporal Anteriority can be expressed in English through independent and dependent verb forms. Clauses with an independent verb form are introduced by the following conjunctions, in order of frequency: after, once, since, as soon as, now (that). (7) (8)

(9) (10) (11)

After they had been at the night club for some time they fell silent. (P20 202) Understanding science means understanding that choice – understanding that once it has been decided to manipulate the world instead of just contemplating it, your basic concepts are bound to be “matter” and “energy”, ... (G64 124) Nothing had been the same since Mrs. Robertson died. (P29 25) As soon as the wind changes, it causes the fantail to start revolving and, working through a series of gears, the cap turns, so bringing the sails back into the “eye of the wind”. (E10 51) Now that the tensions of courtship were over, was Priscilla always going to be so difficult to entertain? (K16 49)

Clauses with a dependent verb form are introduced in most cases by after (+ -ing) and in isolated cases by upon (+ -ing) and once (+ -ed), all representing open predications. (12) (13)

The original documents of M2 and J2 are no longer in existence, having been lost or destroyed after being copied into a manuscript book in 1906. (F11 185) Upon developing the concept of a world of spirits, he immediately entered upon the system of spirit worship, which in its most elemental form, was a worship of the dead. (F19 47)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English (14)

87

These restless rangers of the abstract wastes revivified the people they raised and once settled, brought a new twist of the old strands of culture, craft and art. (G45 194)

The results obtained from the analysis of the expression of adverbial clauses of Anteriority are summed up in Table 4.2. Table 4.2: Expression of Temporal clauses of Anteriority Conjunctions After Once Since As soon as Now (that) Upon Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 40 – 17 – 17 – 16 – 10 – – – 100 – 100 80%

Dependent Inf. -ed -ing – – 22 – 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – 2 – 1 24 25 20%

Total 62 18 17 16 10 2 125 100%

4.1.2.2 Simultaneity Temporal clauses of Simultaneity can be expressed through independent and dependent (-ing and -ed) verb forms. All cases of dependent constructions are examples of open predications, since the subject of the subordinate clause is not made explicit, but rather corresponds to an argument of the main clause or an indefinite subject (anyone, everyone,...). The conjunctions which introduce adverbial clauses of Simultaneity with an independent verb form are, in order of frequency: when, as, while, whereas, whenever, as long as, whilst, so long as. (15) (16) (17) (18)

One of the little trials that a man must learn to bear when he admits the telephone to his home is that, when he hurries to its side to answer a call, it will sometimes stop ringing before he gets there. (B03 190) The power of suggestion – or the dislike of naked truth – was such that eventually I even began to faint as I entered the hospital gates. (G21 103) Long after he was sleeping, one arm flung possessively across her, she lay awake, staring at the greying sky, while slow, cold tears trickled backwards into the roots of her hair. (L21 118) But Graham Wallas stood fast, whereas in this great struggle most of the school board supporters, with their only staunch reserves in the rallying ground of susceptible nonconformist conscience, were frequently in disarray ... (J39 37)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

88 (19) (20) (21) (22)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero It began to be realized that it was a great waste of labour and effort to have to turn the whole mill whenever the wind changed and by the end of the 17th century, tower mills were being built. (E10 41) “The management pays me to keep it dyed as long as I’m playing Wanda”. (A39 162) “Now just run along upstairs and wash your hands whilst I get dinner ready”. (R02 150) So long as it was imagined that Lytton knew his limitations, Salisbury seems to have attached little importance to the protest. (J59 43)

The subordinating particles which introduce Temporal clauses of Simultaneity with a dependent verb form are: in, when, while, whilst, on (+ -ing) and when (+ ed). (23)

(24) (25) (26) (27) (28)

If Joyce, in revising Ulysses, could have been persuaded to omit the more flagrant obscenities (most of which, after all, are incidental to the book, and do not form an integral part of it), we should have been left with an experimental novel of great interest, ... (G41 162) It certainly seems that when learning a language one fortunately does not have to learn the whole before knowing the parts. (J35 108) Mr. Marcus Lipton (...) said he supported the new clause but he would not like to see “24 hours drinking going on” combined cruising and boozing while enjoying the beauties of the country side. (A27 127) He accused people of moral corruption, whilst maintaining ceremonial exactitude. (D11 43) On glancing through their catalogue we noticed such items as willow work, marbling and musical pipe-making. (E05 139) He presently teased me because, when asked my opinion of certain people, I praised their kindness. (G16 84)

Table 4.3 gives the data relating to the expression of adverbial clauses of Simultaneity by means of independent and dependent forms. 4.1.2.3 Posteriority Temporal clauses of Posteriority can be expressed through independent verb forms, introduced by the conjunctions until, before and till, and through dependent forms (-ing), introduced by before. (29) (30) (31) (32)

Cycles parked in unauthorised places may be moved and may be impounded until any fine which may be imposed has been paid. (H29 220) Before the meal ended she had told her new friends a good deal about herself. (P29 149) Just wait till I see Anne Archer!” (L22 168) All students must obtain the consent of the Dean of the faculty concerned before entering for examinations, ... (H29 49) María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English

89

From the analysis of the expression formats of clauses of Posteriority the results shown in Table 4.4 are obtained. Table 4.3: Expression of Temporal clauses of Simultaneity Conjunctions When As While Whereas Whenever As long as Whilst So long as In On Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 540 – 187 – 89 – 13 – 10 – 4 – 3 – 2 – – – – – 848 – 848 89.55%

Inf. – – – – – – – – – – –

Dependent -ed -ing 19 20 – – – 12 – – – – – – – 3 – – – 43 – 2 19 80 99 10.45%

Total 579 187 101 13 10 4 6 2 43 2 947 100%

Table 4.4: Expression of Temporal clauses of Posteriority Conjunctions Until Before Till Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 97 – 90 – 9 – 196 – 196 90.32%

Inf. – – – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – 21 – – – 21 21 9.68%

Total 97 111 9 217 100%

4.1.3 Clauses of Manner As has already been stated in Chapter 3, a distinction between Eventive, Epistemic and Illocutionary Manner can be established within the category of adverbial clauses of Manner, depending on whether the subordinate clause designates a second, third or fourth order entity, respectively. 4.1.3.1 Eventive Manner Clauses of Eventive Manner are expressed through independent or dependent (-ed or -ing) forms, in the latter case without an explicit subject. The conjunctions which introduce this subtype of adverbial clause are: as, for both independent and

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

90

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

dependent forms, and like, exclusively in combination with independent verb forms. (33) (34) (35)

(36)

until the midwife, (...), either asks her to relax while her tummy is pressed gently, or else to take a deep breath and to push down as she did when the baby arrived. (F32 147) “And don’t wipe the dirt off on the towel like you did yesterday.” (R02 154) And here we shall do well to note, as throwing a first sidelight on the much bigger problems connected with the European common market and the question whether the United Kingdom will be wise in joining it, that today, 16 years after the first measures were taken to establish Benelux, the complete union aimed at between Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland has not yet been fully achieved. (F15 25) One aspect of engine not yet exploited by British designers is that of smoothing out the 4-cylinder power unit and improving its durability by providing it with five crankshaft bearings, as adopted by Alpha Romeo, BMW, Chevy, Facellia, Goggomobil, Simca and Volvo. (E16 86)

Table 4.5 gives the percentage relating to the expression of the clauses of Eventive Manner found in the corpus. Table 4.5: Expression of clauses of Eventive Manner Conjunctions As Like Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 154 – 6 – 160 – 160 87.9%

Inf. – – –

Dependent -ed -ing 21 1 – – 21 1 22 12.1%

Total 176 6 182 100%

4.1.3.2 Epistemic Manner Clauses of Epistemic Manner clauses, expressed in all cases through independent verb forms, are introduced by the conjunction as. (37) (38)

Where gardens are small, as they may well be when houses are built at densities which in the past have usually called for a proportion of flats, it will be important to plan for children’s play space nearby. (H22 150) It was a beautiful day, as first-of-June should be. (M01 113)

The expression of clauses of Epistemic Manner is characterised, therefore, by the fact that 100% of the cases are expressed through independent forms, as Table 4.6 shows.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English

91

Table 4.6: Expression of clauses of Epistemic Manner Conjunctions As Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 34 – 34 – 34 100%

Inf. – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – –

Total 34 34 100%

4.1.3.3 Illocutionary Manner As Table 4.7 shows, clauses of Illocutionary Manner clauses are expressed through independent verb forms and are introduced by the conjunction as. (39) (40)

Would Ulysses and Finnegan have provided – as in fact is the case – a perpetual and profitable stamping-ground for the writers of Ph.D. theses? (G41 170) And if we are determined, as we ought to be, that they shall have a more adequate opportunity, we could add the extra numbers to the universities and to the specialist colleges in a proportion similar to that already existing between them. (G58 16)

Table 4.7: Expression of clauses of Illocutionary Manner Conjunctions As Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 13 – 13 – 13 100%

Inf. – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – –

Total 13 13 100%

4.1.4 Clauses of Comparison In this group of adverbial clauses a distinction was established in 3.3.4 between Potential Comparison, where it is not presupposed that the state of affairs is not a fact, and Unreal Comparison, where it is presupposed that the state of affairs is not a fact. Both of these subtypes of adverbial clauses of Comparison are introduced by the complex conjunctions as if and as though. 4.1.4.1 Potential Comparison Clauses of Potential Comparison are expressed through independent or dependent (infinitive, -ing and -ed) verb forms. In the latter case there is no explicit subject.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

92 (41) (42) (43) (44) (45)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero He had seen how in their dances the white men and women held one another obscenely, the arm of the man around the woman as if she was a whore, ... (K29 128) “Everybody these days has to be something. Conservative, socialist, communist, as though you must belong to some party to have any opinion worth calling an opinion. (N12 123) This last always seems to me like a self-deprecatory clearing of the throat, a rudimentary ahem, as if to suggest that all man8s [sic] thought is improvisedm [sic] and should not be taken too seriously. (R07 98)1 The stranger looked at Sheila oddly for a moment, hesitated as though making up his mind, then propelled her out of the exit towards a waiting car. (N18 114) Instead he frowned to himself for a moment, as though lost in thought. (P08 176-7)

Table 4.8 presents the frequency of independent and dependent forms in clauses of Potential Comparison. Table 4.8: Expression of clauses of Potential Comparison Conjunctions As if As though Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 7 – 4 – 11 – 11 57.9%

Inf. 2 – 2

Dependent -ed -ing – 2 1 3 1 5 8 42.1%

Total 11 8 19 100%

4.1.4.2 Unreal Comparison Clauses of Unreal Comparison contain independent (indicative and subjunctive) verb forms and dependent (-ing and -ed) forms, in which case they are open predications. (46) (47) (48) (49)

Light’s head snicked back; he folded up as if he had suddenly gone boneless, and lay still. (L17 129) The fat girl stared at him; pulling him around the floor as if he were a sack of something. (K27 159) She slipped out of her blouse, unzipped and dropped her skirt, and stepped out of it as though alighting from a bus. (K16 107) I saw at a glance that the only possibility of diversion lay in the bed itself, which stood in the middle of the room, hostile and unruffled, as though convinced I would never have the courage to use it. (K16 7)

1

These errors are found in the corpus, because the text in which they occur is about typewriting errors. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English

93

The possibilities for the expression of clauses of Unreal Comparison are shown in Table 4.9. Table 4.9: Expression of clauses of Unreal Comparison Conjunctions As if As though Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 5 6 5 2 10 8 18 90%

Dependent Inf. -ed -ing – – – – 1 1 – 1 1 2 10%

Total 11 9 20 100%

4.1.5 Clauses of Negative Circumstance Clauses of Negative Circumstance, introduced by the particle without, are expressed through dependent -ing forms, and may or may not have an explicit subject. (50) (51)

She walked on without waiting for an answer, leaving four malevolent eyes fixed on her back. (L21 159) It’s miserable enough my having to take my leave in the autumn without you trying to be bright and gay about it. (P03 142)

As Table 4.10 shows, there is no variation in the expression of negative circumstance, since all examples found in the corpus have the structure without + -ing. Table 4.10: Expression of clauses of Negative Circumstance Conjunctions Without Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. – – – – – –

Inf. – –

Dependent -ed -ing – 68 – 68 68 100%

Total 68 68 100%

4.1.6 Clauses of Purpose Depending on the type of entity which they designate (second or third order), two subtypes of clauses of Purpose clause have been distinguished: Eventive Purpose and Epistemic Purpose. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

94

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

4.1.6.1 Eventive Purpose In all cases analysed, adverbial constructions which express Eventive Purpose have a dependent verb form, which might be an infinitive (in 97.85% of cases) or an -ing form (2.15% of cases). Clauses of Eventive Purpose expressed through an infinitive without an explicit subject have, in most cases (94.88%), no subordinating particle, although there are some cases of constructions introduced by in order to (4.44%) and so as to (0.68%). Moreover, there are a very few examples of this subtype of adverbial clause with an infinitive which constitute a closed predication, in which the subject is introduced by for. (52)

(53) (54) (55)

What we need, to produce scientists who are also human, is something far more fundamental than a departmental committee on syllabus revision on which schoolmasters and industrialists as well as university dons are represented (although that would be a practical first step which is already long overdue). (G64 99) If, therefore, these bags are retained, in order to use them from time to time for storage purposes, they should be kept out of the reach of children. (B10 212) then elaborate precautions will be needed so as not to offend against that precept that “the beautiful pleases without concept”. (J53 167) Cliss cleverly flicked the ball to Ron Tindall, who pushed it through for Bobby Tambling to score. (A22 87)

Although they are less frequent (only in 2.15% of all the examples analysed), some clauses of Eventive Purpose expressed through an -ing form and introduced by for have been found. (56)

A special chamber assembly was constructed for deposition of films on cylindrical formers and, for monitoring their resistance, a static flat glass slide was used. (J08 201)

Table 4.11 shows the distribution, in order of frequency, of the non-finite verbal expression formats which are characteristic of clauses of Eventive Purpose. Table 4.11: Expression of clauses of Eventive Purpose Conjunctions No conjunction In order to For For + subject So as to Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Inf. 556 26 – 6 4 592

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – 13 – – – – – 13 605 100%

Total 556 26 13 6 4 605 100%

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English

95

4.1.6.2 Epistemic Purpose Clauses of Epistemic Purpose, unlike those of Eventive Purpose, are expressed only through independent verb forms. The conjunctions which introduce this type of adverbial clause are, in order of frequency: so that, before and in order that. (57)

(58) (59)

I kept her mouth busy so that I would not have to go through the usual long and boring rigmarole of being told what her name was, who her parents were, where she was born, where she had lived – and especially the list of names, displayed like a string of beads, of all the white tuans she had slept with. (K02 150) She was not adverse to the suggestion, but he had to use a deal of pressure before she would agree to a quick marriage at a registry in Starminster. (P07 140) The oldest and most primitive type is the post mill which became known by the name because (in order that the mill should obtain the maximum power from the wind), the whole body was pivoted on a centre post supported by heavy timber in the form of a tripod. (E10 27)

The frequency of independent verb forms in relation to the different conjunctions which introduce this type of adverbial subordinate clause can be seen in Table 4.12. Table 4.12: Expression of clauses of Epistemic Purpose Conjunctions So that Before In order that Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 14 – 7 – 1 – 22 – 22 100%

Inf. – – – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – – – – – –

Total 14 7 1 22 100%

4.1.7 Clauses of Consequence Taking into account the Entity Type parameter, in Chapter 3 three subtypes of Consecutive clause were distinguished: Eventive (2nd order), Epistemic (3rd order) and Illocutionary (4th order). 4.1.7.1 Eventive Consequence Clauses which designate an Eventive Consequence with respect to the main clause event can be expressed through independent and dependent verb forms. Adverbial constructions which contain an independent verb form are introduced by the conjunctions so that, so and lest, while dependent verb forms (infinitive) do not have any particle introducing them, except for one single example with so María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

96

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

as to. All subordinate clauses containing a dependent form constitute open predications. (60)

(61) (62) (63) (64)

It will be observed that in all the examples I have given he seizes upon some quality that is peculiarly characteristic of the artist in question, so that the reader at once receives an impression of a general facial type before being invited to consider its particular manifestation. (J63 19) Julia had already realised there was something quite off-beat about Doca Beatriz, so she was careful to address only Don Felipe at her side throughout the meal. (P08 132) And then the Lord’s wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heavens, (...) and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the Lord giveth you. (D04 81) The weather was fine; the days were hot but one morning Jane, rising early as usual, looked out of her window to see that the trees and the chimneys were almost blotted out by mist. (P16 70) Consequently by the time the Vel Vidáne has completed his returns so as to show an acreage figure for each plot he has about 20 acres too many. (J28 197)

Table 4.13 shows the distribution of independent and dependent verb forms in adverbial clauses of Eventive Consequence. Table 4.13: Expression of clauses of Eventive Consequence Conjunctions So that So No conjunction Lest So as to Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 25 – 22 – – – 1 – – – 48 – 48 75%

Inf. – – 15 – 1 16

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – – – – – – – – 16 25%

Total 25 22 15 1 1 64 100%

4.1.7.2 Epistemic Consequence Examples which conform to this category of adverbial clauses contain only independent verb forms, which are introduced by the conjunctions so that and so. (65)

Unfortunately, Story does not break down her data for monocular viewing according to whether T- and I-figures were on the same or opposite sides as the eye used so that this prediction would only apply to half the trials she reports. (J25 4)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English (66)

97

Recording the treatment and output of each grass field was started last year, so the present programme might well be modified when sufficient information has been accumulated. (E37 165)

Table 4.14 shows the number of examples found of this category of adverbial subordinate clauses, in which 100% of cases are expressed through independent verb forms. Table 4.14: Expression of clauses of Epistemic Consequence Conjunctions So that So Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 6 – 4 – 10 – 10 100%

Inf. – – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – – – –

Total 6 4 10 100%

4.1.7.3 Illocutionary Consequence Clauses of Illocutionary Consequence show the same expression formats as those of Epistemic Consequence. These constructions are introduced by the conjunctions so and so that and contain (as is shown in Table 4.15) only independent verb forms. (67) This is pretty hard to come by so look for a 1955 Château Beychevelle. (E19 149) (68) Besides, it is not in this area that the main advance is made. So that, although this whole series of letters is formally directed towards the establishment of an “objective” principle of beauty, it is not any direct and brilliant challenge to Kant on this issue which we have to applaud. (J53 45) Table 4.15: Expression of clauses of Illocutionary Consequence Conjunctions So So that Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 13 – 2 – 15 – 15 100%

Inf. – – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – – – –

Total 13 2 15 100%

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

98

María Jesús Pérez Quintero

4.1.8 Clauses of Addition Clauses of Addition make up a very small number within the whole analysed corpus. Only four cases were found, and in these the verb forms are dependent (-ing). In three cases the adverbial constructions are introduced by beside(s) and have no explicit subject, while in the fourth example the subordinate clause is a closed predication introduced by apart from. (69) (70)

Beside riding for £720 Pic prize money, the sixteen riders were also battling for nine places in the world final at Malmo, and results proved that class tells. (A22 218) But then I dispelled my irritation, or endeavoured to; apart from its being so irrational, I had, probably two or three weeks of his company ahead of me. (K02 80)

Table 4.16: Expression of clauses of Addition Conjunctions Beside(s) Apart from Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. – – – – – – – –

Inf. – – –

Dependent -ed -ing – 3 – 1 – 4 4 100%

Total 3 1 4 100%

4.1.9 Clauses of Substitution With the exception of one case with an independent verb form, Substitutive clauses are expressed through dependent verb forms (infinitive and -ing), both when they have their own explicit subject and when they share their subject with the main clause. The conjunctions which introduce this type of clause are, in order of frequency, instead of and rather than. (71) (72) (73) (74)

The Russians, I found, have an obsession for this, even though they have found that when they film a novel it reduces rather than promotes the sale of the book, ... (G49 88) As the Furies pursuing Orestes they take a direct part in the action, and are thus required to project emotions of their own instead of merely reflecting the emotions of the central characters. (C05 33) Rather than fifty million people having to be put out for the sake of 50.000 is there any reason why the centigrade countries should not change to fahrenheit? (B03 169) Rather than lose all control, she returned her thoughts to the young man who was providing such a friend in need. (N18 188)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English (75)

99

then each man will gather-in for himself only, instead of all to help to gather your corn, your wine and your oil. (D04 69)

The frequency of each of the expression formats exemplified above is shown in Table 4.17. Table 4.17: Expression of clauses of Substitution Conjunctions Instead of Rather than Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. – – 1 – 1 – 1 4.55%

Inf. 1 6 7

Dependent -ed -ing – 13 – 1 – 14 21 95.45%

Total 14 8 22 100%

4.1.10 Clauses of Exception Adverbial clauses of Exception can be expressed through independent and dependent forms. The conjunctions which introduce constructions with independent verb forms are except that and but that. (76) (77)

The typewriter used is a Remington Rand, which looks like any other typewriter except that it is fitted with syllabic Eskimo letters. (F36 59) But in these (so far as one can make out from the U.G.C. statistics, which one would call amateurish but that they conceal some things which it is convenient to conceal) the 1958/9 figures for arts graduates were Oxbridge 2.740, London 1.377, the rest 3.436. (G61 62)

Constructions of exception expressed through dependent verb forms are introduced by except and but, in the case of the infinitive, and by except for, in the case of -ing forms. There is no explicit subject in any example of this construction type. (78) (79) (80)

There is not much you can do with a mahogany wardrobe except put your clothes in it. (K16 2) What else could either of them do but pretend they were in love? (P20 5) She was uninjured so far as he could see, except for being knocked senseless by the fall. (N14 111)

Percentages relating to the use of independent and dependent verb forms are shown in Table 4.18.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

100 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Table 4.18: Expression of clauses of Exception Conjunctions Except (that) But (that) Except for Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 2 – 1 – – – 3 – 3 33.33%

Inf. 2 2 – 4

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – 2 – 2 6 66.67%

Total 4 3 2 9 100%

4.1.11 Clauses of Cause As was mentioned earlier in Chapter 3, within this group of adverbial clause three subclasses are distinguished, depending on the type of entity designated by the subordinate clause in each case: Eventive (2nd order), Epistemic (3rd order) and Illocutionary Cause (4th order). 4.1.11.1 Eventive Cause Adverbial clauses of Eventive Cause can be expressed through independent and dependent forms, although 92.4% of the examples found of this type of construction contain independent forms, introduced by the conjunctions because, as and since, cited in order of frequency. (81) (82) (83)

I mean science works because it has abandoned the classical idea that seeking truth means grasping theoretical principles “underlying” experience. (G64 34) The roast turkey, too, demands special attention, and as it has walnut stuffing a richly flavoured wine would be my choice. (E19 152) No pooling of proceeds or reallocations of holdings is necessary since the land is already divided up in such a way that each shareholder works the whole or two-thirds or one-third of his total holding as the case may be. (J28 136)

Clauses of Eventive Cause expressed through dependent (infinitive or -ing) forms constitute only 7.6% of the total of examples. The conjunction which most frequently introduces constructions with the -ing form is for, although in one instance each the use of for fear of and of by was also found, in the latter case with an explicit subject in the subordinate clause. Clauses which contain an infinitive, on the other hand, are not introduced by any subordinating particle. (84)

You’re not trying to say that Hewson would victimise Forrest for behaving with ordinary moral courage! (N02 140)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English 101 (85) (86) (87)

Another permanent conductor was needed, but the Hallé Society were reluctant to appoint one for fear of losing Sir Thomas’s presence altogether. (G28 128) How it had begun by Parnell sleeping in the dressing-room, because he came home so late and did not wish to disturb her. (N12 168) “You are a silly to look so worried about the matter. I can lend you whatever money you require until we return then you can pay me back.” (P07 181)

From the analysis of the use of independent and dependent verb forms in this type of adverbial clause the results shown in Table 4.19 are obtained. Table 4.19: Expression of clauses of Eventive Cause Conjunctions Because As Since For For fear of By No conjunction Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 101 – 36 – 33 – – – – – – – – – 170 – 170 92.4%

Inf. – – – – – – 3 3

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – – – 9 – 1 – 1 – – – 11 14 7.6%

Total 101 36 33 9 1 1 3 184 100%

4.1.11.2 Epistemic Cause Adverbial clauses of Epistemic Cause are expressed through independent verb forms only. The conjunctions which introduce this type of construction are: because (62.33%), as (23.38%), since (12.99%) and for fear that (1.3%). (88)

(89)

(90)

Recently some writers have suggested that a worker may gain both social and economic satisfaction, because controls over output and earnings maintained by the group may also be intended to serve economic objectives, and may consciously be designed to do so. (H12 95) Bearing in mind the profit he is making on the sale of the car I would have thought that he would be delighted to do the work for nothing, especially as he would be unable to sell the car if the finance was not forthcoming. (B10 173) This was felt to be particularly important since in the event of a breach in the bund all villagers must be equally responsible. (J28 29)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

102 María Jesús Pérez Quintero (91)

Besides, since it was forbidden for a man to lie with his wife for twentyfour months after she had born him a child, for fear that her milk would fall on him and cause a thahu, or when a cow was about to calve, it was necessary that he should have more than one wife. (K29 162)

Table 4.20 shows that the expression of clauses of Epistemic Cause is realised through independent forms in 100% of the examples analysed. Table 4.20: Expression of clauses of Epistemic Cause Conjunctions Because As Since For fear that Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 48 – 18 – 10 – 1 – 77 – 77 100%

Inf. – – – – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – – – – – – – –

Total 48 18 10 1 77 100%

4.1.11.3 Illocutionary Cause Clauses of Illocutionary Cause, which in themselves constitute a speech act which expresses an explanation with respect to the main clause, contain only independent forms. The conjunction characteristic of this type of subordinate clause is for (in 91.94% of the cases analysed), followed by because and in that (each representing 4.03% of cases). (92)

(93) (94)

Remembering that it is only fifty years since a syllabic written version of the Canadian Eskimo language was created by missionaries, the production now of an all-Eskimo magazine, in two separate dialects, is truly an amazing step forward. For, it must be remembered, fifty years ago the Canadian Eskimo was still a stone-age people. (F36 12) You’re not telling me that all schools are perfect except Waterloo, because I know better than that. (B23 194) The gross and rapid concentration of the blood in sea water drowning was well demonstrated in that after only 3 minutes’ submersion the blood had lost some 40% of its water. (J16 25)

The data relating to the number of examples found are given in Table 4.21, classified according to the conjunction which introduces them.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English 103 Table 4.21: Expression of clauses of Illocutionary Cause Conjunctions For Because In that Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 137 – 6 – 6 – 149 – 149 100%

Inf. – – – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – – – – – –

Total 137 6 6 149 100%

4.1.12 Clauses of Condition Through the application of the Entity Type parameter, three subclasses of Conditional clause are distinguished: Eventive (2nd order), Epistemic (3rd order) and Illocutionary (4th order). Within the epistemic group, by applying the parameter of Presupposition, a distinction is established between Potential and Unreal Epistemic Condition. 4.1.12.1 Eventive Condition This type of adverbial subordinate clause can be expressed through independent (indicative and present subjunctive be) and dependent verb forms. The independent forms are introduced by different conjunctions, the most frequent one being if. Other conjunctions which express eventive condition are: unless, provided (that), so long as, providing, as long as, in so far as.2 (95) (96)

(97)

(98)

But if you pester Graham or send any more anonymous messages about me I shall go straight to the police. (L21 155) If it be remembered that not only the legend of Orpheus, but the whole of Virgil’s work was widely known in the middle ages, a clue may be found in another Virgilian description of the classical underworld, the one in Aeneid, Bk. 6. (J62 127) Without doubt a situation has now been reached on the south coast where, unless something is done soon, yachting and yachtbuilding will be severely restricted because there will be nowhere to keep the yachts, ... (E18 186) But Miss Courtney is perfectly happy in any amount of water, provided it’s not too cold. (A39 183)

2

Other conjunctions, such as in case and on condition that, characteristic of Conditional clauses were not found in the corpus analysed. However, it should be pointed out that the use of these is quite limited in general, since only eleven examples of in case and one of on condition that were found among all the texts which make up the LOB Corpus. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

104 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Rightly regarded, the academic is indispensable to civilization only so long as he remains academic in the sense I have described. (G58 103) (100) So, shall we say six o’clock, providing this afternoon conference doesn’t run late. (P20 118) (101) “In open water, distance doesn’t bother me as long as I can take my time and just plod on.” (A39 189) (102) In so far as the demands of the main functions will allow, therefore, the magazine will be published every four months or so. (F36 48) (99)

The dependent forms which appear in adverbial clauses of Eventive Condition are the past participle, introduced by if or unless, and one isolated case of the infinitive without a subordinating particle. (103) Thus a family of a mother and four children will cost the country £37 a week when separated, and only £14 if kept together at St. Mary’s. (G64 180) (104) Section 16 of the rent act, 1957, provides that no notice to quit in respect of such premises shall be valid unless given not less than four weeks before the date on which it is to take effect. (J48 16) (105) After all, as you obviously can’t go around by yourself I’d be a boor to condemn you to your hotel for the rest of your evenings in Paris. (P20 116) Table 4.22 shows the percentages relating to the use of independent and dependent forms in Eventive Conditional clauses. Table 4.22: Expression of clauses of Eventive Condition Conjunctions If Unless Provided (that) So long as Providing As long as In so far as No conjunction Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 342 5 29 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 1 – 1 – – – 385 5 390 97.26%

Inf. – – – – – – – 1 1

Dependent -ed -ing 9 – 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 10 – 11 2.74%

Total 356 30 5 4 3 1 1 1 401 100%

4.1.12.2 Epistemic Condition Clauses which express Epistemic Condition can be non-presupposed (Potential Condition), or presupposed (Unreal Condition).

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English 105 Potential Epistemic Conditional clauses can be expressed through independent forms only. The most frequently used conjunctions are if and unless, which introduce both indicative and subjunctive forms, followed by provided (that). (106) If we all followed our desire what kind of a world would we live in? (K18 9) (107) If it should unfortunately happen that you do not really enjoy your visit, are uncomfortable or do not like your fellow guests or the food, keep all this darkly under your hat and don’t regale your friends and acquaintances with unfavourable if amusing narrative of your stay; (E26 97) (108) Indeed, if there were no fornication, how could the girls tell which men they liked and which they disliked? (K29 113) (109) This marvellously comprehensive expression would not make us willing to doff and kneel with Beethoven unless it were conveyed in sublime examples of almost perfect form, none bewildering unless we try to explain it by the vocabulary of what should be called design. (G42 75) (110) If Manchester is ready to pay the top price of, say, 55 shillings a seat, and fill the theatre, Manchester can expect more of the world-famous ones – provided that her claims do not unhappily conflict with those of La Scala, New York’s metropolitan opera, Vienna, Venice, Paris, San Francisco, and the rest of the world’s leading opera. (A39 22) The data relating to the expression of this group of Conditional clauses are given in Table 4.23. Table 4.23: Expression of clauses of Potential Epistemic Condition Conjunctions If Unless Provided (that) Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 76 23 10 2 6 – 92 25 117 100%

Inf. – – – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – – – – – –

Total 99 12 6 117 100%

Unreal Epistemic Conditional clauses, in which it is presupposed that the propositional content described by the subordinate clause is not true, can only be expressed through independent verb forms (indicative). These verb forms are introduced mainly by the conjunction if, although there are some cases in which the subordinate clause is not introduced by any conjunction, but is characterised by inversion of the auxiliary verb and the subject.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

106 María Jesús Pérez Quintero (111) He was tall and lean and quite heart-stoppingly handsome, or would have been if he hadn’t looked so solemn all the time. (P20 44) (112) If Hardy could scarcely have assumed in the generality of his readers any knowledge of Sallaert or Van Alsloot, he could presumably have counted upon a much wider familiarity with the white horses which almost invariably appear in the landscapes of Wouwermans, always a popular artist in England, ... (J63 111) (113) Robert Hooke in England and Nicholas Steno in Italy had published opinions which, had they been combined, would have opened the subject 150 years before it was destined to flower. (J02 164) Table 4.24 shows that 100% of Unreal Epistemic Conditional clauses are expressed through independent verb forms, mainly introduced by if. Table 4.24: Expression of clauses of Unreal Epistemic Condition Conjunctions If Inversion Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 37 – 6 – 43 – 43 100%

Inf. – – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – – – –

Total 37 6 43 100%

4.1.12.3 Illocutionary Condition The number of adverbial clauses of Illocutionary Condition in the corpus is very limited; only four examples have been found. It would be reasonable to suppose that this type of subordinate clause appears more frequently in oral than in written language, since the main clause is usually a direct interrogative clause. (114) If the king of fairy is not to be entirely identified with the king of the dead, what reason can be offered for his behaviour? (J62 14) The small amount of data found about the expression of illocutionary condition indicates, as shown in Table 4.25, that the verb forms which appear are independent and are introduced by the conjunction if. Table 4.25: Expression of clauses of Illocutionary Condition Conjunctions If Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 4 – 4 – 4 100%

Inf. – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – –

Total 4 4 100%

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English 107 4.1.13 Clauses of Concessive-Condition In Chapter 3 a distinction between Eventive, Epistemic and Illocutionary Concessive-Conditional clauses was established. However, no example of an Illocutionary Concessive-Conditional clause was found in the corpus. Moreover, although an opposition between Potential and Unreal Epistemic ConcessiveConditional clauses might be expected, similar to the distinction made for Conditional clauses, no example of an Unreal clause has been found either. 4.1.13.1 Eventive Concessive-Condition This subclass of adverbial clauses is expressed almost entirely, in the cases analysed, through independent verb forms, except for one example where a dependent -ing form was found. The conjunctions which introduce this type of clause are even if and even when, for independent forms, and even, for dependent forms. (115) Even if he is wealthy enough not to require any public forms of entertainment or amusement, surely he cannot begrudge them to people less fortunate than him. (B24 108) (116) Even when full allowance has been made for the marvellous things which could happen in fairyland, it is difficult to believe that a person without a head was not “dead” in the first instance. (J62 108) (117) Even allowing for the unlikely contingency of building costs continuing to rise at a precipitous rate, and local authorities suddenly finding that their rent income falls short of housing expenditure to the extent of their qualifying for the higher exchequer subsidy, there is provision in the bill for a yearly review of the situation to take account of the effect of further building by each authority. (B23 158) The result of analysing the verb forms used in Eventive Concessive-Conditional clauses is given in Table 4.26: Table 4.26: Expression of clauses of Eventive Concessive-Condition Conjunctions Even if Even when Even Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 13 – 2 – – – 15 – 15 93.75%

Dependent Inf. -ed -ing – – – – – – – – 1 – – 1 1 6.25%

Total 13 2 1 16 100%

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

108 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 4.1.13.2 Potential Epistemic Concessive-Condition In the corpus analysed four examples of this type of Concessive-Conditional clause were found, three of which were expressed through independent indicative verb forms and only one expressed through an independent subjunctive form. The conjunction which introduces this type of adverbial subordinate clause is even if. (118) Even if the Op. 6 concertos lacked their distinguishing breadth of conception and their splendid musical ideas they would still differ from Corelli’s for two main reasons. (G42 133) (119) and it must be included in the gospel and studied, even if the result of the study were to decide that the paragraph should then be excluded. (D01 99) The distribution of the expression formats of Potential Epistemic ConcessiveConditional clauses, although of little significance given the number of examples found, is shown in Table 4.27. Table 4.27: Expression of clauses of Potential Epistemic Concessive-Condition Conjunctions Even if Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 3 1 3 1 4 100%

Inf. – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – –

Total 4 4 100%

4.1.14 Clauses of Concession According to the Entity Type parameter, three types of Concessive clause are distinguished: Eventive (2nd order), Epistemic (3rd order) and Illocutionary (4th order). 4.1.14.1 Eventive Concession Clauses of Eventive Concession can be expressed through independent or dependent forms. The constructions with an independent verb form are introduced, in most cases, by (al)though (81.25%), but also by even though (14.06%) and whilst (4.69%). (120) Miss Moberly recorded that although the weather had been very hot all the week, the sky was somewhat overcast that afternoon and a lively wind was blowing across the main park. (F11 79) (121) They had also increases with effect from the 1 st January, 1960, and a reduction of working hours as from the 2 nd May, 1960, even though the federation had not recommended any salary increases at that time. (H19 106)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English 109 (122) Thus, whilst area boards sold 12.4 per cent more units during the year their total manpower at the end of the year had increased by less than 1.8 per cent. (H23 35) The dependent forms used to express an Eventive Concessive clause are the -ing form, introduced by (al)though and while, and the past participle, introduced by (al)though. In all cases the subordinate clause is an open predication, since the subject is not explicit. (123) She had acted as her father’s secretary, and although lacking formal academic qualifications was appointed to the headship of the first women’s college in Oxford, ... (F11 48) (124) W. Von Wartburg and S. Ullmann, as I have already mentioned, have criticized certain aspects of them, while remaining generally favourable. (J35 83) (125) The lower part of the gallery -...- has remained in fair shape though cluttered inordinately with pipes, cabling and all the modern apparatus of a basement given over to heating and lighting. (A11 43) Table 4.28 shows the distribution of independent and dependent verb forms in Eventive Concessive clauses. Table 4.28: Expression of clauses of Eventive Concession Conjunctions (Al)though Even though Whilst While Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 52 – 9 – 3 – – – 64 – 64 84.21%

Inf. – – – – –

Dependent -ed -ing 5 5 – – – – – 2 5 7 12 15.79%

Total 62 9 3 2 76 100%

4.1.14.2 Epistemic Concession Epistemic Concessive clauses are expressed through independent verb forms only, as is shown in Table 4.29, and are introduced by the conjunctions: (al)though (69.47%), while (16.84%), however (8.42%), even though (2.11%), whereas (2.11%) and whilst (1.05%). (126) No doubt the relaxation of rent restrictions will to some extent encourage the building of houses to let although, for many reasons, the old idea of investing one’s money in this sort of security is, and will probably remain, unfashionable. (E28 97)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

110 María Jesús Pérez Quintero (127) “While criticism of a constructive kind is good, I have little patience with he who praises with enthusiastic tone all centuries but this, and every town but his own.” (A30 89) (128) However improved our material standards of living may be, the telly, the washing machine and the car, will not bring increased happiness to our increased leisure. (F16 182) (129) Once heart failure and falling blood pressure had occurred survival was most unlikely, even though irregular heart beats and respirations might occur for some minutes afterwards. (J16 33) (130) The position is that, whereas this claim of “objectivity” is of extreme interest as evidence of Schiller’s aesthetic consciousness and of his efforts to bring it to terms with his theoretical reflections, he does not in fact substantiate the claim in its more far-reaching implications. (J53 40) (131) On behalf of the union it was stated that they had when necessary met the company regarding matters affecting wages and conditions of clerical workers, and whilst the company were not in membership of the engineering employers’ federation, there was an understanding that they should follow the engineering industry. (H19 61) When analysing the examples belonging to this type of adverbial clause one case of a singular subject with were (example 131) was found, but English native speakers who were consulted agree that this was not a subjunctive form. 3 It is interesting to note that, as can be seen in example (128), all clauses introduced by however are characterised by presenting the verbal complement immediately after the conjunction. The distribution of the verbal expression formats in Epistemic Concessive clauses is shown in Table 4.29. 4.1.14.3 Illocutionary Concession Illocutionary Concessive clauses are expressed exclusively through independent forms, introduced, as Table 4.30 shows, by (al)though (in 97.87% of cases) and by while in one isolated case (in 2.13%). (132) Both Proust and Joyce, moreover, attempted to portray in their works the totality of human experience: to write, in fact, a kind of Comédie Humaine; though Ulysses, I suppose, is the human comedy seen through the wrong end of a telescope – or, as Aldous Huxley’s typewriter once brilliantly expressed it, the “human vomedy.” (G41 95)

3

Regarding this example, Lachlan Mackenzie (personal communication) states “This is definitely not a subjunctive, since it doesn’t occur in a context that would call for a subjunctive (i.e. a conditional or jussive context). It is a plural indicative form, plural in semantic or notional agreement, as is standard in BrE but not AmE, with the subject ‘the company’.” María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English 111 (133) My feeling is that there is rarely room to spare and one is worried about upsetting a vase, while a flower out of water fidgets me personally. (E26 44) Table 4.29: Expression of clauses of Epistemic Concession Conjunctions (Al)though While However Even though Whereas Whilst Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. 66 – 16 – 8 – 2 – 2 – 1 – 95 – 95 100%

Inf. – – – – – – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Total 66 16 8 2 2 1 95 100%

Table 4.30: Expression of clauses of Illocutionary Concession Conjunctions (Al)though While Nº of examples Percentage 4.2

Independent Ind. Subj. 46 – 1 – 47 – 47 100%

Inf. – – –

Dependent -ed -ing – – – – – – – –

Total 46 1 47 100%

Summary of the expression of adverbial clauses

This section presents a summary of the data concerning the means of expression of adverbial subordinate clauses, giving the quantities and percentages of independent and dependent verb forms for each of the different semantic classes of adverbial clause. Table 4.31 shows the total number of adverbial clauses analysed (3,722), of which 71.31% (2,654 cases) are expressed through independent verb forms and 28.69% (1,068 cases) through dependent verb forms. Note that independent subjunctive forms constitute a very small percentage, only 1.47%, of the total of independent forms and 1.05% of the total number of verb forms used to express adverbial clauses. This shows that the subjunctive mood is a form which is used infrequently in British English, since its use is fairly restricted not only in main clauses but also in adverbial clauses, a context, according to Quirk et al. (1991), in which this verb form is still to be used. However, Table 4.31 shows that even in this context the subjunctive is the least used verb form. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

112 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Table 4.31: Summary of the expression formats of the adverbial clauses in the corpus Type of clause MEANS TEMPORAL Anteriority Simultaneity Posteriority MANNER Eventive Epistemic Illocutionary COMPARISON Potential Unreal NEGATIVE CIRC. PURPOSE Eventive Epistemic CONSEQUENCE Eventive Epistemic Illocutionary ADDITION SUBSTITUTION EXCEPTION CAUSE Eventive Epistemic Illocutionary CONDITION Eventive Potential Epist. Unreal Epist. Illocutionary CONCESS-COND Eventive Potential Epist. CONCESSION Eventive Epistemic Illocutionary Nº of examples Percentage

Independent Ind. Subj. – –

Inf. –

Dependent -ed -ing – 133

Total 133

100 848 196

– – –

– – –

1 19 –

24 80 21

125 947 217

160 34 13

– – –

– – –

21 – –

1 – –

182 34 13

11 10 –

– 8 –

2 – –

1 1 –

5 1 68

19 20 68

– 22

– –

592 –

– –

13 –

605 22

48 10 15 – 1 3

– – – – – –

16 – – – 7 4

– – – – – –

– – – 4 14 2

64 10 15 4 22 9

170 77 149

– – –

3 – –

– – –

11 – –

184 77 149

385 92 43 4

5 25 – –

1 – – –

10 – – –

– – – –

401 117 43 4

15 3

– 1

– –

– –

1 –

16 4

– – – 625

5 – – 58 1,068 28.69%

7 – – 385

76 95 47

64 – 95 – 47 – 2,615 39 2,654 71.31%

3,722 100%

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in English 113 Table 4.32 shows the frequencies of the different dependent verb forms, both partial, considering dependent forms only, and total, considering all the adverbial clauses analysed. The most frequent dependent verb forms are infinitive forms, which make up 16.79% of the total number of cases analysed and 58.52% of all dependent forms, followed by -ing and -ed forms. Table 4.32: Partial and total percentage of dependent verb forms Dependent forms Infinitive -ed -ing Total

Number of examples 625 58 385 1,068

Partial percentage

Total percentage

58.52% 5.43% 36.05% 100%

16.79% 1.56% 10.34% 28.69%

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

5.

Semantic hierarchies

5.1

Introduction

This chapter presents the data obtained from analysing the relation between the expression of adverbial clauses in English and the hierarchies determined by the four classifying parameters given in Chapter 3. The data show that there is a systematic relation between the semantic type of an adverbial clause and its expression. Therefore, the validity of the different hierarchies for determining the expression of the different semantic types of adverbial clause can be confirmed. Each of the semantic hierarchies establishes that it is more likely that dependent verb forms occur in adverbial clauses more to the left of the hierarchy than in those more to the right. Since each of the hierarchies interacts with all the other ones, the validity of each hierarchy is tested separately for each of the domains defined by the other hierarchies. 5.2

The Entity Type Hierarchy

This hierarchy implies that dependent verb forms are more likely to occur in clauses designating lower order entities than in those designating higher order entities. Order 0 > 2nd order > 3rd order > 4th order Dependent > Independent The following table shows the number and percentage of independent and dependent forms, classified according to the entity type designated by the adverbial clause. Table 5.1: Relation between verbal expression formats and the Entity Type Hierarchy Indep. Dep.

Nº of examples Percentage Nº of examples Percentage

0 order – 0% 133 100%

2nd order 2,024 68.4% 935 31.6%

3rd order 402 100% – 0%

4th order 228 100% – 0%

Table 5.1 shows that, when analysing the number of independent and dependent verb forms in all of the adverbial clauses which make up the corpus, the percentage of independent forms increases if the entity type designated by the adverbial clause is of a higher order (0% > 68.4% > 100% > 100%). In keeping María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

116 María Jesús Pérez Quintero with this, the percentage of dependent forms decreases (100% > 31.6% > 0% > 0%) from left to right. The validity of the Entity Type Hierarchy is shown, moreover, in each of the different domains (DTR / ITR; Factual / Non-factual; Presupposed / Nonpresupposed) individually, as is shown below in Tables 5.2–5.5. In the domain of Factuality – Non-Presupposition, it can be seen that 100% of the clauses which designate zero order entities are expressed through dependent verb forms, while clauses designating third and fourth order entities are expressed only through independent forms. The percentage of dependent forms in second order clauses is 10.97% (11.37% in cases of DTR and 9.84% in cases of ITR), which shows the validity of this hierarchy. Table 5.2a shows the percentages of independent and dependent verb forms for each type of factual and non-presupposed adverbial clause. Table 5.2b is a simplified representation of the possibility of expression of adverbial clauses belonging to this domain. In this table the “+” sign indicates the use of dependent forms and the “–” sign the use of independent forms, as in all of the other “b” tables in this chapter. Table 5.2a: Entity Type Hierarchy: Factual – Non-presupposed Entity type 0 order 2nd DTR 2nd ITR 3rd order

Clauses Means

Simultaneity Ev. Conseq. Ev. Manner Ev. Cause Ep. Manner Ep. Conseq. Ep. Cause 4th Il. Manner order Il. Conseq. Il. Cause

Independent Nº % – 0%

Dependent Nº % 133 100%

848 48 160 170 34 10 77 13 15 149

99 16 22 14 – – – – – –

89.55% 75% 87.9% 92.4% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Nº 133

Total % Dep. 100%

10.45% 1,011 11.37% 25% 12.1% 366 9.84% 7.6% 0% 0% 121 0% 0% 0% 0% 254 0% 0%

10.97 %

Table 5.2b: Entity Type Hierarchy: Factual – Non-presupposed 0 order Means +

2nd DTR Simultaneity +/– Event. Conseq.

2nd ITR Event. Manner +/– Event. Cause +/–

3rd order Epist. Manner – Epist. Conseq. – Epist. Cause –

4th order Illoc. Manner – Illoc. Conseq. – Illoc. Cause –

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic hierarchies 117 As Tables 5.3a and 5.3b show, the results obtained from the analysis of the expression of adverbial clauses belonging to the Factual – Presupposed domain corroborate the order of preference established by the Entity Type Hierarchy, because it can be seen that dependent forms cease to occur as the entity type designated by the adverbial clause is of a higher order. Table 5.3a: Entity Type Hierarchy: Factual – Presupposed Entity Clauses type 2nd Anteriority DTR Exception Addition 2nd Ev. Conce. ITR 3rd Ep. Conce. order 4th Il. Conce. order

Independent Nº % 100 80% 3 33.33% – 0% 64 84.21%

Dependent Nº % 25 20% 6 66.67% 4 100% 12 15.79%

Nº

Total % Dep.

138

25.36%

76

15.79%

95

100%

–

0%

95

0%

47

100%

–

0%

47

0%

21.96 %

Table 5.3b: Entity Type Hierarchy: Factual – Presupposed 2nd DTR Addition + Exception +/– Anteriority +/–

2nd ITR Eventive Concession +/–

3rd order Epist. Concession –

4th order Illoc. Concession –

The validity of the Entity Type Hierarchy is also confirmed in the Non-factual – Non-presupposed domain, as can be seen in Tables 5.4a and b. The effectiveness of the Entity Type Hierarchy is shown, finally, in the Non-factual – Presupposed domain, in which second order clauses are expressed in 82.73% of the cases through dependent forms (98.89% in clauses with DTR and 10% in those with ITR), while third order clauses are expressed through independent forms only. The different percentages and possibilities of expression are shown in Tables 5.5a and b, respectively.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

118 María Jesús Pérez Quintero

Table 5.4a: Entity Type Hierarchy: Non-factual – Non-presupposed Entity type 2nd DTR 2nd ITR

Clauses

Ev. Purp. Posterior. P. Comp. Ev. Cond. Ev. ConcCond. 3rd P Ep Cond order Ep ConcCond. Ep. Purp. 4th Il. Cond. order

Independent Nº % – 0% 196 90.32% 11 57.9% 390 97.26% 15 93.75%

Dependent Nº % 605 100% 21 9.68% 8 42.1% 11 2.74% 1 6.25%

Nº 822

Total % Dep. 76.16%

436

4.99%

117 4

100% 100%

– –

0% 0%

143

0%

22 47

100% 100%

– –

0% 0%

47

0%

52.82 %

Table 5.4b: Entity Type Hierarchy: Non-factual – Non-presupposed 2nd DTR Event. Purpose + Posteriority +/–

2nd ITR 3rd order Pot. Comparison Pot. Epist. Cond. +/– – Event. Condition Epist. Conc-Cond. +/– – Event. Conc-Cond. Epistemic Purpose +/– –

4th order Illoc. Condition –

Table 5.5a: Entity Type Hierarchy: Non-factual – Presupposed Entity type 2nd DTR 2nd ITR 3rd order

Clauses Neg. Circ. Substitut. Unreal Comp. Unr. Epist. Cond.

Independent Nº % – 0% 1 4.55% 18 90%

Dependent Nº % 68 100% 21 95.45% 2 10%

43

–

100%

0%

Nº 90

Total % Dep. 98.89%

20

10%

43

0%

82.73 %

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic hierarchies 119 Table 5.5b: Entity Type Hierarchy: Non-factual – Presupposed 2nd DTR Negative Circumstance + Substitution +/–

2nd ITR Unreal Comparison +/–

3rd order Unreal Ep. Condition –

From the data presented here, it can be concluded that the Entity Type Hierarchy establishes a correct order of priorities concerning the use of dependent and independent verb forms within the different semantic types of adverbial clauses. 5.3

The Time Dependency Hierarchy

The Time Dependency Hierarchy which, as was pointed out in Chapter 3, is relevant for second order entities only, implies that it is more likely that dependent forms appear in adverbial clauses with DTR than in those with ITR. DTR Dependent

> >

ITR Independent

Table 5.6 shows the validity of this hierarchy for all the adverbial clauses analysed: Clauses with DTR are expressed in 49.7% of the cases through dependent verb forms, a percentage which is reduced to 7.8% in the case of clauses with ITR. Table 5.6: Relation between verbal expression formats and the Time Dependency Hierarchy Indep. Dep.

Nº of examples Percentage Nº of examples Percentage

DTR 1,196 58.03% 865 49.7%

ITR 815 92.2% 70 7.8%

In the Factual – Non-presupposed domain, as is shown in Table 5.7a, the percentage of dependent forms is higher (11.37%) in clauses with DTR than in those with ITR (9.84%), as is predicted by the Time Dependency Hierarchy. In Table 5.7b it is shown how all the adverbial clauses belonging to this domain can be expressed through dependent and independent verb forms.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

120 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Table 5.7a: Time Dependency Hierarchy: Factual – Non-presupposed Time Dep. DTR ITR

Clauses Simultaneity Ev. Conseq. Ev. Manner Ev. Cause

Independent Nº % 848 89.55% 48 75% 160 87.9% 170 92.4%

Dependent Total Nº % Nº % Dep. 99 10.45% 1011 11.37% 16 25% 22 12.1% 366 9.84% 14 7.6%

Table 5.7b: Time Dependency Hierarchy: Factual – Non-presupposed DTR Simultaneity +/– Eventive Consequence +/–

ITR Eventive Manner +/– Eventive Cause +/–

The validity of the hierarchy analysed in this section is also proven in the Factual – Presupposed domain, as shown in Table 5.8a, in which the percentages of dependent forms for clauses with DTR (25.36%) and ITR (15.79%) are given. Moreover, if the possibilities of expression for each of the different types of adverbial clause belonging to this group are examined (Table 5.8b) it can be seen that clauses of Addition (DTR) can be expressed only through dependent verb forms, while clauses of Eventive Concession (ITR) are expressed through dependent and independent forms, which again corroborates the Time Dependency Hierarchy. Table 5.8a: Time Dependency Hierarchy: Factual – Presupposed Time Dep. DTR ITR

Clauses Anteriority Exception Addition Ev. Conces.

Independent Nº % 100 80% 3 33.33% – 0% 64 84.21%

Dependent Nº % 25 20% 6 66.67% 4 100% 12 15.79%

Nº

Total % Dep.

138

25.36%

76

15.79%

Table 5.8b: Time Dependency Hierarchy: Factual – Presupposed DTR Addition + Exception +/– Anteriority +/–

ITR Eventive Concession +/–

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic hierarchies 121 The Non-factual – Non-presupposed domain is where the greatest difference regarding the use of dependent forms is found, since in clauses with DTR these verb forms appear in 76.16% of the cases, while in clauses with ITR they only appear in 4.59% of the examples analysed. Table 5.9a: Time Dependency Hierarchy: Non-factual – Non-presupposed Time Dep. DTR ITR

Clauses Ev. Purpose Posteriority Pot. Compar. Ev. Condition Ev Con-Cond

Independent Nº % – 0% 196 90.32% 11 57.9% 390 97.26% 15 93.75%

Dependent Nº % 605 100% 21 9.68% 8 42.1% 11 2.74% 1 6.25%

Nº 822

Total % Dep. 76.16%

436

4.59%

Table 5.9b: Time Dependency Hierarchy: Non-factual – Non-presupposed DTR Eventive Purpose + Posteriority +/–

ITR Potential Comparison +/– Eventive Condition +/– Eventive Conc-Condition +/–

Lastly, in the Non-factual – Presupposed domain, the validity of the Time Dependency Hierarchy is also shown, since the percentage of dependent forms is much higher (98.89%) in clauses with DTR than in those with ITR (10%), as can be seen in Table 5.10a. In Table 5.10b the usefulness of the Time Dependency Hierarchy is confirmed, because within the group of clauses with DTR, one type of adverbial clause is found which is expressed only through dependent forms (Negative Circumstance), while those with ITR can alternate between dependent and independent forms. Table 5.10a: Time Dependency Hierarchy: Non-factual – Presupposed Time Dep. DTR ITR

Clauses Neg. Circ. Substitution Unreal Comp.

Independent Nº % – 0% 1 4.55% 18 90%

Dependent Nº % 68 100% 21 95.45% 2 10%

Nº 90 20

Total % Dep. 98.89% 10%

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

122 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Table 5.10b: Time Dependency Hierarchy: Non-factual – Presupposed DTR Negative Circumstance + Substitution +/–

ITR Unreal Comparison +/–

An analysis of the relation which exists between the Time Dependency Hierarchy and the expression of adverbial clauses in each of the different domains thus confirms that this hierarchy correctly predicts that dependent verb forms are more likely to appear in adverbial clauses with DTR than in those with ITR. 5.4

The Factuality Hierarchy

The Factuality Hierarchy states that dependent verb forms are more likely to appear in factual clauses than in non-factual clauses. Factual Dependent

> >

Non-factual Independent

Results obtained from a preliminary study of the verb forms of the corpus showed that the Factuality Hierarchy does not correctly predict preferences in the expression of second order clauses with DTR, either in the Presupposed or the Non-presupposed domain. In other words, this hierarchy does not interact with the Time Dependency Hierarchy, since it only applies to second order clauses with ITR and to third and fourth order clauses.1 Since third and fourth order clauses are intrinsically ITR, it can be deduced from the preceding facts that Factuality is only applicable to clauses with ITR. Nevertheless, this phenomenon is not an isolated case peculiar to the expression of adverbial clauses in English. Hengeveld (1998), in his typological study of adverbial subordination, observes the same phenomenon when checking the interaction between Factuality and clauses with DTR designating second order in the thirty nine European languages which make up his corpus. Regarding this, he states: The Time-Dependency Hierarchy does not interact with the Factuality Hierarchy either. Rather, it operates locally within the factual and nonfactual domains, within which it interacts with the Presupposedness Hierarchy (Hengeveld 1998: 378) 1

The Factuality hierarchy cannot be applied to zero order clauses, because in this group, in which clauses of Means are found, no contrast between factual and non-factual clauses is established. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic hierarchies 123

Regarding the expression of adverbial clauses with DTR, Hengeveld concludes that the choice between the Factual or Non-factual domains seems to be related to the possibilities of each particular language. Therefore it can be stated that in English, as in other European languages, applicability of the Factuality Hierarchy is limited to clauses with ITR, that is, that the Factuality Hierarchy is only operative when ITR exists. Percentages, therefore, have been calculated excluding clauses with DTR. Table 5.11, in which the number and percentages of independent and dependent forms for all adverbial clauses with ITR are given, shows that the use of dependent forms is higher in factual clauses (5.87%) than in non-factual clauses (3.41%). Table 5.11: Relation between verbal expression formats and the Factuality Hierarchy Indep. Dep.

Nº of examples Percentage Nº of examples Percentage

Factual 834 94.13% 52 5.87%

Non-factual 624 96.59% 22 3.41%

In the Non-Presupposition – 2nd order (ITR) domain the behaviour of adverbial clauses with respect to verbal expression formats confirms the validity of the Factuality Hierarchy, since, as can be seen in Table 5.12a, a larger percentage of dependent forms occurs in factual clauses (9.84%) than in non-factual clauses (4.59%). The clauses in this group are characterised by the use of independent forms in the majority of the cases, as can be deduced from the very small percentage of dependent forms in both categories, as well as from the possibilities of expression shown in Table 5.12b. Table 5.12a: Factuality Hierarchy: Non-presupposed – 2 nd order (ITR) Factuality Clauses Factual Nonfactual

Ev. Man. Ev. Cause P. Comp. Ev. Cond. Ev. ConcCond.

Independent Nº % 160 87.9% 170 92.4% 11 57.9% 390 97.26% 15 93.75%

Dependent Nº % 22 12.1% 14 7.6% 8 42.1% 11 2.74% 1 6.25%

Nº 366

Total % Dep. 9.84%

436

4.59%

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

124 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Table 5.12b: Factuality Hierarchy: Non-presupposed – 2 nd order (ITR) Factual Eventive Manner +/– Eventive Cause +/–

Non-factual Potential Comparison +/– Eventive Condition +/– Eventive Conc.-Condition +/–

The expression of non-presupposed adverbial clauses designating third order entities is realised only through independent forms. The number of examples and the possibilities of expression of each of the types of clauses in this group are given in Table 5.13 (a-b). Table 5.13a: Factuality Hierarchy: Non-presupposed – 3 rd order Factuality Clauses Factual Nonfactual

Ep. Man. Ep. Cons. Ep. Cause P. Ep. Cond. P.Ep.Con-Cond Ep. Purpose

Independent Nº % 34 100% 10 100% 77 100% 117 100% 4 100% 22 100%

Dependent Nº % – 0% – 0% – 0% – 0% – 0% – 0%

Nº

Total % Dep.

121

0%

143

0%

Table 5.13b: Factuality Hierarchy: Non-presupposed – 3 rd order Factual Epistemic Manner – Epistemic Consequence – Epistemic Cause –

Non-factual Potential Epist. Condition – Pot. Epist. Conc-Condition – Epistemic Purpose –

Moreover, the Factuality Hierarchy correctly predicts preferences in the expression of adverbial clauses in the Presupposition – 2 nd order (ITR) domain. The percentage of dependent forms is higher in factual clauses (15.79%) than in non-factual clauses (10%), as is illustrated in Table 5.14a.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic hierarchies 125 Table 5.14a: Factuality Hierarchy: Presupposed – 2 nd order (ITR) Factuality Clauses Factual Nonfactual

Ev. Conc. Unreal Compar.

Independent Nº % 64 84.21% 18 90%

Dependent Nº % 12 15.79% 2 10%

Nº 76 20

Total % Dep. 15.79% 10%

Regarding the possibilities of expression of each of the clauses belonging to this domain, both factual and non-factual clauses can be expressed through independent and dependent forms (Table 5.14b). Table 5.14b: Factuality Hierarchy: Presupposed – 2 nd order (ITR) Factual Eventive Concession +/–

Non-factual Unreal Comparison +/–

The data offered in this section proves the validity of the Factuality Hierarchy, relevant only for clauses with ITR, in the different domains established by the parameters of Presupposition and Entity Type. 5.5

The Presupposition Hierarchy

The Presupposition Hierarchy, as was pointed out in Chapter 3, specifies that dependent forms are more likely to appear in presupposed than in nonpresupposed adverbial clauses. Presupposed Dependent

> >

Non-presupposed Independent

When examining the relation between the Presupposition parameter and the expression of adverbial clauses, those clauses belonging to the Factuality – Zero order domain (clauses of Means) and to the Factuality – 4 th order domain (clauses of Illocutionary Concession) should be excluded, since in these domains there is no contrast with non-presupposed and presupposed adverbial clauses, respectively, in the Non-factual domain. The results obtained from the analysis of the corpus corroborate, as Table 5.15 shows, the Presupposition Hierarchy, since the percentage of dependent forms is higher in presupposed clauses (29.87%) than in non-presupposed clauses (25.88%).

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

126 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Table 5.15: Relation between verbal expression formats and the Presupposition Hierarchy Indep. Dep.

Nº of examples Percentage Nº of examples Percentage

Presupposed 324 70.13% 138 29.87%

Non-presup. 2,283 74.12% 197 25.88%

Each of the domains determined by the combination of the other classifying parameters (Factuality, Entity Type and Time Dependency) will now be analysed individually.2 The validity of the Presupposition Hierarchy is demonstrated in the Factual – 2nd order (DTR) domain, since the percentage of dependent verb forms is higher in presupposed clauses (25.36%) than in non-presupposed clauses (11.37%), as can be seen in Table 5.16a. Similarly, the possibilities of expression of the adverbial clauses in this group (Table 5.16b) fit this hierarchy. Table 5.16a: Presupposition Hierarchy: Factual – 2 nd order (DTR) Presuppos Clauses ition Presup. Addition Exception Anterior. NonSimultan. Presup. Ev. Cons.

Independent Nº % – 0% 3 33.33% 100 80% 848 89.55% 48 75%

Dependent Total Nº % Nº % Dep. 4 100% 6 66.67% 138 25.36% 25 20% 99 10.45% 1011 11.37% 16 25%

Table 5.16b: Presupposition Hierarchy: Factual – 2 nd order (DTR) Presupposed Addition + Exception +/– Anteriority +/–

Non-presupposed Simultaneity +/– Eventive Consequence +/–

The implication of the Presupposition Hierarchy is also confirmed in the Factual – 2nd order (ITR) domain since, as Table 5.17a shows, dependent forms are more 2

The Factual – 3rd order, Factual – 4th order and Non-factual – 4th order domains will not be analysed because the adverbial clauses in these domains are expressed only through independent forms. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic hierarchies 127 frequent in presupposed (15.79% of the cases) than in non-presupposed adverbial clauses (9.84%). Table 5.17a: Presupposition Hierarchy: Factual – 2 nd order (ITR) Presuppos ition Presup. NonPresup.

Clauses Ev. Conc. Ev. Man. Ev. Cause

Independent Nº % 64 84.21% 160 87.9% 170 92.4%

Dependent Nº % 12 15.79% 22 12.1% 14 7.6%

Nº 76 366

Total % Dep. 15.79% 9.84%

Table 5.17b shows that all the adverbial constructions belonging to this group are characterised by being able to be expressed by both dependent and independent forms. Table 5.17b: Presupposition Hierarchy: Factual – 2 nd order (ITR) Presupposed Eventive Concession +/–

Non-presupposed Eventive Manner +/– Eventive Cause +/–

The results obtained from the analysis of verb forms in non-factual – 2 nd order (DTR) adverbial clauses (Table 5.18a) validates the Presupposition Hierarchy, since dependent forms are more frequent in presupposed (98.89%) than in nonpresupposed (76.16%) constructions. Note, incidentally, that clauses of Substitution (presupposed) can also be expressed through independent forms, while no example of a clause of Eventive Purpose (non-presupposed) with an independent verb form has been found (Table 5.18b). Table 5.18a: Presupposition Hierarchy: Non-factual – 2 nd order (DTR) Presuppos Clauses ition Presup. Neg. Circ. Substitut. NonEv. Purp. Presup. Posterior.

Independent Nº % – 0% 1 4.55% – 0% 196 90.32%

Dependent Nº % 68 100% 21 95.45% 605 100% 21 9.68%

Nº 90

Total % Dep. 98.89%

822

76.16%

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

128 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Table 5.18b: Presupposition Hierarchy: Non-factual – 2 nd order (DTR) Presupposed Negative Circumstance + Substitution +/–

Non-presupposed Eventive Purpose + Posteriority +/–

The validity of the Presupposition Hierarchy is also demonstrated in the NonFactuality – 2nd order (ITR) domain, in which it can be seen that presupposed clauses are more frequently expressed through dependent forms (10% of the cases) than non-presupposed clauses (4.59% of the cases) (Table 5.19a). All the clauses belonging to this domain can, moreover, be expressed through independent forms, as can be seen in Table 5.19b. Table 5.19a: Presupposition Hierarchy: Non-factual – 2 nd order (ITR) Presuppos ition Presup. NonPresup.

Clauses Un Comp. P. Comp. Ev. Cond. Ev. ConCond.

Independent Nº % 18 90% 11 57.9% 390 97.26% 15 93.75%

Dependent Nº % 2 10% 8 42.1% 11 2.74% 1 6.25%

Nº 20

Total % Dep. 10%

436

4.59%

Table 5.19b: Presupposition Hierarchy: Non-factual – 2 nd order (ITR) Presupposed Unreal Comparison +/–

Non-presupposed Potential Comparison +/– Eventive Condition +/– Eventive Conc-Condition +/–

Finally, the Presupposition Hierarchy is also validated in the Non-factual – 3 rd order domain, as can be deduced from the data presented in Tables 5.20a and b.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic hierarchies 129 Table 5.20a: Presupposition Hierarchy: Non-factual – 3rd order Presuppos Clauses ition Presup. Un. Epist. Cond. NonP.Ep.Con. Presup. Ep. Pot. Con-Cond Ep. Purp.

Independent Nº % 43 100%

Dependent Nº % – 0%

Nº 43

117 4

100% 100%

– –

0% 0%

143

22

100%

–

0%

Total % Dep. 0% 0%

Table 5.20b: Presupposition Hierarchy: Non-factual – 3rd order Presupposed Unreal Epist. Condition –

Non-presupposed Potential Epist. Condition – Pot. Epist. Conc-Condition – Epistemic Purpose –

The data presented confirm the validity of the Presupposition Hierarchy when establishing the order of preference for the possibilities of expression of adverbial clauses. 5.6

Summary

The data obtained from the analysis of the corpus confirm the effectiveness of the different semantic hierarchies when establishing an order of preference for the formal expression of adverbial clauses. Tables 5.21-24 offer, by way of a summary, the general data obtained regarding the use of dependent forms for each of the hierarchies, considering the clauses both for the entire domain and for each of the subdomains. Table 5.21: Summary: Entity Type Hierarchy Domains All clauses Factual–Non-presupposed Factual–Presupposed Non-factual–Non-presup. Non-factual–Presupposed

0 order 100% 100% – – –

2nd order 31.6% 10.97% 20% 52.82% 81.51%

3rd order 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

4th order 0% 0% 0% 0% –

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

130 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Table 5.22: Summary: Time Dependency Hierarchy Domains All clauses Factual–Non-presupposed Factual–Presupposed Non-factual–Non-presup. Non-factual–Presupposed

DTR 49.7% 11.37% 25.36% 76.16% 98.89%

ITR 7.8% 9.84% 15.79% 4.59% 10%

Factual 5.87% 9.84% 0% 15.79%

Non-factual 3.41% 4.59% 0% 10%

Table 5.23: Summary: Factuality Hierarchy Domains All clauses Non-presupposed–2 nd ITR Non-presupposed–3 rd order Presupposed–2nd ITR

Table 5.24: Summary: Presupposition Hierarchy Domains All clauses Factual–2nd DTR Factual–2nd ITR Non-factual–2nd DTR Non-factual–2nd ITR Non-factual–3rd order

5.7

Presupposed 29.87% 25.36% 15.79% 98.89% 10% 0%

Non-presup. 25.88% 11.37% 9.84% 76.16% 4.59% 0%

Interaction between the hierarchies

The proposed hierarchies do not act independently but rather interact with one another, thus determining patterns of preferences in the expression of adverbial clauses. In this section, these patterns are analysed, in order to demonstrate that the possibilities of expression of adverbial clauses conform to the order of priorities established by the interaction of the semantic hierarchies. As was pointed out earlier, the Factuality Hierarchy does not interact with the Time Dependency Hierarchy, since it only applies to clauses with ITR. Neither can the latter, acting locally with respect to second order clauses, be related with the Entity Type Hierarchy. There are, therefore, four possible combinations which are analysed below.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Semantic hierarchies 131 5.7.1 Interaction: Entity Type – Factuality The interaction between these two hierarchies correctly determines that dependent verb forms are more likely to appear at the top left hand side of Table 5.25 than at the bottom right hand side. The percentage given corresponds to the use of dependent forms, while the “+” (dependent forms) and “–” (independent forms) signs represent the possibilities of expression of adverbial clauses in each of the different groups that are a result of the interaction between these two hierarchies. Table 5.25: Interaction: Entity Type – Factuality Factual

0 order 100% +

Non-factual

2nd order 10.86% + +/– 4.82% +/–

3rd order 0% –

4th order 0% –

0% –

0% –

5.7.2 Interaction: Entity Type – Presupposition The results show that preferences in the expression of adverbial clauses are determined by the interaction of the Entity Type Hierarchy and the Presupposition Hierarchy, as can be seen in Table 5.26. Table 5.26: Interaction: Entity Type – Presupposition Presupposed Non-presupposed

2nd DTR 54.39% + +/– 40.43% + +/–

2nd ITR 14.58% +/–

3rd order 0% –

4th order 0% –

6.98% +/–

0% –

0% –

5.7.3 Interaction: Factuality – Presupposition When analysing the interaction between the Factuality Hierarchy and the Presupposition Hierarchy, clauses with DTR, to which the Factuality Hierarchy does not apply, and clauses of Means and of Illocutionary Concession, which do not establish a contrast with non-presupposed and presupposed groups in the Non-factual domain, should be excluded. The interaction of these two hierarchies is corroborated by the data obtained, as the percentages given in Table 5.27 show. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

132 María Jesús Pérez Quintero The highest percentage of dependent forms is found in the Factual – Presupposed domain (15.79%) and the lowest in the Non-factual – Non-presupposed domain (4.59%). Table 5.27: Interaction: Factuality – Presupposition Presupposed Non-presupposed

Factual 15.79% +/– 9.84% +/– –

Non-factual 10% +/– – 4.59% +/– –

5.7.4 Interaction: Presupposition – Time Dependency The results obtained show the validity of the interaction between Presupposition Hierarchy and Time Dependency Hierarchy, since dependent forms are more frequent in presupposed clauses with DTR (54.39%), a percentage which decreases to a figure of 6.98% in non-presupposed clauses with ITR. Table 5.28: Interaction: Presupposition – Time Dependency Presupposed Non-presupposed

DTR 54.39% + +/– 40.43% + +/–

ITR 14.58% +/– 6.98% +/–

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

6.

Adverbial clauses in Functional Grammar

6.1

Introduction

In the preceding chapter the validity of four semantic hierarchies (the Entity Type Hierarchy, the Time Dependency Hierarchy, the Factuality Hierarchy and the Presupposition Hierarchy) in determining the expression of adverbial subordinate clauses in English was proved. Thus, it was shown that there is a systematic relation between the semantic type of adverbial clause and the verb form that it contains. It is now time to see how the hierarchies involved fit into the FG framework, which formed the basis for the present study. In the FG model, every utterance is analysed by means of an underlying abstract structure from which, through the application of expression rules, the corresponding linguistic expression is obtained. Therefore, some attention should be paid to the role which the different hierarchies that determine the relation between the semantic types and the expression of adverbial clauses should play within FG. The position adopted here consists of incorporating, in the underlying representation of adverbial clauses, information about the semantic type of subordinate clause in terms of the four classifying parameters, since the expression rules specific for each language will determine in a later stage of the derivation the use of dependent and independent verb forms. The present chapter, therefore, analyses the aspects which have to be taken into account when providing an underlying representation of the different types of adverbial clauses. A sufficiently specific underlying representation allows, through the application of the relevant expression rules, the characteristic linguistic expression of these subordinate clauses in English to be obtained. The two sections which follow discuss aspects relevant to the representation of the internal (6.2) and external (6.3) structures of adverbial clauses, respectively. The final section (6.4) presents a series of examples of each of the relevant semantic types of adverbial clause together with their underlying representations. 6.2

Underlying representation of the internal structure of adverbial clauses

6.2.1 The Entity Type parameter The different types of entity mentioned in Chapter 1, which correspond to the different layers within the hierarchical structure of the clause, are represented in the FG framework by the use of a variable. Thus: (i)

adverbial clauses referring to 4 th order entities designate speech acts and are represented by the variable (E 1)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

134 María Jesús Pérez Quintero (ii) (iii)

adverbial clauses referring to 3 rd order entities designate propositional contents and are represented by the variable (X 1) adverbial clauses referring to 2 nd order entities designate states of affairs and are represented by the variable (e1)

Zero order adverbial clauses (Means), cannot be represented by the variable (e1), because they do not constitute extended predications but core predications, which cannot be modified by temporal and locative operators and satellites different from those of the main clause. In the simplified representation used here,1 this type of clause therefore lacks its own variable, thus indicating that the main clause and the subordinate clause designate a single, though complex, event. On the other hand, this representation allows the possibility of representing the arguments, as well as the possible first level satellites, which belong to the subordinate clause. 6.2.2 The Time Dependency parameter The second parameter which is used in this work to establish a semantic classification of adverbial clauses is that of Time Dependency. As has already been mentioned, this parameter is only relevant for clauses which designate second order entities, since zero order entities show DTR and those of the third and fourth order show ITR. Among clauses designating second order entities, a distinction is established between clauses with DTR and those with ITR with respect to the main clause. An adverbial clause has DTR when the state of affairs designated by that clause is necessarily previous, simultaneous or posterior to that designated by the main clause. This dependency relation can be represented using the same second level operators that Dik (1997b) proposes for representing time dependency in embedded clauses in general. Therefore, the position of the temporal operator would be occupied, in a clause with DTR, by the Ant(erior), Sim(ultaneous) or Post(erior) operators respectively. In clauses with ITR, this operator position would be occupied by the corresponding temporal operator (Past, Present or Future). 6.2.3 The Factuality parameter The Factuality parameter, applicable to all types of entity, establishes a distinction between factual adverbial clauses (which describe a property or relation as applicable; a state of affairs as real; a propositional content as true and a speech act as assertive) and non-factual clauses (which describe the different types of entity in opposing terms). This parameter, therefore, should be 1

In Hengeveld’s model (1992), in which each predicate is represented by the variable (f1), the predicate of the adverbial clause is represented by this variable too. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in FG 135 represented at the different layers in the hierarchical structure of the subordinate clause, depending on the type of entity designated by the adverbial clause. Concerning the representation of this parameter, there are two possibilities: (i)

(ii)

Assigning a pair of operators for each type of entity designated by an adverbial clause. Thus, the following operators could be distinguished: Real / Unreal (2 nd order), True / False (3 rd order) and Assertive / Nonassertive (4 th order). Distinguishing only one pair of operators, called Factual / Non-factual operators, independently of the type of entity designated.

Of the two possible representations of the Factuality parameter, the second is considered a better solution because it is more economic. For example, the fact that in the case of a 2nd order entity Factuality indicates “reality” and in a 3rd order entity “truth” is deduced from the application of the Factual operator to the variable (e1) or (X 1), respectively. It is proposed, therefore, to include a Factual / Non-factual operator in the underlying representation of adverbial clauses. This operator should be understood in the broad sense of the term, applicable to second, third and fourth order entities. As was mentioned in Chapter 5, the Factuality Hierarchy is only operative for clauses with ITR, so the Factuality operator is not relevant when a Time Dependency (Ant, Sim or Post) operator occurs in the underlying representation of the subordinate clause. 6.2.4 The Presupposition Parameter When defining the concept of Presupposition in Chapter 3, a pragmatic approach was adopted which allowed Presupposition to be described in relation to the speaker’s estimate of the information that is available to the addressee. In accordance with this approach, it is considered that the role that this parameter plays in the underlying structure of adverbial clauses is related to its pragmatic function and not captured by an operator. It is proposed to distinguish between the following pragmatic functions:2 (i)

New Topic (NT): a pragmatic function which indicates that the speaker is presenting the information expressed by the subordinate clause as not being part of the pragmatic information (general, situational and contextual) of the addressee, that is, as non-presupposed information.

2

This link between presupposition and given and known information is seen in the work of some authors (Townsed and Bever 1977; Talmy 1978b; Tomlin 1985), who, when studying complex clauses from a pragmatic point of view, tend to identify the main clause with assertion, figure or foreground information, and the subordinate clause with presupposition, ground or background information. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

136 María Jesús Pérez Quintero (ii)

Given Topic (GT): a pragmatic function which indicates that the speaker is presenting the information expressed by the subordinate clause as being part of the pragmatic information (general, situational and contextual) of the addressee, that is, as presupposed information.

6.2.5 Open predication / closed predication Apart from the representation of the different classifying parameters, another aspect should be mentioned regarding the internal structure of adverbial clauses. This is related to the fact that adverbial clauses with a dependent verb form frequently constitute open predications, the subject of which is identified with some element in the main clause or with a generic subject. In FG, the position of the unexpressed argument is filled by either A(naphoric) or G(eneric) term operators. The A operator is used in a broad sense to designate an endophoric relation and not an exophoric one. It is not necessary to establish a distinction between anaphora and cataphora, since such a distinction corresponds to the position of the referent in the linguistic expression and not to its position within the underlying structure, in which the referent (argument of the main clause) always comes first. 6.3

Underlying representation of the external structure of adverbial clauses

Although this book centres on the analysis of the internal structure of adverbial clauses, it is necessary to mention briefly some aspects of the relation of these subordinate constructions with the main clause. In FG, the function of these adverbial clauses in relation to the main clause is implicit in its definition. In Chapter 1, an adverbial subordinate clause was defined as that clause which fulfils the function of satellite within the main clause and which, therefore, can be omitted without affecting the grammaticality of the main clause. Adverbial clauses, like all other adverbial constructions, realise then the function of satellite within the underlying structure of the main clause. Therefore, depending upon the layer at which adverbial clauses modify the main clause, they will be represented as 1, 2, 3 or 4. However, not all adverbial clauses modify the main clause in the same way, since the relation, like that of relative clauses, can be restrictive or nonrestrictive. Wakker (1992; 1996), when analysing the representation of conditional clauses, proposes representing restrictive conditional clauses as satellites and non-restrictive conditional clauses as extra-clausal constituents. To the latter type she assigns, apart from the semantic function Cond(ition), the qualifications Pred(icational), Prop(ositional) or Illoc(utionary), as the following representations (Wakker 1996: 191) show:

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in FG 137 (1)

Restrictive Conditional clause: 2 (On what condition will Peter stay?) Peter will stay if John leaves DECL {Ei: ([(X i): (Xj)]) (E i)} [sic]3

(2)

Non-restrictive conditional clause: 2 If you leave the house, shut the windows4 DIR (Ei: [you shut the windows] house]PredCondTheme (Xj))

(3)

(E i)),

(Xj: [you leave the

Non-restrictive conditional clause: 4 If you are hungry, there’re some sandwiches in the fridge DECL (Ei: (there’re some sandwiches in the fridge) (E i)), (Xj: (you are hungry) IllCondOrientation (Xj))

Nevertheless, this representation of non-restrictive clauses is considered inadequate, since it does not clearly reflect the satellite function that the subordinate clause can fulfil at the different layers within the structure of the main clause. Moreover, the fact that the semantic value of an adverbial clause is represented by way of a position in the structure of the clause in one case, and by a semantic function in another seems inconsistent. An alternative solution to that proposed by Wakker is to adopt the representation proposed by Dik (1997b: 44) for non-restrictors of terms, indicating the parenthetic relation of adverbial clauses by the use of =(...)=. This allows the representation of non-restrictiveness while at the same time maintaining the possibility of situating non-restrictive adverbial clauses at the various layers of the clause. I will adopt this solution below. 6.4

Representation of the different semantic types of adverbial clauses

After presenting the main features that conform the underlying structure of adverbial clauses, simplified representations of the internal structure of the different semantic types are given. Little attention is paid to the external structure, since this goes beyond the aim of this book. Clauses of Means They broke the window by throwing a stone (4) DECL E1: (X 1: [Past e1: (breakv (x1: they)Ag (x2: the window)Go) (throwv (Ax 1)Ag (x3: a stone)Go)Means/NT ]) 3

Note the lack of consistency in the representation given here, in which, for the 2nd and 4th layers of the main clause and the 3rd layer of the subordinate clause, their scope is indicated by the repetition of the variables (e i, Ei and Xj, respectively), but not for the 3 rd layer of the main clause. 4 In Wakker (1992), this example is analysed as 3. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

138 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Clauses of Time Anteriority She got the job after finishing her studies (5) DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (getv (x1: she)Ag (x2: a job)Go) ([Ant e2: (finishv (Ax 1)Ag (x2: her studies)Go)])Time/GT]) Simultaneity As I spoke, the starting tear glistened in my eye (6) DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (glistenv (x1: the starting tear)Ø) (x2: my eye)Loc =([Sim e2: (speakv (x3: I)Ag)])= Time/NT]) Posteriority He completed the delicate operation before he answered (7) DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (completev (x1: he)Ag (x2: the delicate operation)Go) ([Post e2: (answerv (x1: he)Ag)])Time/NT]) Clauses of Manner Eventive Manner She cooks the turkey as her mother did (8) DECL E1: (X 1: [Pres e1: (cookv (x1: she)Ag (x2: the turkey)Go) ([PastFact e2: (dov (x3: her mother)Ag)])Manner/NT ]) 5 Epistemic Manner These headless, armless, burnt and choked people arose as Heurodis (9) evidently did DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (arisev (x1: these...people)Ag) ((Fact X2: [Past e2: (dov (x2: Heurodis)Ag)] (x3:evidently)Attitud ))Manner/NT])6 Illocutionary Manner (10) Wind was ruffling the grass, and the corn-crakes (as I knew they would have to) sensed danger ..., DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (sensev (x1: the corn-crakes)Exp (x2: danger)Go) =(DECL Fact E2: (X2: [Past e2: (knowv (x3: I)Exp (X3: they would have to)Go)]))= Manner/NT ])

5

In this example “do” is incorrectly used as a predicate of the subordinate clause in order to give a simplified representation. However, this auxiliary verb does not form part of the underlying structure of this clause, but its anaphoric reference to the predicate of the main clause would be explained through expression rules. 6 See note 4. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in FG 139 Clauses of Comparison Potential Comparison (11) He hesitated as though making up his mind DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (hesitatev (x1: he)Ag) ([PastNon-fact e2: (make upv (Ax 1)Ag (x2:his mind)Go)])Comparison/NT]) Unreal Comparison (12) The fat girl pulled him around the floor as if he were a sack of something DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (pullv (x1: the fat girl)Ag (x2: him)Go) (x3: the floor)Direc ([PastNon-fact e2: ((sack of something)N (x2: he)Ø)])Comparison/ GT]) Clauses of Negative Circumstance (13) Without saying a word, she took off her hêbaya DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (take offv (x1: she)Ag (x2: her hêbaya)Go) =([Sim e2: (sayv (Ax 1)Ag (x3: a word)Go)])= NegCircumstance/ GT]) Clauses of Purpose Eventive Purpose (14) To make a book of this kind, sheets of papyrus were glued… DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (gluev (x1)Ag (x2: sheets of papyrus)Go/Subj) =([Post e2: (makev (x4)Ag (x5: a book of this kind)Go)])= Purpose/NT ]) Epistemic Purpose (15) He proposed a new clause to the government’s licensing bill so that such drinks could be permitted DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (proposev (x1: he)Ag (x2: a new clause)Go (x3: the government’s licensing bill)Rec) ((PossibNon-fact X2: [Past e2: (permitv (x4)Ag (x5: such drinks)Go)])) Purpose/NT ]) Clauses of Consequence Eventive Consequence (16) He moved in his chair so that he was facing Farland DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (movev (x1: he)Ag) (x2: his chair)Loc ([Post e2: (Prog facev (x1: he)Ag (x2: Farland)Go)])Consequence/ NT]) Epistemic Consequence (17) You have heard uncharitable comments about me, so you must listen to me now DECL E1: (X1: [Pres e1: (Perf hearv (x1: you)Exp (x2: much uncharitable comments about me)Go) =((ObligFact X 2: [Pres e2: (listenv (x1: you)Ag (x3: me)Go) (x4: now)Temp]))= Consequence/ NT])

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

140 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Illocutionary Consequence (18) She was paying good money, so I didn’t ask too many questions DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (Prog payv (x1: she)Ag (x2: good money)Go) =(DECL Fact E2: (X2: [PastNeg e2: (askv (x3: I)Ag (x4: too many questions)Go)]))= Consequence/NT]) Clauses of Addition (19) Besides warehousing the goods, the wholesaler may process them in some way DECL E1: (Possib X 1: [Pres e1: (processv (x1: the wholesaler)Ag (x2: them)Go) (x3: some way)Manner =([Sim e2: (warehousev (Ax 1)Ag (x2: the goods)Got)])= Addition/ GT]) Clauses of Substitution (20) Instead of walking along the Avenue, they went along a lane DECL E1: (X 1: [Past e1: (gov (x1: they)Ag (x2: a lane)Direc) =([Sim e2: (walkv (Ax 1)Ag (x3: the Avenue)Direc)])= Substitution/ GT]) Clauses of Exception (21) She was a nice person except for being stubborn DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: ((a nice person)N (x1: she)Ø) ([Sim e2: (stubbornA (Ax 1) Ø)])Exception/NT]) Clauses of Cause Eventive Cause (22) I didn’t go because I was ill DECL E1: (X1: [PastNeg e1: (gov (x1: I) Ag) ([PastFact e2: (illA (x1: I)Ø)])Cause/NT ]) Epistemic Cause (23) He didn’t come because he was probably studying Maths DECL E1: (X1: [PastNeg e1: (comev (x1: he)Ag) ((Fact X2: [Past e2: (Prog studyv (x1: he)Ag (x2: Maths)Go)] (x3: probably)Attitudinal ))Cause/NT ]) Illocutionary Cause (24) María is in Amsterdam, for she phoned me from there DECL E1: (X1: [Pres e1: ((Amsterdam N)Loc (x1: María)Ø)] =(DECL Fact E2: (X2: [Past e2: (phonev (x1: she)Ag (x2: me)Go) (x3: there)Source]))= Cause/NT ) Clauses of Condition Eventive Condition (25) If you study, you will pass the exam DECL E1: (X1: [Fut e1: (passv (x1: you)Ag (x2: the exam)Go) =([PresNonfact e2: (studyv (x1: you)Ag)])= Condition/ NT])

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Adverbial clauses in FG 141 Potential Epistemic Condition (26) If you studied, you would pass the exam DECL E1: (Possib X1: [Pres e1: (passv (x1: you)Ag (x2: the exam)Go) =((Non-fact X2: [Past e2: (studyv (x1: you)Ag)]))= Condition/ NT]) Unreal Epistemic Condition (27) If you had studied, you’d have passed the exam DECL E1: (Possib X 1: [Pres e1: (Perf passv (x1: you)Ag (x2: the exam)Go) =((Non-fact X2: [Pas e2: (Perf studyv (x1: you)Ag)]))= Condition/ GT]) Illocutionary Condition (28) If I can speak frankly, he is stupid DECL E1: (X 1: [Pres e1: (stupidA (x1: he)Ø)]) =(DECL Non-fact E2: (Possib X2: [Pres e2: (speakv (x2: I)Ag) (x3: frankly)Manner]))=Condition/ NT Clauses of Concessive-Condition Eventive Concessive-Condition (29) Even if you study, you won’t pass the exam DECL E1: (X 1: [FutNeg e1: (passv (x1: you)Ag (x2: the exam)Go) =([PresNon-fact e2: (studyv (x1: you)Ag)])= Conc-Condition/ NT]) Potential Epistemic Concessive-Condition (30) Even if you studied, you wouldn’t pass the exam DECL E1: (Possib X1: [PresNeg e1: (passv (x1: you)Ag (x2: the exam)Go) =((Non-fact X2: [Past e2: (studyv (x1: you)Ag)]))= Conc-Condition/ NT]) Unreal Epistemic Concessive-Condition (31) Even if you had studied, you wouldn’t have passed the exam DECL E1: (Possib X 1: [PresNeg e1: (Perf passv (x1: you)Ag (x2: the exam)Go) =((Non-fact X2: [Past e2: (Perf studyv (x1: you)Ag)]))= ConcCondition/ GT]) Illocutionary Concessive-Condition (32) Even if I cannot say that, he is stupid DECL E1: (X1: [Pres e1: (stupidA (x1: he)Ø)]) =(DECL Non-fact E2: (PossibNeg X2: [Pres e2: (say v (x2: I)Ag (X1: that)Go]))=Conc-Condition/ NT Clauses of Concession Eventive Concession (33) Although extensive inquiries were made at the time no trace was found of any relatives DECL E1: (X1: [Past e1: (findv (x1)Ag (x2: no trace of any relatives)Go)] ([PastNon-fact e2: (makev (x1)Ag (x3: extensive inquiries)Go) (x4: the time)Temp])Concession/ GT])

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

142 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Epistemic Concession (34) Although she might be a nice person, I don’t like her DECL E1: (X1: [PresNeg e1: (likev (x1: I)Exp (x2: her)Go) =((PossibNon-fact X2: [Pres e2: ((a nice person)N (x2: she)Ø)]))= Concession/ GT]) Illocutionary Concession (35) He is one of the best writers of this century –though everybody can say that DECL E1: (X1: [Pres e1: ((one of the best writers...)N (x1: he)Ø)]) =(DECL Fact E2: (X2: [PresAbil e2: (sayv (x2: everybody)Ag (X1: that)Go)]))= Concession/ GT

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

7.

Summary

The aim of this book is to carry out, within the framework of Functional Grammar, a study of adverbial subordinate clauses in English, in order to prove that there is a systematic relation between the expression formats of these subordinate constructions and their semantic class. Chapter 1 sets out the preliminaries, introducing the theoretical framework, Functional Grammar (FG), delimiting the object of analysis, adverbial subordinate clauses, as well as presenting the data used for the analysis. Firstly, a general overview of the basic methodological principles as well as the organisation of FG is provided. FG is based on a functional conception of the study of language, according to which natural languages are considered a means of verbal interaction and, therefore, must be studied in the context of their use. This functional model requires that both the description and the explanation of linguistic expressions be pragmatically, psychologically and typologically adequate. These methodological principles determine the general organisation of the FG model, in which each clause is described according to an underlying abstract structure from which, through the application of expression rules, the corresponding linguistic expression is obtained. Of the three basic components which conform the general organisation of FG – the fund, the hierarchical structure of the clause and the expression rules – the second is the most relevant here. According to the hierarchical model of the structure of the clause, all clauses have an underlying representation composed of two levels – interpersonal and representational – within which various layers can be distinguished, each of which is characterised by presenting a specific designation frame and a variable which represents it. This hierarchical model consisting of different layers and levels of increasing complexity is the point of departure for the present study of adverbial clauses. After the description of the theoretical framework, the concepts of subordination and of adverbial clause are delimited, and a set of constructions which, although often considered adverbial clauses, do not fit the definition adopted here, are excluded. The chapter concludes with a description of the selection procedure used to obtain the data. The corpus used was the LOB Corpus, from which 25% of the texts were selected using a random probabilistic method. The formal classification of adverbial clauses, set out in Chapter 2, is based on an analysis of the verb forms characteristic of the expression of these subordinate clauses. Taking the functional classification of verb forms proposed by Hengeveld (1998) as the point of departure, a distinction is established between adverbial clauses expressed through independent forms (indicative and subjunctive) and adverbial clauses expressed through dependent forms (infinitive, -ing and past participle forms). María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

144 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Chapter 3 presents the semantic classification of adverbial clauses that results from the application of four parameters: Entity Type, Time Dependency, Factuality and Presupposition. The relevance of these parameters lies not only in their functionality in establishing a complete and exhaustive typology of adverbial subordinate clauses, but also in the fact that they constitute four hierarchies which predict the distribution of the verbal expression formats of the different semantic types of adverbial clauses. In order to prove the existence of a systematic relation between the expression of adverbial clauses and the semantic type which these designate, an analysis of a corpus representative of the use of adverbial constructions in English was carried out. Chapter 4 offers the qualitative and quantitative data obtained about the verbal expression formats belonging to each of the different semantic categories of adverbial clause. For each of them, illustrative examples of the different possibilities of expression and of the conjunctions which introduce them, as well as the frequency of the use of the different verb forms, are given. After describing the possibilities of expression of each of the semantic categories of adverbial clauses analysed, the four semantic hierarchies determined by the different classifying parameters are put to the test in Chapter 5. Each of these hierarchies establishes that dependent verb forms are more likely to appear in adverbial clauses of the type more to the left (zero order; DTR; Factuality; Presupposition) than to the right (4 th order; ITR; Non-factuality; Nonpresupposition). To prove the validity of the different hierarchies, the proportions of dependent and independent forms in the groups of adverbial clauses defined by each hierarchy were analysed, as were each of the different domains determined by the classifying parameters. The results obtained from the analysis of the figures relating to the expression of adverbial clauses demonstrate the validity of the four semantic hierarchies, not only individually, but also in interaction with one another; therefore, it can be stated that there is a systematic relation between the semantic type of adverbial clause, determined by the application of the four classifying parameters, and the manner in which it is expressed. Chapter 6 deals with the representation of adverbial subordinate clauses within the FG model, noting the need to incorporate information about the different classifying parameters in the underlying structure of these clauses. This work aims at contributing to a better understanding of subordinate clauses in English, by offering a systematic description of the different semantic types of these constructions, as well as of their expression formats.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

References Aarts, F. (1979), ‘Time and tense in English and Dutch: English temporal ‘since’ and its Dutch equivalents’, English Studies, 60: 603-24. Aarts, J. (1991), ‘Intuition-based and observation-based grammars’, in: K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.) English corpus linguistics. London: Longman. 4462. Adams, E.W. (1970), ‘Subjunctive and indicative conditionals’, Foundations of language, 6: 89-94. Akatsuka, N. (1986), ‘Conditionals are discourse-bound’, in: E. Traugott, A. Ter Meulen, J. Reilly and C. A. Ferguson (eds.) On conditionals. Cambridge: C.U.P. 333-51. Altenberg, B. (1984), ‘Causal linking in spoken and written English’, Studia lingüistica, 38 (1): 20-69. Asher, R. E. (ed.) (1994), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Athanasiadou, A. and R. Dirven (eds.) (1997), On conditionals again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Austin, J. L. (1962), ‘Ifs and Cans’, Philosophical papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 153-80. Bäcklund, I. (1984), Conjunction-headed abbreviated clauses in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Barker, K. (1994), Clause-level relationship analysis in the TANKA system. Department of Computer Science, University of Ottawa. Bechert, J., G. Bernini, and C. Buridant (eds.) (1990), Toward a typology of European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Berent, G.P. (1973), ‘Absolute constructions as ‘subordinate clauses’’, in: C. Corum, T.C. Smith-Stark and A. Weiser (eds.) You take the high node and I’ll take the low node. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 147-54. --(1975), ‘English absolutes in functional perspective’, in: R.E. Grossman, L.J. San and T.J. Vance (eds.) Papers from the parasession on functionalism. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 10-23. Beukema, F.H. (1980), ‘Prepositions and tenseless sentence adverbials in English’, in: S. Daalder and M. Gerritsen (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 69-79. --(1982), ‘On the internal structure of free adjuncts’, in: S. Daalder and M. Gerritsen (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1982. Amsterdam: NorthHolland. 71-82. --(1985), ‘Lexical structures in English free adjuncts’, in: G.A.J. Hoppenbrouwers, P.A.M. Seuren and A.J.M.M. Weijters (eds.) Meaning and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 190-9. Bickerton, D. (1979), ‘Where presuppositions come from’, in: C-K. Oh and D.A. Dinneen (eds.) Syntax and semantics. presupposition. Vol. 11. New York: Academic Press. 235-48.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

146 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Bierwisch, M. and K.E. Heidolph (eds.) (1970), Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Bisquerra Alzina, R. (1987), Introducción a la estadística aplicada a la investigación educativa. Un enfoque informático con los paquetes BMDP y SPSSX. Barcelona: PPU. Bolinger, D. (1984), ‘Intonational signals of subordination’, in: C. Brugman, M. Macauly, A. Dahlstram, M. Emanatian, B. Moonwomon and Catherine O’Connor (eds.) Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society. Vol.10. Berkeley, California: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 401-13. Bolkestein, A.M. (1986), ‘Parameters in the expression of embedded predications in Latin’. Working Papers of Functional Grammar 8. Braine, M.D.S. (1979), ‘On some claims about if-then’. Linguistics and philosophy, 3: 35-47. Brée, D.S. (1985), ‘On the semantics of unless’, in: G.A.J. Hoppenbrouwers, P.A.M. Seuren and A.J.M.M. Weijters (eds.) Meaning and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 309-16. Brugman, C., M. Macauly, A. Dahlstram, M. Emanatian, B. Moonwomon and C. O’Connor (eds.) (1984), Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society. Vol.10. Berkeley, California: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Butler, C.S. (1985), Statistics in linguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. --(1996), ‘Layering in functional grammars: a comparative survey’, in: B. Devriendt, L. Goosens and J. Van der Auwera (eds.) Complex Structures. A Functional Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-27. --(1999), ‘Nuevas perspectivas de la Gramática Funcional: los estándares de adecuación de la teoría’, in: C. Butler, R. Mairal, J. Martín Arista and F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.) Nuevas perspectivas en Gramática Funcional. Barcelona: Ariel. 219-56. Caneda Cabrera, Mª T. and J. Pérez Guerra (eds.) (1996), Os estudios ingleses no contexto das novas tendencias. Vigo: Universidad de Vigo. Comrie, B. (1986), ‘Conditionals: a typology’, in: E. Traugott, A. Ter Meulen, J. Reilly and C. A. Ferguson (eds.) On conditionals. Cambridge: C.U.P. 7799. Connolly, J.H., R.M. Vismans, C.S. Butler and R.A. Gatward (eds.) (1997), Discourse and pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Corum, C., T.C. Smith-Stark and A. Weiser (eds.) (1973), You take the high node and I’ll take the low node. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Cotton, J.W. and R.L. Klatzky (eds.) (1978), Semantic factors in cognition. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crystal, D. (1971), ‘Linguistic Science’, Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 77-127. Curme, G.O. (1980-83), A grammar of the English language. 2 vols. Essex, Connecticut: VERBATIM.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

References 147 Cuvalay, M. (1996), ‘A classification of conditional satellites’, in: B. Devriendt, L. Goosens and J. Van der Auwera (eds.) Complex structures. A functional perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 149-75. Daalder, S. and M. Gerritsen (eds.) (1980), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980. Amsterdam: North-Holland. --- (eds.) (1982), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1982. Amsterdam: NorthHolland. Dancygier, B. (1993), ‘Interpreting conditionals: time, knowledge, and causation’, Journal of pragmatics, 19: 403-34. Davison, A. (1979), ‘Some mysteries of subordination’. Studies in the linguistics sciences, 9 (1): 105-28. Declerck, R. (1984), ‘‘Pure future’ will in if-clauses’. Lingua, 63: 279-312. Devriendt, B., L. Goossens and J. Van der Auwera (eds.) (1996), Complex structures. A functional perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dieterich, T.G. and D.J. Napoli (1982), ‘Comparative rather’, Journal of linguistics, 18: 137-65. Dik, S.C. (1978), Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North – Holland. --(1980), Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press. --(1986), ‘On the notion ‘functional explanation’’. Working Papers of Functional Grammar 11. --(1990), ‘On the semantics of conditionals’, in: J. Nuyts, A.M. Bolkenstein and C. Vet (eds.) Layers and levels of representation in language theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 233-61. --(1997a), The theory of Functional Grammar. Part I: the structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. --(1997b), The theory of Functional Grammar. Part II: complex and derived constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dik, S.C. and K. Hengeveld (1991), ‘The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of perception-verb complements’, Linguistics, 29: 231-59. Downing, A. and P. Locke (1992), A university course in English grammar. New York: Prentice Hall. Duffley, P.J. (1992), The English infinitive. London: Longman. Emons, R. (1997), ‘Corpus linguistics: some basic problems’, Studia anglica posnaniensia, XXXII: 61-8. Escribano, J.L.G. (1992), ‘El concepto de ‘modularidad’ en la metateoría lingüística’, Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 25: 25-43. --(1993), ‘On syntactic metatheory’, Atlantis, XV (1-2): 229-67. Faber, P.B. and R. Mairal Usón (1999), Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fasold, R.W. and R.W. Shuy (eds.) (1975), Analysing variation in language. Washington: Georgetown U.P. Fillenbaum, S. (1978), ‘How to do things with if’, in: J.W. Cotton and R.L. Klatzky (eds.) Semantic factors in cognition. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 169-214. Fillmore, C.J. and D.T. Langendoen (eds.) (1971), Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

148 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Fisiak, J. (ed.) (1985), Historical semantics. Historical word-formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Foley, W.A. and R.D. Van Valin, Jr. (1984), Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: C.U.P. Ford, C.E. and S.A. Thompson (1986), ‘Conditionals in discourse: a text-based study from English’, in: E. Traugott, A. Ter Meulen, J. Reilly and C. A. Ferguson (eds.) On conditionals. Cambridge: C.U.P. 353-72. Fortescue, M., P. Harder and L. Kristoffersen (eds.) (1992), Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Funk, W.-P. (1985), ‘On a semantic typology of conditional sentences’, Folia lingüistica, 19 (3-4): 365-413. Garner, R. (1971), ‘‘Presupposition’ in philosophy and linguistics’, in: C.J. Fillmore and D.T. Langendoen (eds.) Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 22-42. Gazdar, G. (1979), Pragmatics. Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press. Geis, M.L. (1970), Adverbial subordinate clauses in English. 2 Vols. M.I.T., Doctoral Dissertation. --(1973), ‘If and unless’, in: B.B. Kachru, R.B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli and S. Saporta (eds.) Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Chicago: Illinois U.P. 231-53. Genee, I. (1998), Sentential complementation in a Functional Grammar of Irish. The Hague: IFOTT. Givón, T. (1990), Syntax: a Functional-Typological introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. --(1995), Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gómez Solico, J.S. (1995), ‘Texto y contexto en la teoría de la Gramática Funcional’. [Paper presented at the XIV symposium of the S.E.L., 1994]. Revista de lenguas para fines específicos, 2: 199-216. Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria. --(1996), ‘La estructura jerárquica de los textos desde una perspectiva funcional’, in: Mª T. Caneda Cabrera and J. Pérez Guerra (eds.) Os estudios ingleses no contexto das novas tendencias. Vigo: Universidad de Vigo. 42-68. Goodman, N. (1947), ‘The problem of counterfactual conditionals’, The journal of philosophy, 44: 113-28. Grady, M. (1976), ‘The English absolute construction’, Linguistics, 90: 5-10. Greenberg, J., C.A. Ferguson and E.A. Moravcsik (eds.) (1978), Universals of human language. Vol.4. Stanford, California: Stanford U.P. Grossman, R.E., L.J. San and T.J. Vance (eds.) (1975), Papers from the parasession on functionalism. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Gvozdanovic, J. (ed.) (1997), Language change and functional explanation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Haegeman, L. (1984), ‘Pragmatic conditionals in English’, Folia lingüistica, 18: 485-502.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

References 149 Haegeman, L. and H. Wekker (1984), ‘The syntax and interpretation of futurate conditionals in English’, Journal of linguistics, 20: 45-55. Haiman, J. (1978), ‘Conditionals are topics’, Language, 54: 564-89. --(1986), ‘Constraints on the form and meaning of the protasis’, in: E. Traugott, A. Ter Meulen, J. Reilly and C.A. Ferguson (eds.) On conditionals. Cambridge: C.U.P. 215-27. Haiman, J. and S.A. Thompson (1984), ‘‘Subordination’ in Universal Grammar’, in: C. Brugman, M. Macauly, A. Dahlstram, M. Emanatian, B. Moonwomon and Catherine O’Connor (eds.) Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society. Vol.10. Berkeley, California: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 510-23. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994), An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hannay, M. and E. Vester (eds.) (1990), Working with Functional Grammar: descriptive and computational applications. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Hannay, M. and A.M. Bolkestein (eds.) (1998), Functional Grammar and verbal interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Harder, P. (1989), ‘The instructional semantics of conditionals’, Working Papers of Functional Grammar 30. --(1996), ‘Subordinators in a semantic clause structure’, in: B. Devriendt, L. Goosens and J. Van der Auwera (eds.) Complex structures. A functional perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 93-118. Haspelmath, M. and E. König (1998), ‘Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe’, in: J. Van der Auwera (ed.) Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 563-640. Hengeveld, K. (1989), ‘Layers and operators in Functional Grammar’, Journal of linguistics, 25: 127-57. --(1990), ‘The hierarchical structure of utterances’, in: J. Nuyts, A.M. Bolkenstein and C. Vet (eds.) Layers and levels of representation in language theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-23. --(1992), ‘Parts of speech’, in: M. Fortescue, P. Harder and L. Kristoffersen (eds.) Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 29-53. --(1993), ‘Semantic type, Factivity and the expression of adverbial clauses’, in: K. Hengeveld (ed.) The internal structure of adverbial clauses. EUROTYP Working Papers, vol. 5. --- (ed.) (1993), The internal structure of adverbial clauses. EUROTYP Working Papers, vol. 5. --(1995), ‘La subordinación en la Gramática Funcional’, Course taught at the University of La Laguna, 8-11 of May. --(1996), ‘The internal structure of adverbial clauses’, in: B. Devriendt, L. Goosens and J. Van der Auwera (eds.) Complex structures. A functional perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 119-47. --(1997), ‘Cohesion in Functional Grammar’, in: J.H. Connolly, R.M. Vismans, C.S. Butler and R.A. Gatward (eds.) Discourse and pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-16. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

150 María Jesús Pérez Quintero ---

(1998), ‘Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe’, in: J. Van der Auwera (ed.) Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 335-419. Hengeveld, K. and G. Wanders (1997), ‘On the use of subjunctive and indicative verb-forms in adverbial clauses’, in: J. Gvozdanovic (ed.) Language change and functional explanation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 249-71. Hoppenbrouwers, G.A.J., P.A.M. Seuren and A.J.M.M. Weijters (eds.) (1985), Meaning and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Huddleston, R. (1985), Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: C.U.P. Hymes, D.H. (1972), ‘On communicative competence’, in: J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.) Sociolinguistics. Middlesex: Penguin Books. 269-93. Jespersen, O. (1961-74), A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Parts II & VII. London: Allen & Unwin. Johansson, S. (1991), ‘Times change, and so do corpora’, in: K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.) English corpus linguistics. London: Longman. 305-14. Johansson, S., G.N. Leech and H. Goodluck (1978), Manual of information to accompany the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen corpus of British English, for use with digital computers. Department of English, University of Oslo. Johansson, S., E. Atwell, R. Garside and G. Leech (1986), The tagged LOB corpus. Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities, Bergen. Joos, M. (1964), The English verb. Madison: Wisconsin U.P. Just, M.A. and P.A. Carpenter (eds.) (1977), Cognitive processes in comprehension. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kachru, B.B., R.B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli and S. Saporta (eds.) (1973), Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Chicago: Illinois U.P. Karttunen, L. (1971a), ‘Some observations on factivity’, Papers in linguistics, 4 (1): 55-69. --(1971b), ‘Counterfactual conditionals’, Linguistic inquiry, 2 (4): 566-9. --(1974), ‘Until’, Papers from the tenth regional meeting Chicago linguistic society. Chicago: University of Chicago. 284-97. Karttunen, L. and S. Peters (1979), ‘Conventional implicature’, in: C-K. Oh and D.A. Dinneen (eds.) Syntax and Semantics. Presupposition. Vol. 11. New York: Academic Press. 1-56. Katz, J.J. (1979), ‘A solution to the projection problem for presupposition’, in: CK. Oh and D.A. Dinneen (eds.) Syntax and Semantics. Presupposition. Vol. 11. New York: Academic Press. 91-126. Keenan, E.L. (1971), ‘Two kinds of presupposition in natural language’, in: C.J. Fillmore and D.T. Langendoen (eds.) Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 44-52. Kempson, R.M. (1975), Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge: C.U.P. --(1979), ‘Presupposition, opacity, and ambiguity’, in: C-K. Oh and D.A. Dinneen (eds.) Syntax and Semantics. Presupposition. Vol. 11. New York: Academic Press. 283-99. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

References 151 Kiparsky, P. and C. Kiparsky (1970), ‘Fact’, in: M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph (eds.) Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. 143-73. Kjellmer, G. (1975), ‘‘The weather was fine, if not glorious’. On the ambiguity of concessive if not’, English studies, 56: 140-6. Klein-Andreu, F. (ed.) (1983), Discourse perspectives on syntax. New York: Academic Press. König, E. (1985a), ‘On the history of concessive connectives in English, diachronic and synchronic evidence’, Lingua, 66: 1-19. --(1985b), ‘Where do concessives come from? On the development of concessive connectives’, in: J. Fisiak (ed.) Historical semantics. Historical word-formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 263-82. --(1986), ‘Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization’, in: E. Traugott, A. Ter Meulen, J. Reilly and C. A. Ferguson (eds.) On conditionals. Cambridge: C.U.P. 22946. --(1988), ‘Review article on Stump (1985)’, Studies in language, 12 (1): 145-52. --(1994), ‘Concessive clauses’, in: R.E. Asher (ed.) The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 679-81. König, E. and J. Van der Auwera (1990), ‘Adverbial participles, gerunds and absolute constructions in the languages of Europe’, in: J. Bechert, G. Bernini and C. Buridant (eds.) Toward a typology of European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 337-55. König, E. and B. Kortmann (1991), ‘On the reanalysis of verbs as prepositions’, in: G. Rauh (ed.) Approaches to Prepositions. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 109-25. Kortmann, B. (1991), Free adjuncts and absolutes in English. Problems of control and interpretation. London: Routledge. --(1994), Adverbial subordinators in the languages of Europe. Towards a typology and history. EUROTYP Working Papers, vol. 8. --(1997), Adverbial subordination. A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. --(1998), ‘Adverbial subordinators in the languages of Europe’, in: J. Van der Auwera (ed.) Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 457-61. Kortmann, B. and E. König (1992), ‘Categorial reanalysis: the case of deverbal prepositions’, Linguistics, 30 (4): 671-97. Kruisinga, E. (1932), A handbook of Present-Day English. Part II, 3. Groningen: Noordhoff. Kuroda, S. -Y. (1979), ‘Katz and Langendoen on presupposition’, in: C-K. Oh and D.A. Dinneen (eds.) Syntax and semantics. Presupposition. Vol. 11. New York: Academic Press. 183-98. Lehmann, C. (1988), ‘Towards a typology of clause linkage’, in: J. Haiman and S.A. Thompson (eds.) Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 181-225.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

152 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Linde, C. (1976), ‘Constraints on the ordering of if-clauses’, in: H. Thompson, K. Whistler, V. Edge, J.J. Jaeger, R. Jaukin, M. Petruck, C. Smeall and R.D. Van Valin, Jr. (eds.) Proceedings of the second annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society. Berkeley-California: Berkeley Linguistic Society. 280-5. Lyons, J. (1977), Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: C.U.P. Mackenzie, J.L. (1984), ‘Communicative functions of subordination’, in: J.L. Mackenzie and H. Wekker (eds.) English language research: the Dutch contribution, I. Amsterdam: Free U.P. 67-84. --(1992), ‘What is Functional Grammar?’, Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of linguists, 9-14 August. Québec. Mackenzie, J.L. and H. Wekker (eds.) (1984), English language research: the Dutch contribution, I. Amsterdam: Free U.P. Mairal Usón, R. (1993), Complementation patterns of cognitive, physical perception and speech act verbs in the English language. A functionalcognitive approach. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Universidad de Zaragoza. Matthews, P.H. (1981), Syntax. Cambridge: C.U.P. Mittwoch, A. (1990), ‘On the distribution of bare infinitive complements in English’, Journal of linguistics, 26 (1): 103-31. Moutaouakil, A. (1996), ‘On the layering of the underlying clause structure in Functional Grammar’, in: B. Devriendt, L. Goosens and J. Van der Auwera (eds.) Complex structures. A functional perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 201-27. Nedjalkov, I.V. (1998), ‘Converbs in the languages of Europe’, in: J. Van der Auwera (ed.) Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 421-55. Newmeyer, F. (1983), Grammatical theory. Chicago: Chicago U.P. Nieuwint, P. (1986), ‘Present and future in conditional protases’, Linguistics, 24: 371-92. Noonan, M. (1990), ‘Complementation’, in: T. Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. II: complex constructions. Cambridge: C.U.P. 42-140. Nuyts, J. and G. de Schutter (eds.) (1987), Getting one’s words into line. On word order and Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Nuyts, J., A.M. Bolkestein and C. Vet (eds.) (1990), Layers and levels of representation in language theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Oh, C.-K. and D.A. Dinneen (eds.) (1979), Syntax and semantics. Presupposition. Vol. 11. New York: Academic Press. Pfeffer, J.A. (1985), ‘Comparative subordinating conjunctions in Modern American English’, International review of applied linguistics in language teaching, 23: 323-30. Platteau, F. (1978), ‘Assertion and assumption. An inquiry into the appropriateness conditions of utterances in natural language’, Antwerp papers in linguistics, vol. 14.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

References 153 Poutsma, H. (1923), The infinitive, the gerund and the participles of the English verb. Groningen: Noordhoff. --(1929), A grammar of Late Modern English. Part I (2): the sentence -the composite sentence. Groningen: Noordhoff. Pride, J.B. and J. Holmes (eds.) (1972), Sociolinguistics. Middlesex: Penguin Books. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1991), A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Ramsay, V. (1987), ‘The functional distribution of preposed and postposed ‘if’ and ‘when’ clauses in written discourse’, in: R.S. Tomlin (ed.) Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 383-408. Rauh, G. (ed.) (1991), Approaches to prepositions. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Reuland, E.J. (1983), ‘Governing -ing’, Linguistic inquiry, 14: 101-36. Rijksbaron, A. (1986), ‘The pragmatics and semantics of conditional and temporal clauses. Some evidence from Dutch and Classical Greek’, Working Papers of Functional Grammar 13. Rips, L.J. and S.L. Marcus (1977), ‘Suppositions and the analysis of conditional sentences’, in: M.A. Just and P.A. Carpenter (eds.) Cognitive processes in comprehension. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 185-220. Saeed, J.I. (1997), Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Schapiro, B. (1974), ‘Instead of and rather than Thompson’s ‘instead of and rather than’’, Journal of linguistics, 10: 277-80. Scheurweghs, G. (1961), Present-Day English syntax. London: Longman. Schiebe, T. (1979), ‘On presupposition in complex sentences’, in: C-K. Oh and D.A. Dinneen (eds.) Syntax and Semantics. Presupposition. Vol. 11. New York: Academic Press. 127-54. Shopen, T. (ed.) (1990), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. II: complex constructions. Cambridge: C.U.P. Siewierska, A. (1991), Functional Grammar. London: Routledge. Sweet, H. (1892), A new English grammar. Part I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sweetser, E. (1990), From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: C.U.P. Taylor, J.R. (1997), ‘Conditionals and polarity’, in: A. Athanasiadou and R. Dirven (eds.) On conditionals again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 289306. Talmy, L. (1978a), ‘Relations between subordination and coordination’, in: J.H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson and E.A. Moravcsik (eds.) Universals of human language. Vol.4. Stanford, California: Stanford U.P. 487-513. --(1978b), ‘Figure and ground in complex sentences’, in: J.H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson and E.A. Moravcsik (eds.) Universals of human language. Vol.4. Stanford, California: Stanford U.P. 625-49. Thompson, H., K. Whistler, V. Edge, J.J. Jaeger, R. Jaukin, M. Petruck, C. Smeall and R.D. Van Valin, Jr. (eds.) (1976), Proceedings of the second annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society. Berkeley-California: Berkeley Linguistic Society.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

154 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Thompson, Sandra A. (1972), ‘Instead of and Rather than Clauses in English’, Journal of linguistics, 8: 237-49. --(1973), ‘On subjectless gerunds in English’, Foundations of language, 9: 374-83. --(1983), ‘Grammar and discourse: the English detached participial clause’, in: F. Klein-Andreu (ed.) Discourse perspectives on syntax. New York: Academic Press. 43-65. --(1985), ‘Grammar and written discourse: initial vs. final purpose clauses in English’, Text, 5 (1-2): 55-84. Thompson, S. and R.E. Longacre (1990), ‘Adverbial clauses’, in: T. Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. II: complex constructions. Cambridge: C.U.P.171-234. Tomlin, R.S. (1985), ‘Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordination’, Text, 5 (112): 85-122. --- (ed.) (1987), Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Townsend, D.J. and T.G. Bever (1977), ‘Main and subordinate clauses: a study in figure and ground’, Indiana University Linguistics Club 17. Bloomington. 1-24. Traugott, E.C., A. Ter Meulen, J.S. Reilly and C.A. Ferguson (eds.) (1986), On conditionals. Cambridge: C.U.P. Van der Auwera, J. (1979), ‘Pragmatic presupposition: shared beliefs in a theory of irrefutable meaning’, in: C-K. Oh and D.A. Dinneen (eds.) Syntax and semantics. Presupposition. Vol. 11. New York: Academic Press. 249-64. --(1983), ‘Conditionals and antecedent possibilities’, Journal of pragmatics, 7: 297-309. --(1986), ‘Conditionals and speech acts’, in: E. Traugott, A. Ter Meulen, J. Reilly and C. A. Ferguson (eds.) On conditionals. Cambridge: C.U.P. 197214. --(1997), ‘Cosubordination’, Working Papers of Functional Grammar 63. --- (ed.) (1998), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Van Valin, R.D., Jr. (1984), ‘A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage’, in: C. Brugman, M. Macauly, A. Dahlstram, M. Emanatian, B. Moonwomon and Catherine O’Connor (eds.) Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society. Vol.10. Berkeley, California: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 542-58. --(1993), ‘A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar’, in: R.D. Van Valin, Jr. (ed.) 1-164. --- (ed.) (1993), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van Valin, R.D., Jr. and R.J. LaPolla (1997), Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: C.U.P.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

References 155 Vester, E. (1990), ‘The satellite status of gerund and gerundive in Latin’, in: M. Hannay and E. Vester (eds.) Working with Functional Grammar: descriptive and computational applications. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 103-13. Wakker, G.C. (1987), ‘Purpose clauses in Ancient Greek’, in: J. Nuyts, A.M. Bolkenstein and C. Vet (eds.) Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 89-101. --(1992), ‘Conditionals in the layered structure of Functional Grammar’, in: M. Fortescue, P. Harder and L. Kristoffersen (eds.) Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 36986. --(1996), ‘Conditionals at different levels of the clause’, in: B. Devriendt, L. Goosens and J. Van der Auwera (eds.) Complex structures. A functional perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 177-99. Wanders, G. (1993), ¿Cómo actuar adverbialmente?. Unpublished MA: Department of Spanish Studies, University of Amsterdam. --(forthcoming), Typology and diachrony: on the use of the subjunctive in adverbial clauses in the Ibero-Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation. Wierzbicka, A. (1997), ‘Conditionals and counterfactuals: conceptual primitives and linguistic universals’, in: A. Athanasiadou and R. Dirven (eds.) On conditionals again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 15-59. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber (1979), ‘Ordered entailments: an alternative to presuppositional theories’, in: C-K. Oh and D.A. Dinneen (eds.) Syntax and semantics. Presupposition. Vol. 11. New York: Academic Press. 299323. Woodall, C. (1984), ‘Subordinate tones of voice’, in: C. Brugman, M. Macauly, A. Dahlstram, M. Emanatian, B. Moonwomon and Catherine O’Connor (eds.) Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society. Vol.10. Berkeley, California: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 41424. Yamanashi, M.-A. (1975), “Where do conditional expressions qualify?: functional variability between logical and ordinary language conditionals’, in: R.W. Fasold and R.W. Shuy (eds.) Analysing variation in language. Washington: Georgetown U.P. 228-40. Zimmerann, L. (1985), ‘Subordinate clauses in Australian Aboriginal languages’, Working Papers of Functional Grammar 5.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix I The results of the random selection of 25% of the texts from each of the fifteen categories which constitute the LOB Corpus are given below. SPSS/PC+ The Statistical Package for IBM PC Category ’A’ sample 11 from 44. 7 8 11 13 16 22 26 27 30 39 41 Number of cases read = 11 Number of cases listed =

11

Category ’B’ sample 7 from 27. 3 10 13 14 23 24 25 Number of cases read = 7 Number of cases listed =

7

Category ’C’ sample 4 from 17. 2 5 8 13 Number of cases read =

4

Number of cases listed =

4

Category ’D’ sample 4 from 17. 1 2 4 11 Number of cases read =

4

Number of cases listed =

4

Category ’E’ sample 10 from 38. 5 10 16 18 19 26 28 31 36 37 Number of cases read = 10 Number of cases listed =

10

Category ’F’ sample 11 from 44. 11 15 16 19 21 22 29 32 36 39 41 Number of cases read = 11 Number of cases listed =

11

Category ’G’ sample 19 from 77. 10 16 19 21 26 28 29 32 35 41 42 45 46 49 52 58 59 61 64 Number of cases read = 19 Number of cases listed = 19

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

158 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Category ’H’ sample 8 from 30. 6 12 18 19 22 23 24 29 Number of cases read = 8 Number of cases listed =

8

Category ’J’ sample 20 from 80. 1 2 8 16 19 21 25 28 30 35 36 39 48 53 54 57 59 62 63 66 Number of cases read = 20 Number of cases listed = 20 Category ’K’ sample 7 from 29. 2 10 16 18 24 27 29 Number of cases read = 7 Number of cases listed =

7

Category ’L’ sample 6 from 24. 1 9 16 17 21 22 Number of cases read =

6

Number of cases listed =

6

Category ’M’ sample 2 from 6. 1 6 Number of cases read =

2

Number of cases listed =

2

Category ’N’ sample 7 from 29. 1 2 5 12 14 18 25 Number of cases read = 7

Number of cases listed =

7

Category ’P’ sample 7 from 29. 3 7 8 16 20 28 29 Number of cases read = 7

Number of cases listed =

7

Category ’R’ sample 2 from 9. 2 7 Number of cases read =

Number of cases listed =

2

2

End of Include file.

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II The references to the adverbial subordinate clauses found in the texts analysed from the LOB Corpus, grouped according to the semantic and formal class to which they belong, are given below. As can be seen, not all of the taxonomic possibilities have actually been attested in the corpus. Each reference identifies: (i) the category to which the text belongs, represented by a letter from A to R; (ii) the number of the text within each category, indicated by the two digits which follow the letter; and (iii) the number of the line within each text, represented by a number consisting of one or two digits.1 Clauses of Means (Zero order / Factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i) (ii) II. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative Subjunctive With dependent verb form Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication By 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

(A08 172) (A11 86) (A13 51) (A22 45) (A22 156) (A26 178) (A41 141) (B13 193) (B24 27) (B24 103) (B24 192) (B25 171) (C02 60) (C02 62)

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

(F21 142) (F21 170) (F41 15) (F41 137) (G10 108) (G21 119) (G26 32) (G28 12) (G28 129) (G28 158) (G29 5) (G29 6) (G29 115) (G41 5)

71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84.

(J01 221) (J08 80) (J08 180) (J19 197) (J25 87) (J25 142) (J28 49) (J28 193) (J30 73) (J35 173) (J39 163) (J53 158) (J154 67) (J54 151)

1

The line reference indicates the position of the subordinating particle where one exists; otherwise it indicates the position of the verb form. María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

160 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

(C08 129) (C08 186) (C08 203) (C13 79) (C13 127) (D01 25) (D01 34) (D01 75) (D02 177) (E10 135) (E16 7) (E16 85) (E18 19) (E18 35) (E19 49) (E28 126) (E28 181) (E37 191) (F15 152) (F21 32) (F21 44)

50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70.

(G41 48) (G42 157) (G45 113) (G52 9) (G52 182) (G58 55) (G58 60) (G61 168) (G64 53) (G64 110) (G64 111) (G64 150) (G64 171) (H06 182) (H12 116) (H18 96) (H22 74) (H29 227-8) (J01 90) (J01 193) (J01 212)

85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104.

(J54 152) (J54 157) (J54 167) (J57 110) (J59 162) (K10 48) (K16 13) (K27 3) (L01 53) (L01 55) (L01 182) (L16 197) (M06 158) (N01 138) (N01 180) (N02 68) (N05 169) (N14 90) (P07 151) (R02 184)

In 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

(A22 69) (B03 72) (B13 42) (C13 44) (C13 77) (E10 117) (E16 96)

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

(E36 34) (F15 127) (F16 189) (F21 106-7) (F21 143-4) (F29 185) (F36 74)

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

(G21 177) (G32 128) (G52 128) (G52 169) (G64 197) (M01 86) (P07 114)

Through 1. (G21 159)

2.

(J35 8)

3.

(J35 92)

From 1. (E19 15)

2.

(J02 66)

2.

(G10 138)

By way of 1. (E10 130) b. Closed predication By 1.

(C08 121)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 161 (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Clauses of Time Anteriority (2nd order / DTR / Factual / Presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

After 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

(A07 64) (A13 33) (A16 130) (A26 30) (A26 80) (A41 83) (A41 177) (C05 71) (D01 21) (D11 112) (D11 170) (E10 81) (F15 28) (E16 196)

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

(F22 146) (E26 14) (E36 153) (F32 14) (F32 189) (G10 24) (G29 13) (H18 155) (H19 81) (H19 129) (J01 155) (J08 110) (J08 116) (J39 171)

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

(K02 130) (K10 22) (K29 161) (L01 26) (L21 116) (L22 163) (P07 27) (P07 52) (P07 123) (P16 107) (P20 202) (P28 129)

Once 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

(A41 65) (B14 67) (C02 131) (E36 182) (F21 75) (F32 134)

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

(G64 124) (J08 64) (J16 31) (J21 13) (J57 190) (N01 149)

13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

(P07 84) (P07 152) (P16 39) (R07 53) (R07 106)

Since 1. 2. 3. 4.

(B14 216) (F36 95) (G16 15) (G19 53)

7. 8. 9. 10.

(J59 129) (J66 128) (K10 36) (K10 44)

13. 14. 15. 16.

(N01 55) (N05 206) (N14 160) (N25 24)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

162 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 5. 6.

(H19 182) (H22 94)

11. 12.

(K10 111) (K24 78)

17.

(P29 25)

As soon as 1. (A07 100) 2. (E10 51) 3. (E36 35) 4. (G21 101) 5. (J59 45) 6. (J59 51)

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

(K02 125-6) (K10 49) (L21 186) (L22 94) (N02 7) (N05 51)

13. 14. 15. 16.

(N05 196) (N12 162) (P08 161) (P16 178)

Now (that) 1. (G10 169) 2. (H19 109) 3. (K16 49) 4. (K27 185)

5. 6. 7. 8.

(L21 152) (L22 28) (N05 144) (P28 202)

9. 10.

(R07 6) (R07 34)

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

(H23 5) (H23 103) (J48 192) (J66 123) (K10 80) (P03 127)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication After 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

(A07 79) (A07 99) (A13 4) (A13 236) (A22 97) (A22 123) (A27 67) (A30 84)

Upon 1. (F19 47)

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

(A30 101) (B24 97) (E36 73) (E36 185) (F11 71) (F11 95) (F11 185) (H22 36)

2.

(J08 10)

b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 163 (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication Once 1. (G45 194) b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Simultaneity (2nd order / DTR / Factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

When 1. (A07 20) 2. (A07 60) 3. (A07 89) 4. (A07 103) 5. (A08 23) 6. (A08 58) 7. (A08 115) 8. (A08 119) 9. (A11 19) 10. (A11 47) 11. (A11 52) 12. (A11 125) 13. (A11 133) 14. (A11 183) 15. (A13 6) 16. (A13 21) 17. (A13 37) 18. (A13 39) 19. (A13 180) 20. (A13 236) 21. (A16 157) 22. (A16 189) 23. (A16 198) 24. (A22 76) 25. (A22 90) 26. (A22 114) 27. (A22 174) 28. (A22 180) 29. (A22 183)

181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209.

(F29 57) (F29 169) (F32 9) (F32 16) (F32 21) (F32 27) (F32 40) (F32 52) (F32 55) (F32 97) (F32 122) (F32 147) (F32 151) (F36 100) (F36 158) (F39 86) (F41 59) (F41 164) (G10 13) (G10 48) (G10 58) (G10 108) (G10 112) (G10 137) (G10 148) (G10 163) (G10 180) (G16 76) (G16 96)

361. 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 371. 372. 373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389.

(J62 135) (J63 77) (J63 186) (J66 112) (K02 51) (K02 55) (K02 121) (K02 160) (K02 167) (K10 56) (K10 148) (K10 167) (K16 11) (K16 157) (K16 186) (K18 39) (K18 64) (K18 75) (K18 77) (K18 81) (K18 105) (K18 137) (K18 140) (K18 153) (K18 198) (K24 58) (K24 72) (K27 8) (K27 14)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

164 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75.

(A22 193) (A22 203) (A26 45) (A26 104) (A26 118) (A27 83) (A27 131) (A27 163) (A30 65) (A30 98) (A30 117) (A30 203) (A39 7) (A39 50) (A39 55) (A39 58) (A39 72) (A39 74) (A39 82) (A39 84) (A39 85) (A39 108) (A39 156) (A41 5) (A41 14) (A41 135) (A41 220) (A41 229) (B03 118) (B03 178) (B03 187) (B03 190) (B03 190) (B03 196) (B10 153) (B10 209) (B13 73) (B13 217) (B14 62) (B14 187) (B14 198) (B14 200) (B23 62-63) (B23 197) (B24 75) (B24 119)

210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255.

(G16 101) (G19 27) (G19 63-4) (G19 69) (G19 131) (G19 158) (G26 20) (G26 38) (G26 69) (G26 130) (G26 156) (G28 10) (G28 45) (G28 85) (G28 153) (G29 8) (G29 12) (G29 26) (G29 48) (G29 68) (G29 79) (G32 4) (G32 95) (G32 108) (G32 122) (G35 28) (G35 36) (G41 30) (G41 32) (G41 38) (G41 117) (G41 138) (G41 175) (G42 3) (G42 15) (G42 33) (G42 58) (G42 105-6) (G42 109) (G42 149) (G42 180) (G42 185) (G45 123) (G45 154) (G46 49) (G46 90)

390. 391. 392. 393. 394. 395. 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402. 403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412. 413. 414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. 434. 435.

(K27 56) (K27 70) (K27 104) (K29 31) (K29 43) (K29 60) (K29 75) (K29 86) (K29 117) (K29 123) (K29 143) (K29 145) (K29 152) (K29 163) (L01 14) (L01 16) (L01 64) (L01 90) (L01 143) (L01 188) (L09 100) (L16 11) (L16 68) (L16 170) (L16 183) (L17 31) (L17 36) (L17 37) (L17 48) (L17 58) (L17 62) (L17 68) (L17 142) (L17 183) (L21 20) (L21 24) (L21 50) (L21 95) (L21 116) (L21 127) (L21 157) (L21 183) (L22 3) (L22 10) (L22 26) (L22 34)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 165 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121.

(B24 126) (B24 140) (B24 144) (C02 51) (C02 107) (C05 27) (C05 51) (C05 183) (C08 91) (C08 182) (C13 97) (C13 180) (C13 194) (D02 99) (D02 123) (D02 188) (D04 119) (D11 28) (D11 70) (D11 75) (D11 78) (D11 91) (D11 100) (D11 140) (D11 142) (D11 151) (D11 159) (D11 163) (D11 166) (E05 16) (E05 18) (E05 88) (E10 50) (E10 78) (E10 133) (E16 41) (E16 104-5) (E18 83) (E18 139) (E19 99) (E19 143) (E26 6) (E26 86) (E26 112) (E26 113) (E26 121)

256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301.

(G46 167) (G46 185) (G49 33) (G49 88) (G49 96) (G49 105) (G49 125) (G49 166) (G52 116) (G52 186) (G58 143) (G58 149) (G58 159) (G59 34) (G59 51) (G59 55) (G59 155) (G59 184) (G64 6) (G64 7) (G64 109) (G64 154) (H12 42) (H12 60-1) (H12 110) (H18 21) (H18 124) (H19 49) (H19 56) (H19 111) (H19 117) (H19 125) (H19 173) (H19 191) (H22 9) (H22 25) (H22 104) (H22 150) (H23 20) (H29 166) (J02 14) (J02 86) (J02 94) (J02 99) (J02 126) (J08 7)

436. 437. 438. 439. 440. 441. 442. 443. 444. 445. 446. 447. 448. 449. 450. 451. 452. 453. 454. 455. 456. 457. 458. 459. 460. 461. 462. 463. 464. 465. 466. 467. 468. 469. 470. 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 479. 480. 481.

(L22 53) (L22 89) (L22 107) (L22 115) (L22 151) (L22 189) (L22 201) (M01 107) (M01 156) (M06 30-1) (M06 39) (M06 190) (M06 192) (N01 63) (N01 124) (N01 135) (N02 41) (N02 50) (N02 56) (N02 196) (N02 201) (N12 82) (N12 102) (N12 106) (N12 108) (N12 110) (N12 155) (N12 191) (N14 12) (N14 42) (N14 85) (N14 95) (N14 114) (N14 171) (N14 172) (N14 185) (N18 12) (N18 23) (N18 48) (N18 101) (N18 183) (N25 30) (N25 58) (N25 70) (N25 89) (N25 99)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

166 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167.

(E26 133) (E26 146) (E26 153) (E26 169) (E28 39) (E28 68) (E28 102) (E28 125) (E28 134) (E31 10) (E31 126) (E31 130) (E31 153) (E36 13) (E36 45) (E36 105) (E36 110) (E36 134) (E36 171) (E37 41) (E37 54) (E37 121) (E37 123) (E37 166) (E37 184) (E37 199) (F11 17) (F11 88) (F11 138) (F12 14) (F15 103) (F16 107) (F16 123) (F19 7) (F19 23) (F19 31) (F19 32) (F19 53) (F19 65) (F19 79-81) (F21 64) (F21 78) (F21 147) (F21 179) (F22 30) (F22 33)

302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347.

(J08 47) (J08 115) (J16 3) (J16 31) (J16 131) (J16 158) (J16 177) (J16 188) (J19 24) (J19 26) (J19 27) (J19 118) (J19 165) (J19 179) (J21 41) (J25 8-9) (J25 23) (J25 36) (J25 38) (J25 43) (J25 50) (J25 64) (J25 75) (J25 97) (J25 108) (J25 136) (J25 155) (J28 10) (J28 150) (J28 180) (J30 100) (J30 109) (J30 177) (J35 146) (J36 72) (J36 162) (J39 46) (J39 142) (J39 145) (J54 4) (J54 77) (J54 80) (J54 145) (J57 145) (J57 160) (J57 165)

482. 483. 484. 485. 486. 487. 488. 489. 490. 491. 492. 493. 494. 495. 496. 497. 498. 499. 500. 501. 502. 503. 504. 505. 506. 507. 508. 509. 510. 511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516. 517. 518. 519. 520. 521. 522. 523. 524. 525. 526. 527.

(N25 186) (P03 47) (P03 58) (P03 62) (P03 107) (P03 164) (P07 39) (P07 66) (P07 79) (P07 119) (P07 142) (P07 163) (P08 11) (P08 33) (P08 38) (P08 41) (P08 42) (P08 59) (P08 145) (P08 159) (P16 20) (P16 31) (P16 32) (P16 100) (P16 106) (P16 121) (P16 134) (P16 139) (P16 143) (P20 10) (P20 40) (P20 91) (P20 123) (P20 152) (P20 156) (P20 159) (P20 209) (P28 75) (P28 102) (P28 112) (P28 134) (P28 137) (P28 163) (P29 34) (P29 68) (P29 77)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 167 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180.

(F22 34) (F22 51) (F22 53) (F22 56) (F22 78) (F22 104) (F22 126) (F29 5) (F29 8) (F29 14) (F29 31) (F29 42) (F29 43)

348. 349. 350. 351. 352. 353. 354. 355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360.

(J59 12) (J59 25) (J59 48) (J59 61) (J59 70) (J59 83) (J59 161) (J62 17) (J62 95) (J62 99) (J62 101) (J62 104) (J62 131)

528. 529. 530. 531. 532. 533. 534. 535. 536. 537. 538. 539. 540.

(P29 80) (P29 109) (P29 180) (P29 199) (R02 77) (R02 182) (R07 18) (R07 23) (R07 47) (R07 64) (R07 123) (R07 169) (R07 183)

As 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

(A08 54) (A13 34) (A16 214) (A26 33) (A26 51) (A26 103) (A27 87) (A27 92) (A27 176) (A39 161) (A39 173) (B13 113) (B13 221) (C02 163-4) (C02 174) (E10 67) (E10 91) (E16 169) (E18 144) (E26 86) (E36 58) (E36 60) (E36 91) (F11 103) (F11 126) (F11 152) (F19 148) (F21 17) (F22 107) (F29 89) (F29 126)

64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94.

(G49 179) (G52 96) (G52 157) (G52 194) (G58 167) (G61 99) (G61 119) (H06 98) (H22 76) (H22 148) (H24 143) (J08 73) (J36 89) (J53 126) (J57 85) (J62 24) (J63 139) (J63 184) (J66 17) (K02 45) (K02 47) (K02 53) (K02 88) (K02 139) (K02 154) (K10 65) (K10 68) (K10 188) (K16 154) (K18 70) (K18 100)

127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157.

(N18 51) (N18 71) (N18 73) (N18 100) (N18 117) (N18 121) (N18 139) (N18 156) (N18 166) (N18 169) (N18 195) (N18 205) (N18 211) (N18 214) (P03 39) (P07 13) (P07 92) (P08 15) (P08 20) (P08 28) (P08 36) (P08 43) (P08 100) (P08 112) (P08 118) (P08 127) (P08 151) (P16 16) (P16 38) (P16 85) (P16 93)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

168 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

(F32 49) (F32 100) (F36 43) (G10 23) (G16 110) (G19 14) (G19 28) (G19 33) (G19 40) (G19 78) (G21 103) (G21 184) (G26 17) (G26 24) (G26 46) (G26 57) (G26 94) (G26 136) (G26 171) (G26 175) (G28 43) (G28 61) (G29 59) (G29 118) (G29 126) (G29 158) (G29 163) (G42 94) (G42 152) (G45 192) (G46 101) (G49 12)

While 1. (A07 75) 2. (A08 38) 3. (A08 113) 4. (A16 49) 5. (A16 84) 6. (A22 197) 7. (A26 174) 8. (A26 175) 9. (A41 88) 10. (B13 222) 11. (B23 49) 12. (B24 146)

95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126.

(K18 148) (K18 193) (K18 199) (K24 70) (K24 175) (K24 200) (K27 101) (K29 15) (K29 128) (L01 118) (L09 182) (L16 131) (L17 178) (L21 136) (L22 58) (L22 113) (L22 114) (M01 35) (M01 47) (M01 161) (M06 89) (M06 96) (M06 127) (N01 36) (N01 58) (N02 15) (N02 19) (N02 177) (N05 37) (N05 88) (N12 32) (N12 120)

158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187.

(P16 95) (P16 145) (P16 153) (P20 121) (P20 176) (P28 11) (P28 13) (P28 54) (P28 65) (P28 81) (P28 154) (P28 164) (P28 169) (P28 171) (P29 3) (P29 9) (P29 24) (P29 36) (P29 54) (P29 130) (P29 134) (P29 170) (P29 177) (P29 202) (R02 26) (R02 61) (R02 92) (R02 121) (R02 186) (R07 9)

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

(F15 117) (F19 42) (F19 56) (F22 62) (F29 27) (F29 189) (F32 146) (F41 180) (G10 168) (G19 6) (G19 104) (G19 107)

61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

(J21 117) (J25 75) (J35 168) (J57 6) (J57 53) (J63 41) (J66 135) (J66 141) (K16 46) (K18 37) (K18 156) (K18 203)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 169 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

(C05 115) (C08 184) (D01 178) (D02 96) (D02 163) (D11 62) (E10 161) (E16 71) (E16 89) (E16 97) (E16 115) (E16 147) (E18 65) (E36 32) (E36 51) (E36 97) (E36 100) (F15 101)

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

(G19 113) (G21 148) (G28 52) (G28 90) (G28 157) (G29 56) (G29 140) (G29 141) (G32 19) (G46 8) (G52 52) (G59 41) (G61 23) (H22 178) (J19 106) (J21 22) (J21 48) (J21 73)

73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

(L16 20) (L16 78) (L17 116) (L21 12) (L21 97) (L21 118) (L21 128) (L21 171) (M01 159) (N01 92) (N12 93) (N14 138) (N25 34) (N25 40) (N25 160) (P07 42) (P28 143)

Whereas 1. (E16 40) 2. (G26 39) 3. (G41 90) 4. (G61 177) 5. (H24 10)

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

(J21 111) (J35 42) (J35 71) (J36 57) (J39 37)

11. 12. 13.

(J53 4) (J62 67) (P03 26)

Whenever 1. (E10 41) 2. (G21 48) 3. (J02 54) 4. (J21 145)

5. 6. 7. 8.

(J36 113) (K02 106) (K16 23) (L16 44)

9. 10.

(L22 39) (P16 156)

As long as 1. (A39 162) 2. (F15 114)

3. 4.

(N12 159) (R07 105)

Whilst 1. (J02 150)

2.

(R02 138)

3.

(R02 150)

So long as 1. (G64 143)

2.

(J59 43)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

170 María Jesús Pérez Quintero b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication In 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

(A08 149) (C05 85) (E10 111) (E16 42) (E19 68) (E28 186) (E31 138) (E36 132) (F15 28) (F15 63) (F19 45) (F21 160) (F41 20) (G29 117) (G41 4)

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

(G41 162) (G42 115) (G45 100) (G52 132) (G52 137) (G58 130) (H06 156) (H23 118) (H24 148) (J01 161) (J02 32) (J02 68) (J19 178) (J19 193) (J21 186)

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

(J28 173) (J30 58) (J30 144) (J39 24) (J39 139) (J53 28) (J54 102) (J54 134) (J54 175) (J57 185) (J59 99) (L01 189) (N02 32)

When 1. (B10 186) 2. (B23 109) 3. (B23 116) 4. (B23 127) 5. (C08 9) 6. (C08 194) 7. (E10 64)

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

(E10 104) (E28 214) (F16 150) (F21 16) (F32 163) (G42 140) (G42 142)

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

(G42 153) (G46 80) (H19 100) (J08 59) (J28 183) (J35 108)

While 1. (A13 5) 2. (A26 189) 3. (A27 127) 4. (A39 194)

5. 6. 7. 8.

(B10 157) (B23 154) (G52 130) (H24 167)

9. 10. 11. 12.

(J36 190) (J57 79) (J66 165) (N01 116)

Whilst 1. (D11 43)

2.

(E05 115)

3.

(J02 29)

On 1.

2.

(F29 19)

(E05 139) b. Closed predication

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 171 (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication When 1. (A11 83) 2. (A13 59) 3. (B24 142) 4. (C08 58) 5. (C13 174) 6. (E16 20) 7. (E26 171)

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

(G16 84) (G21 177) (G64 180) (H24 55) (J08 30) (J08 35) (J08 67)

15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

(J16 105) (J19 97) (J30 84) (J36 8) (M06 187)

b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Posteriority (2nd order / DTR / Non-factual / Non-Presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

Until 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

(A07 154) (A08 218) (A16 26) (A22 179) (A39 114) (A41 19) (B24 224) (D01 147) (E16 99) (E18 154) (E36 92) (E36 112) (E37 46) (F11 66) (F11 95) (F11 163) (F32 39) (F32 131) (F32 144) (F32 174)

34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

(G29 122) (G29 147) (G29 174) (G32 44) (G32 114) (G32 126) (G46 73) (G46 179) (G64 74) (G64 137) (H29 220) (J01 208) (J16 75) (J16 89) (J16 147) (J16 150) (J16 161) (J36 187) (J39 89) (J48 70)

67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

(L17 172) (L17 203) (L21 123) (L22 40) (L22 76) (L22 86) (M01 91) (M06 32) (N05 58) (N12 28) (N14 22) (N14 49) (N14 103) (N14 147) (N14 200) (N18 37) (N18 213) (N18 219) (N25 67) (N25 84)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

172 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

(F36 53) (F36 123) (G10 131) (G16 121) (G19 83) (G21 119) (G21 174) (G28 81) (G29 3) (G29 15) (G29 42) (G29 73) (G29 101)

54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

(J48 186) (J59 42) (J59 56) (J59 69) (J59 89) (K16 118) (K18 132) (K27 81) (K29 140) (L01 22) (L09 120) (L09 179) (L17 69)

87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97.

(N25 94) (N25 157) (P07 9) (P07 147) (P07 170) (P07 174) (P07 182) (P28 39) (P28 195) (R02 10) (R07 153)

Before 1. (A13 9) 2. (A22 27) 3. (A27 197) 4. (A30 181) 5. (A39 94) 6. (A39 156) 7. (A41 140) 8. (A41 225) 9. (B03 95) 10. (B03 147) 11. (B03 192) 12. (B25 109) 13. (D01 37) 14. (D11 145) 15. (E10 14) 16. (E10 85) 17. (E18 180) 18. (E19 145) 19. (E26 77) 20. (E26 78) 21. (E36 37) 22. (F11 186) 23. (F16 98) 24. (F19 66) 25. (F22 147) 26. (F22 155) 27. (F22 156) 28. (F29 172) 29. (F32 102) 30. (F32 206)

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

(F36 199) (G10 42) (G10 89) (G19 45) (G28 63) (G29 109) (G45 145) (H12 194) (H19 156) (H24 196) (J01 123) (J62 49) (J08 37) (J16 57) (J16 154) (J19 183) (J25 140) (J39 127) (J53 25) (J57 50) (J59 19) (K02 124) (K10 74) (K10 173) (K24 75) (K24 137) (K24 207) (K27 144) (L09 32) (L16 5)

61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90.

(L16 191) (L17 144) (L17 154) (L17 180) (L21 171) (L22 57) (L22 70) (M06 70) (M06 103) (N05 141) (N12 182) (N14 65) (N14 159) (N14 166) (N18 86) (N18 122) (N18 181) (N18 201) (P07 132) (P08 16) (P08 150) (P16 4) (P16 146) (P20 65) (P20 160) (P29 47) (P29 124) (P29 149) (R02 112) (R07 15)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 173 Till 1. 2. 3.

(D04 114) (G16 10) (G26 122)

4. 5. 6.

(G29 156) (L22 66) (L22 168)

7. 8. 9.

(L22 196) (M06 164) (N18 161)

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

(J63 20) (K18 31) (K27 12) (N01 59) (N14 50) (P28 167) (R02 109)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication Before 1. (B23 110) 2. (B25 88) 3. (E10 132) 4. (E16 185) 5. (E19 51) 6. (E19 75) 7. (E19 121)

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

(E37 27) (F32 167) (F41 26) (G42 22) (H29 49) (J28 158) (J35 109)

b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Clauses of Manner Eventive Manner (2nd order / ITR / Factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i) As 1. 2.

With independent verb form Indicative (A07 99) (A16 198)

53. 54.

(G28 23) (G28 52)

105. 106.

(J57 143) (J59 25)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

174 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

(A39 9) (A39 107) (A41 39) (B03 136) (B10 81) (B24 223) (B25 63) (C02 22) (C05 170) (C08 17) (D01 10) (D01 126) (D01 161) (D02 54) (D02 128) (D04 2) (D04 21) (D04 39) (D04 123) (D11 46) (D11 53) (D11 90) (D11 149) (D11 153) (E05 71) (E10 113) (E16 171) (E16 194) (E18 33) (E26 92) (E26 168) (E26 171) (E31 6) (E36 144) (E36 163) (E37 101) (F16 39) (F19 65) (F19 96) (F21 61) (F21 77) (F22 42) (F32 147) (F41 90) (G16 146) (G19 153)

55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100.

(G28 181) (G28 185) (G35 173) (G41 96) (G45 22) (G45 152) (G46 73) (G46 108) (G49 166) (G52 107) (G52 153) (G58 55) (G58 57) (G59 47) (G59 84) (G59 147) (G59 165) (G61 14) (G61 104) (G64 31) (G64 118) (G64 121) (H12 124) (H18 102) (H22 123) (J01 33) (J01 109) (J01 218) (J02 23) (J02 37) (J02 41) (J16 171) (J16 175) (J21 80) (J21 134) (J25 4) (J28 44) (J35 82) (J35 154) (J36 43) (J36 132) (J36 161) (J39 86) (J39 127) (J48 114) (J48 162)

107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152.

(J59 40) (J62 80) (J62 98) (J62 139) (J63 2) (J63 89) (J63 137) (J63 165) (K02 8) (K02 13) (K02 105) (K02 119) (K02 149) (K10 153) (K16 35) (K16 89) (K18 44) (K18 64) (K27 90) (K29 6) (K29 21) (K29 52) (K29 99) (K29 141) (L01 44) (L01 160) (L16 153) (L22 11) (M01 103) (M01 114) (M06 36) (M06 49) (M06 130) (M06 157) (N01 129) (N01 102) (N02 162) (N25 50) (N25 173) (P07 46) (P08 63) (P08 116) (P08 184) (P20 135) (P29 55) (R07 90)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 175 49. 50. 51. 52.

(G21 12) (G21 147) (G26 67) (G28 6)

Like 1. (L01 171) 2. (L22 131)

101. 102. 103. 104.

(J53 4) (J53 36) (J53 163) (J54 47)

153. 154.

(R07 130) (R07 134)

3. 4.

(N14 30) (P03 167)

5. 6.

(P28 167) (R02 154)

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

(J21 21) (J25 131) (J28 5) (J28 103) (J36 76) (J39 187) (J48 147)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication As 1.

(F15 25)

b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication As 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

(B03 135) (D01 89) (D11 23) (C11 56) (E10 175) (E16 86) (E36 140)

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

(F16 55) (F19 120) (F41 38) (H24 40) (H24 57) (J08 3) (J16 99)

b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

176 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Epistemic Manner (3rd order / Factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i) As 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

With independent verb form Indicative (B24 27) (B25 25) (C05 71) (C13 169) (F15 188) (F21 52) (F21 157) (F21 170) (G28 82) (G32 35) (G42 144) (G58 101)

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

(H06 162) (H12 145) (H18 74) (H18 158) (H22 150) (H24 63) (H24 89) (J01 67) (J02 26) (J02 102) (J16 167) (J28 138)

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

(J30 93) (J35 89) (J62 112) (J66 177) (K16 25) (K18 38) (M01 113) (N02 35) (P20 28) (R07 29)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 177 Illocutionary Manner (4th order / Factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i) As 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

With independent verb form Indicative (A07 68) (A07 80) (C02 123) (G16 91) (G19 4)

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

(G26 169) (G41 170) (G58 13) (G58 16) (G58 140)

11. 12. 13.

(H18 130) (J21 30) (J35 148)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Clauses of comparison Potential Comparison (2nd order / ITR / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

As if 1. (G29 155-6) 2. (K24 26) 3. (K24 130)

4. 5. 6.

(K29 128) (L17 127) (N25 5)

7.

(N25 188)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

178 María Jesús Pérez Quintero As though 1. (G29 49) 2. (K02 99)

3. 4.

(L16 141) (N12 123)

(ii) Subjunctive I. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication As if 1. (F11 28)

2.

(R07 98)

b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication As though 1. (M01 77)

2.

(M01 89)

As if 1. (F11 128)

2.

(G10 42)

3.

(N18 114)

b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication As though 1. (P08 176-7) b. Closed predication

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 179 Unreal Comparison (2nd order / ITR / Non-factual /Presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

As if 1. (G41 12) 2. (L17 90)

3. 4.

(L17 129) (M06 111)

5.

(N25 77)

As though 1. (B14 194) 2. (K02 5)

3. 4.

(K16 34) (M01 32)

5.

(N02 103)

As if 1. (C13 197) 2. (G16 161)

3. 4.

(G32 66) (G45 95)

5. 6.

(G64 76) (K27 159)

As though 1. (E26 13)

2.

(N02 53)

(ii)

Subjunctive

II. (i)

With dependent verb form Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication As though 1. (K16 107) b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication As though 1. (K16 7) b. Closed predication María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

180 María Jesús Pérez Quintero (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Clauses of Negative Circumstance (2nd order / DTR / Non-factual / Presupposed) I. (i) (ii) II. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative Subjunctive With dependent verb form Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication Without 1. (A07 203) 2. (A08 184) 3. (A11 171) 4. (A22 200) 5. (B23 6) 6. (B23 211) 7. (B24 112) 8. (B24 134) 9. (C08 88) 10. (C08 192) 11. (D04 60) 12. (E10 174) 13. (E16 62) 14. (E19 67) 15. (E26 66) 16. (E28 115) 17. (E37 14) 18. (E37 39) 19. (E37 88) 20. (F15 12) 21. (F15 83) 22. (F32 98)

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

(G10 41) (G21 97) (G41 192) (G49 117) (G49 120) (G52 158) (G59 75) (G64 112) (H06 102) (H22 42) (H22 168) (H22 173) (H29 21) (J35 104) (J35 111) (J39 179) (J53 183) (J54 11) (J54 43) (J54 50) (J54 100) (J54 103)

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

(J54 109) (J54 139) (J54 141) (J57 57) (J57 115) (J59 163) (K02 135) (L09 136) (L09 183) (L21 159) (L22 102) (N02 199) (N14 150) (N18 187) (P08 51) (P08 58) (P20 193) (R02 55) (R02 164) (R07 128)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 181 b. Closed predication Without 1. (J35 11) 2. (J35 14)

3. 4.

(N02 98) (P03 142)

(iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Clauses of Purpose Eventive Purpose (2nd order / DTR / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i) (ii) II. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative Subjunctive With dependent verb form Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication

In order to 1. (B10 29) 2. (B10 197) 3. (B10 202) 4. (B10 212) 5. (D02 57) 6. (E26 20) 7. (E28 34) 8. (E28 49) 9. (E31 65)

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

(F29 115) (F29 174) (G21 139) (G32 119) (G32 132) (G32 165) (G32 171) (G42 30) (H06 69)

So as to 1. (F41 16) 2. (J53 167)

3. 4.

(K27 64) (R07 173)

3.

(D04 44)

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

(H06 83) (H18 131) (H24 146) (J25 117) (J54 78) (J54 124) (J54 126) (K10 51)

5.

(A11 127)

b. Closed predication For 1.

(A22 87)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

182 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 2.

(B25 163)

4.

(E16 50)

6.

(R02 20)

373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. 395. 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402. 403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412. 413.

(J36 172) (J39 84) (J39 92) (J39 95) (J39 126) (J39 153) (J48 13) (J53 172) (J53 207) (J54 145) (J54 146) (J54 148) (J54 149) (J57 5) (J57 45) (J57 123) (J59 49-50) (J59 55) (J59 114) (J59 117) (J59 137) (J59 140) (J62 23) (J62 51) (J62 76) (J62 84) (J62 112) (J62 115) (J62 126) (J62 131) (J62 132) (J63 135) (J63 179-80) (J63 188) (J66 25) (J66 29) (J66 53) (K02 38) (K02 67) (K02 79) (K02 102)

(ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

(A07 62) (A07 172) (A07 178) (A07 218-9) (A08 57) (A08 64) (A08 120) (A08 127-8) (A08 147) (A08 168) (A08 195) (A11 46) (A11 118) (A11 132) (A11 213) (A13 9) (A13 31) (A13 128) (A13 203) (A13 238) (A13 238) (A13 248) (A13 250) (A16 135) (A16 140) (A16 146) (A16 216) (A16 233) (A22 81) (A22 211) (A22 226) (A22 238) (A26 63) (A26 82) (A26 114) (A26 123) (A27 94) (A27 103) (A27 114) (A27 148) (A27 206)

187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227.

(E37 112) (E37 126) (E37 141) (E37 199) (F11 103) (F11 177) (F11 182) (F15 29) (F15 32) (F15 148) (F15 175) (F16 17) (F16 26) (F16 33) (F16 153) (F16 157) (F16 177) (F16 215-7) (F21 72) (F21 116) (F21 130) (F22 20) (F22 62) (F22 73) (F22 122) (F22 125) (F22 145) (F22 165) (F22 179) (F29 32) (F29 50) (F29 75) (F29 124) (F29 142) (F32 55) (F32 60) (F32 90) (F32 118) (F32 121) (F32 183) (F32 195)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 183 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87.

(A30 62-4) (A30 171) (A39 38) (A39 42) (A39 66) (A39 146) (A39 162) (A39 176) (A41 231) (B03 67) (B03 116) (B03 161) (B03 166) (B03 181) (B03 192) (B10 25) (B10 31) (B10 37) (B10 46) (B10 86) (B10 170) (B13 68) (B14 82) (B14 126) (B14 137) (B14 203) (B14 204) (B14 208) (B23 43) (B23 60) (B23 93) (B23 115) (B23 123) (B23 150) (B23 163) (B23 171) (B24 112) (B24 153) (B24 166) (B24 202) (B24 202) (B24 222) (B25 59) (B25 71) (B25 77) (B25 176)

228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273.

(F36 122) (F36 127) (F36 145) (F36 151) (F36 166) (F36 173) (F39 107) (F39 111) (F39 142) (F39 198) (F41 106) (F41 142) (F41 158) (F41 161-2) (G10 32) (G10 44) (G10 76) (G10 98) (G10 148) (G16 40) (G16 77) (G16 162) (G19 75) (G19 124) (G19 128) (G19 129) (G21 100) (G21 185) (G21 190) (G26 12) (G26 102) (G26 141) (G29 14) (G29 44) (G29 92) (G29 102) (G29 140) (G32 112) (G35 30) (G35 101) (G35 109) (G35 138) (G35 150) (G35 151) (G35 169) (G35 175)

414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. 439. 440. 441. 442. 443. 444. 445. 446. 447. 448. 449. 450. 451. 452. 453. 454. 455. 456. 457. 458. 459.

(K02 125) (K02 170) (K10 2) (K10 21-2) (K10 45) (K10 89) (K10 99) (K10 128) (K10 128) (K10 157) (K10 191) (K16 25) (K16 56) (K16 132) (K16 154) (K18 69) (K18 111) (K18 166) (K18 190) (K18 201) (K24 19) (K24 48) (K24 66) (K24 76) (K24 83) (K24 98) (K24 176) (K27 6) (K27 21) (K27 54) (K29 12) (K29 63) (K29 82) (K29 90) (K29 99) (K29 100) (K29 111) (K29 124) (K29 141) (K29 145) (L01 126) (L09 24) (L09 34) (L09 66) (L09 141) (L16 188)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

184 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133.

(B25 176) (C05 104) (C05 109) (C05 152) (C08 153) (C13 31) (C13 43) (C13 46) (C13 99) (C13 114) (D01 76) (D01 127) (D01 146) (D01 163) (D02 29) (D02 45) (D02 55) (D02 85) (D02 164) (D02 175) (D02 187) (D02 197) (D04 7) (D04 27-8) (D04 29) (D04 47) (D04 61) (D04 68) (D04 119) (D04 125) (D04 130) (D04 134) (D04 136) (D04 167) (D04 180) (D11 62) (D11 71) (E05 25) (E05 41) (E05 75) (E05 92) (E05 117) (E05 123) (E05 145) (E05 155) (E05 169)

274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319.

(G35 182) (G41 34) (G42 73) (G42 87) (G42 147-8) (G45 156) (G46 91) (G46 115) (G46 144) (G46 194) (G49 64) (G49 148) (G49 176) (G52 7) (G52 74) (G58 100) (G59 15) (G59 16) (G59 52) (G59 63) (G59 126) (G59 153) (G61 68) (G61 73) (G61 175) (G64 10) (G64 44) (G64 57) (G64 69) (G64 99) (G64 168) (G64 184) (H06 3) (H06 61) (H06 91) (H06 97) (H06 100) (H06 171) (H06 188) (H06 203) (H06 216) (H12 41) (H12 48) (H12 76) (H12 82) (H12 114)

460. 461. 462. 463. 464. 465. 466. 467. 468. 469. 470. 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 479. 480. 481. 482. 483. 484. 485. 486. 487. 488. 489. 490. 491. 492. 493. 494. 495. 496. 497. 498. 499. 500. 501. 502. 503. 504. 505.

(L17 43) (L17 154) (L17 185) (L17 189) (L17 202) (L21 11) (L21 25) (L21 148) (L21 168) (L21 202) (L22 19) (L22 27) (L22 46) (L22 53) (L22 121) (L22 127) (L22 181) (L22 203) (M01 115) (M01 126) (M01 128) (M01 139) (M06 36) (M06 94) (M06 143) (M06 159) (M06 197) (N01 43) (N01 45) (N01 51) (N01 94) (N01 102) (N01 147) (N02 7) (N02 19) (N02 57-8) (N02 68) (N02 70) (N02 92) (N02 123) (N12 60) (N12 123) (N12 155) (N12 156) (N14 34) (N14 55)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 185 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179.

(E05 178) (E05 183) (E10 14) (E10 31) (E10 31) (E10 43) .(E10 68) (E10 82) (E10 109) (E10 134) (E10 171) (E10 173) (E16 44) (E16 109) (E18 2) (E18 179) (E19 13) (E19 37) (E19 42) (E19 107) (E26 16) (E26 49) (E26 117) (E26 132) (E26 146) (E26 171) (E28 15) (E28 28) (E28 59) (E28 83) (E28 103) (E28 104) (E28 180) (E31 36) (E31 47) (E31 70) (E31 77) (E31 89) (E31 165-6) (E31 168) (E31 179) (E31 200) (E36 26-7) (E36 48) (E36 53) (E36 75)

320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350. 351. 352. 353. 354. 355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360. 361. 362. 363. 364. 365.

(H12 121) (H12 146) (H12 179) (H12 180) (H12 183) (H18 172) (H19 114) (H19 167) (H22 30) (H22 43) (H22 137) (H22 141) (H22 161) (H23 111) (H23 151) (H23 174) (H24 177) (H24 204) (H29 19) (J01 4) (J01 175) (J01 188) (J01 210) (J02 26) (J02 55) (J02 77) (J08 50) (J08 93) (J08 99) (J08 175) (J08 178) (J08 184) (J08 185) (J08 193) (J08 198) (J16 4) (J16 4) (J16 6) (J19 60) (J21 11) (J21 180) (J21 181) (J21 184) (J25 145) (J28 62) (J30 15)

506. 507. 508. 509. 510. 511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516. 517. 518. 519. 520. 521. 522. 523. 524. 525. 526. 527. 528. 529. 530. 531. 532. 533. 534. 535. 536. 537. 538. 539. 540. 541. 542. 543. 544. 545. 546. 547. 548. 549. 550. 551.

(N14 58) (N14 112) (N14 120) (N18 190) (N25 27) (N25 45) (N25 55) (N25 87) (N25 90) (N25 161) (P03 29) (P03 43) (P03 68) (P03 86) (P03 111) (P07 29) (P07 30) (P07 60) (P07 167) (P07 192) (P08 31) (P08 34) (P08 43) (P08 59) (P08 79) (P08 103) (P08 122) (P08 187) (P16 67) (P16 97) (P16 104-5) (P16 145) (P16 177) (P20 39) (P28 63) (P28 76) (P28 89) (P28 119) (P28 129) (P28 132) (P28 154) (P28 156) (P29 46) (P29 81) (P29 116) (P29 198)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

186 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186.

(E37 7) (E37 17) (E37 20) (E37 29) (E37 39) (E37 59) (E37 64)

366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 371. 372.

(J30 20-1) (J30 52) (J30 138) (J35 56) (J36 40-1) (J36 84) (J36 115)

552. 553. 554. 555. 556.

(R02 158) (R02 179) (R07 11) (R07 17) (R07 62)

11. 12. 13.

(K27 13) (L21 59) (R07 141)

b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication For 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

(B03 66) (E05 156) (E10 118) (E18 34) (F19 160)

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

(G19 83) (G64 30) (H12 194) (J08 182) (J08 201)

b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a.Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Epistemic Purpose (3rd order / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

So that 1. (A27 121) 2. (A39 55) 3. (C05 45) 4. (D11 72) 5. (E26 80)

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

(F16 74) (F29 175) (F32 72) (G21 8) (J57 5)

11. 12. 13. 14.

(K02 150) (K29 25) (P16 3) (P20 55)

Before 1. (B24 111) 2. (D11 131) 3. (G52 3)

4. 5. 6.

(G52 141) (G52 180) (N14 51)

7.

(P07 140)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 187 In order that 1. (E10 27) (ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Clauses of Consequence Eventive Consequence (2nd order / DTR / Factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

So that 1. (A08 14) 2. (E16 157) 3. (F29 55) 4. (F39 14) 5. (G26 30) 6. (H06 205) 7. (J02 142) 8. (J08 188) 9. (J21 32-3)

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

(J21 75) (J36 177) (J63 19) (K16 96) (K16 179) (K27 3) (K27 35) (K29 27) (K29 30)

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

(K29 101) (L16 72) (M06 5) (M06 185) (N12 48) (N12 137) (N12 143)

So 1. 2. 3.

9. 10. 11.

(G49 184) (J54 123) (K16 131)

17. 18. 19.

(N18 150) (N18 179) (P07 153)

(B23 207) (E16 172) (E37 142)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

188 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

(F22 60) (F22 124) (F22 144) (G10 103) (G29 174)

12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

(K27 72) (K29 89) (L22 144) (N12 92) (N12 98)

20. 21. 22.

(P08 132) (P20 95) (P29 53)

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

(M06 171) (N02 173) (P16 70) (R02 38) (R02 93)

Lest 1. (D04 81) (ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication So as to 1. (J28 197) b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

(A08 117) (A22 158) (A22 194) (A41 37) (A41 113)

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

(F11 175) (G10 69) (J08 74) (J16 27) (K10 20)

b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 189 Epistemic Consequence (3rd order / Factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

So that 1. (E26 20) 2. (G64 128)

3. 4.

(H19 180) (J01 168)

So 1. 2.

3. 4.

(L22 173) (P08 190)

(E37 165) (L16 151)

5. 6.

(J25 4) (N18 93)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Illocutionary Consequence (4th order / Factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i) So 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

With independent verb form Indicative (E19 96) (E19 108) (E19 149) (F22 9) (F22 16)

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

(F22 136) (J28 52) (J66 195) (K16 162) (L21 69)

11. 12. 13.

(L22 13) (L22 128) (N02 170)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

190 María Jesús Pérez Quintero So that 1. (J53 45)

2.

(N01 153)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Clauses of Addition (2nd order / DTR / Factual / Presupposed) I. (i) (ii) II. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative Subjunctive With dependent verb form Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication Beside(s) 1. (A22 218)

2.

(F41 5)

3.

(P03 9)

b. Closed predication Apart from 1. (K02 80) María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 191 (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Clauses of Substitution (2nd order / DTR / Non-factual / Presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

Rather than 1. (G49 88) (ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication Rather than 1. (A08 27) 2. (A11 185)

3. 4.

(B03 178) (G64 25)

5. 6.

(J57 16) (N18 188)

9. 10. 11. 12.

(G42 29) (G49 142) (G64 125) (J01 5)

b. Closed predication Instead of 1. (D04 69) (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication Instead of 1. (B10 47) 2. (B14 115) 3. (C02 39) 4. (C05 33)

5. 6. 7. 8.

(C08 52) (E28 173) (F11 66) (F32 120)

b. Closed predication

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

192 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Rather than 1. (B03 169) Instead of 1. (G41 54) (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Clauses of Exception (2nd order / DTR / Factual / Presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

Except that 1. (F36 59)

2.

(G41 18)

But that 1. (G61 62) (ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication Except 1. (J19 148)

2.

(K16 2)

But 1.

2.

(P20 5)

(P07 88)

b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 193 Except for 1. (E18 125)

2.

(N14 111)

b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Clauses of Cause Eventive Cause (2nd order / ITR / Factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

Because 1. (A07 125) 2. (A07 216) 3. (A13 50) 4. (A16 116) 5. (A26 22) 6. (A26 100) 7. (A27 29) 8. (A27 184) 9. (A41 127) 10. (B14 75) 11. (B14 223-4) 12. (B23 37) 13. (B23 191) 14. (C08 35) 15. (C13 64) 16. (D04 189) 17. (E05 104) 18. (E10 27) 19. (E10 149) 20. (E19 112) 21. (E26 166) 22. (E28 138) 23. (E28 43) 24. (E31 105)

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

(G32 98) (G41 68) (G42 2) (G42 88) (G42 92) (G42 170) (G49 182) (G52 111) (G58 61) (G59 86) (G64 34) (G64 71) (G64 79) (G64 108) (G64 159) (H12 26) (H12 74-5) (H22 5) (H22 59) (H22 144) (H22 188) (J02 6) (J02 69-70) (J08 28)

69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92.

(J59 107) (J59 126) (J59 174) (J62 149) (K10 51) (K10 192) (K16 90) (K18 44) (K18 118) (K18 140) (K27 17) (K27 61) (K27 73) (L16 70) (L21 16) (L22 166) (M06 15) (M06 52) (M06 54) (M06 65) (M06 135) (N02 95) (N02 112) (N02 197)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

194 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

(E37 95) (F15 69) (F15 185) (F36 75) (F39 71) (G16 84) (G16 176) (G19 82) (G26 131) (G28 184)

59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

(J08 38) (J08 45) (J08 46) (J08 57) (J19 105) (J25 91) (J36 86) (J39 162-3) (J54 68) (J54 147)

93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101.

(N05 105) (N12 32) (N12 169) (P03 119) (P07 57) (P20 138) (P28 130) (P29 116) (R07 26)

As 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

(B24 105) (B24 233) (D01 156) (D04 10) (D04 92) (E19 106) (E19 152) (E26 124) (E36 20) (E36 41) (E37 188) (F19 52)

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

(F22 68) (F22 161) (F32 179) (F36 194) (F39 78) (F41 48) (G19 121) (G29 114) (G46 10) (H19 126) (J16 97) (J21 16-7)

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

(J21 86) (J59 32) (J66 114) (K02 106) (L01 40) (L22 203) (N01 57) (N02 135) (N18 29) (N25 92) (P08 48) (P28 193)

Since 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

(A08 75) (A11 170) (A16 206) (D11 110) (F41 130) (F41 169) (G16 170) (G26 99) (G45 52) (G46 26) (G46 161)

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

(H12 167) (J02 29) (J19 6) (J19 58) (J19 76) (J21 67) (J21 178) (J25 78) (J25 122) (J25 186) (J28 18)

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

(J28 136) (J35 127) (J53 186) (J54 148) (J62 22) (J62 70) (K10 26) (K29 19) (K29 105) (K29 160) (R07 19)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 195 (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication 1.

(G29 160)

2.

(G49 32)

3.

(P07 181)

7. 8. 9.

(N25 42) (R07 123) (R07 145)

b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication For 1. 2. 3.

(C08 11) (F21 81) (F29 23)

4. 5. 6.

(N02 140) (N12 98) (N14 27)

For fear of 1. (G28 128) b. Closed predication By 1.

(N12 168)

(iii) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iv) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Epistemic Cause (3rd order / Factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

Because 1. (A11 201) 2. (A11 204) 3. (A16 104) 4. (B10 43) 5. (B13 79-83) 6. (B23 186) 7. (C08 181) 8. (C13 66)

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

(E26 144) (E28 149) (E28 154) (E28 165) (E36 134) (F21 20) (F22 179) (G10 59)

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

(H12 95) (J08 36) (J08 124) (J35 97) (J59 178) (J62 91) (K02 179) (K18 119)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

196 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

(D01 58) (D02 58) (D02 115) (D04 113) (E10 85) (E16 54) (E18 187) (E26 18)

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

(G10 120) (G19 150) (G42 27) (G42 31) (G52 173) (G64 66-8) (G64 92) (H06 180)

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

(L22 4) (N02 86) (N12 111) (N14 24) (N14 7) (N25 106) (P03 144) (R07 6)

As 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

(A13 93) (A13 111) (B10 173) (B23 91) (B24 102) (B24 130)

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

(C08 104) (E10 32) (E19 135) (E31 94) (F15 193) (F15 196)

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

(G10 89) (G26 71) (J02 111) (J36 138) (J62 75) (K29 94)

Since 1. 2. 3. 4.

(A26 187) (F41 168) (G64 126) (H12 119)

5. 6. 7. 8.

(H22 111) (J25 111) (J28 29) (J54 50)

9. 10.

(J54 105) (J54 154)

For fear that 1. (K29 162) (ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 197 Illocutionary Cause (4th order / Factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i) For 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

With independent verb form Indicative (A07 70) (A07 73) (A07 114) (A07 222) (A30 49) (A39 203) (A41 137) (B13 63) (B13 89) (B13 148) (B13 187) (B23 172) (B24 210) (C02 14) (C02 58) (C02 130) (C05 12) (C08 12) (C08 183) (D02 161) (D04 4) (D04 35) (D04 82) (D04 150) (D11 87) (D11 106) (D11 120) (D11 180) (E05 33) (E05 70) (E05 154) (E18 72) (E18 122) (E18 134) (E18 159) (E19 146) (E28 160) (F21 65) (F21 149) (F22 85)

50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

(F32 120) (F32 125) (F36 12) (F36 126) (F36 198) (F39 27) (G10 177) (G16 182) (G21 15) (G21 159) (G21 181) (G26 25) (G26 67) (G26 93) (G26 98) (G26 115) (G26 145) (G26 151) (G29 64) (G32 18) (G32 57) (G32 75) (G32 80) (G32 110) (G32 127) (G32 135) (G32 163) (G41 71) (G41 132) (G42 28) (G52 46) (G58 115) (G59 57) (G59 76) (G64 151) (H22 22) (H22 69) (H22 128) (J02 95) (J16 145)

99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137.

(J62 25) (J62 71) (J62 86) (J62 103) (J62 179) (J63 52) (J63 104) (J63 163) (J66 92) (K10 63) (K10 66) (K10 82) (K18 77) (K18 112) (K18 131) (K29 18) (K29 108) (L09 123) (L16 101) (L16 164) (M01 86) (M01 99) (M01 102) (M01 140) (M01 182) (M06 97) (N02 56) (N02 154) (N05 139) (N05 147) (N05 163) (N05 170) (N05 183) (N12 140) (P03 9) (P03 213) (P16 76) (P29 131) (R07 111)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

198 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

(F22 92) (F22 96) (F22 101) (F22 113) (F22 115) (F29 118) (F32 78) (F32 82) (F32 91)

90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98.

(J21 91) (J21 109) (J36 30) (J36 43) (J36 76) (J39 86) (J53 63) (J53 152) (J53 163)

Because 1. (B14 29) 2. (B23 194)

3. 4.

(G49 44) (L22 136)

5. 6.

(N12 166) (P20 60)

In that 1. (A41 207) 2. (B10 198)

3. 4.

(J16 25) (J16 128)

5. 6.

(J21 23-4) (J66 31)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 199 Clauses of Condition Eventive Condition (2nd order / ITR / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i) If 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

With independent verb form Indicative (A07 67) (A07 132) (A07 136) (A08 188) (A13 90) (A13 120) (A13 209) (A16 76) (A16 149) (A16 193) (A22 26) (A26 58) (A26 168) (A26 177) (A39 20) (B03 87) (B10 7) (B10 66) (B10 176) (B10 137) (B10 199) (B10 211) (B10 214) (B13 31) (B13 32) (B13 61) (B13 136) (B13 139) (B13 218) (B13 229) (B14 39) (B14 43) (B14 72) (B14 186) (B14 210) (B23 26) (B23 95) (B23 187)

115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152.

(E37 139) (F15 178) (F16 164) (F16 181) (F21 10) (F21 43) (F21 84) (F21 100) (F22 173) (F22 176) (F32 31) (F32 66) (F32 78) (F32 109) (F32 166) (F32 173) (F32 176) (F32 178) (F36 142) (F39 199) (F41 67) (F41 84) (F41 144) (F41 172) (F41 178) (F41 199) (G19 127) (G21 141) (G29 87) (G35 94) (G41 23) (G41 73) (G41 146) (G42 24) (G42 43) (G42 96) (G42 157) (G45 92)

229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266.

(J35 95) (J35 129) (J36 9) (J36 101) (J36 133) (J48 6) (J48 28) (J48 58) (J48 64) (J48 79) (J48 85) (J53 59) (J53 164) (J54 34) (J54 35) (J54 41) (J54 69) (J54 98) (J54 99) (J54 108) (J54 109-12) (J54 120) (J54 144) (J54 100) (J54 161) (J54 171) (J54 171) (J57 90) (J57 145) (J57 188) (J59 34) (J62 32) (J62 72) (J63 135) (J63 165) (K02 9) (K02 35) (K02 41)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

200 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84.

(B23 190) (B23 198) (B24 14) (B24 26) (B24 53) (B24 99) (B24 238) (B25 33) (B25 75) (C02 159) (C08 146) (C08 156) (C08 183) (D01 4) (D01 41) (D01 101) (D01 175) (D04 4) (D04 36) (D04 63) (D04 65) (E05 42) (E05 105) (E05 141) (E05 160) (E10 66) (E10 94) (E10 96) (E10 99) (E16 12) (E16 30) (E18 152) (E19 23) (E19 54) (E19 54) (E19 59) (E19 60) (E19 83) (E19 96) (E19 102) (E19 109) (E19 130) (E19 150) (E19 156) (E19 174) (E19 179)

153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198.

(G45 93) (G45 114) (G46 180) (G49 158) (G52 54) (G58 9) (G58 11) (G58 13-5) (G58 46) (G58 65) (G59 176) (G59 148) (G61 19) (H12 33) (H12 84) (H12 128) (H12 152) (H12 156) (H12 181) (H18 94) (H18 124) (H18 140) (H18 143) (H19 177) (H22 69) (H22 115) (H29 31) (H29 141) (H29 164) (J01 9) (J01 22) (J01 32) (J01 95) (J01 110) (J01 129) (J01 180) (J01 184) (J02 91) (J02 109) (J02 124) (J02 155) (J08 106) (J19 9) (J19 36) (J19 73) (J19 87)

267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312.

(K10 172) (K16 24) (K16 57) (K16 147) (K18 15) (K18 35) (K18 91) (K27 65) (K27 66) (K27 77) (K27 83) (K27 93) (K29 80) (K29 81) (K29 99) (K29 102) (K29 150) (L16 38) (L16 146) (L17 27) (L17 31) (L17 33) (L17 44) (L17 57) (L17 139) (L17 187) (L17 188) (L17 194) (L17 205) (L21 155) (L21 168) (L22 44-6) (L22 71) (L22 98) (L22 106) (L22 124) (M01 131) (M01 133) (M01 134) (N01 82) (N01 153) (N02 83) (N02 111) (N02 117) (N02 119) (N12 55)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 201 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114.

(E26 12) (E26 20) (E26 24) (E26 26) (E26 27) (E26 31) (E26 40) (E26 70) (E26 72) (E26 73) (E26 79) (E26 79) (E26 90) (E26 96) (E26 153) (E26 173) (E26 174) (E28 5) (E28 40) (E28 90) (E28 112) (E28 102) (E28 134) (E37 27) (E37 30) (E37 42) (E37 58) (E37 61) (E37 76) (E37 95)

199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228.

(J19 93) (J19 120) (J19 121) (J19 162) (J19 168) (J19 170) (J19 190) (J19 191) (J19 194) (J21 62) (J21 72) (J21 115) (J21 133) (J21 135) (J21 135) (J21 143) (J21 175) (J25 31) (J25 51) (J25 74) (J25 83) (J25 85) (J25 131) (J25 148) (J25 154) (J25 165) (J25 172) (J28 107) (J28 131) (J30 93)

313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342.

(N14 65) (N14 169) (N18 77) (N18 80) (N18 138) (N18 154) (N18 162) (N18 185) (P03 48) (P03 70) (P03 72) (P03 91) (P03 133) (P03 176) (P03 214) (P07 81) (P08 106) (P16 4) (P16 141) (P20 87) (P20 101) (P20 114) (P20 198) (P28 31) (P29 107) (R02 29) (R02 65) (R07 42) (R07 60) (R07 165)

Unless 1. (A39 221) 2. (B14 41) 3. (B24 221) 4. (B25 131) 5. (E16 23) 6. (E18 20) 7. (E18 47) 8. (E18 186) 9. (E26 149) 10. (E28 119)

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

(F21 11) (F32 51) (F39 131) (G10 180) (G42 76) (G52 108) (H19 159) (H24 67) (J01 107) (J16 166)

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

(J48 64) (J48 70) (J48 92) (L01 63) (N14 56) (N14 57) (N18 64) (P07 143) (R07 124)

Provided (that) 1. (A39 183) 2. (B23 14)

3. 4.

(J01 141) (N01 81)

5.

(N01 90)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

202 María Jesús Pérez Quintero So long as 1. (A11 199) 2. (G21 133)

3. 4.

(G58 103) (R02 31)

Providing 1. (A07 46)

2.

(J01 82)

3.

(P20 118)

3. 4.

(H19 170) (J35 110)

5.

(J62 127)

7. 8. 9.

(J19 127) (J19 128) (J25 110)

As long as 1. (A39 189) In so far as 1. (F36 48) (ii)

Subjunctive

If 1. 2.

(B10 110) (C08 108)

II. (i)

With dependent verb form Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication 1.

(P20 116)

b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication If 1. 2. 3.

(A27 12) (D11 17) (E26 41)

4. 5. 6.

(E28 162) (F15 21) (G64 180)

Unless 1. (J48 16)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 203 b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Potential Epistemic Condition (3rd order / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i) If 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

With independent verb form Indicative (A07 150) (A07 152) (A11 103) (A11 206) (A13 78) (A26 42) (A26 67) (A26 92) (A39 105) (A41 202) (B10 88) (B10 174) (B10 184) (B13 132) (B13 146) (B24 20) (B24 178) (C05 150) (D04 3) (D04 50) (E10 76) (E19 123) (E26 97) (E31 179) (F15 21) (F15 104)

Unless 1. (A13 41) 2. (F22 158) 3. (G19 133) 4. (G28 24)

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

(F16 13) (F16 93) (F22 96) (F22 185) (G21 179) (G41 41) (G49 57) (G61 81) (G64 19) (G64 117) (H12 54) (H18 53-8) (H22 128) (H24 146) (J01 92) (J39 124) (J48 146) (J48 170) (J48 179) (J48 191-3) (J48 200) (J54 154) (J54 159) (J57 15) (J59 144) (J59 163)

53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76.

(K02 29) (K18 9) (K18 107) (K18 205) (K24 84) (K27 75) (K27 81) (K27 116) (K27 126) (K29 7) (K29 64) (L01 202) (L16 33) (N01 181) (N05 57) (P07 72) (P07 84) (P07 175) (P08 65) (P16 14) (P20 27) (P20 90) (P20 188) (P20 220)

5. 6. 7. 8.

(G42 165) (H29 181) (J59 141) (K29 116)

9. 10.

(N18 88) (P03 28)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

204 María Jesús Pérez Quintero Provided (that) 1. (A39 22) 2. (E31 161)

3. 4.

(G32 100) (H18 79)

5. 6.

(H24 42-6) (K29 92)

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

(G41 144) (H18 83) (H18 167) (H19 166) (J25 164) (J53 171) (J54 50) (J59 119)

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

(J59 124) (J59 129) (K10 117) (K29 113) (P03 20) (P03 24) (P03 198)

2.

(G42 75)

(ii) Subjunctive If 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

(B10 111) (B10 157) (B13 37) (E28 143) (E28 167) (F15 164) (G16 72) (G21 189)

Unless 1. (G35 141) II. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

With dependent verb form Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication

Unreal Epistemic Condition (3rd order / Non-factual / Presupposed) I. (i) If 1.

With independent verb form Indicative (B03 164)

14.

(G41 173)

27.

(L21 151)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 205 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

(B10 134) (B13 51) (B13 63) (C05 169) (D01 141) (D11 39) (F22 101) (F22 166) (G10 7) (G16 168) (G26 31) (G41 162)

Inversion 1. (A07 9) 2. (G19 106)

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

(G41 180) (G42 64) (G42 188) (G59 152) (H18 105) (J02 35) (J63 30) (J63 111) (K02 92) (K16 67) (K24 39) (L01 69)

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

(L21 180) (L22 187) (N01 102) (N02 125) (N05 70) (N18 28) (N25 66) (P20 44) (P20 169) (P29 54)

3. 4.

(G29 151) (G32 64)

5. 6.

(G41 51) (J02 164)

(ii) Subjunctive II. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

With dependent verb form Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication

Illocutionary Condition (4th order / Non-factual / Non-presupposed) I. (i) If 1.

With independent verb form Indicative (J62 14)

3.

(N14 91) María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

206 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 2.

(J62 133)

4.

(N14 92)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Clauses of Concessive-Condition Eventive Concessive-Condition (2nd order / ITR / Non-factual / Nonpresupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

Even if 1. (A07 28) 2. (B24 108) 3. (E18 89) 4. (F22 16) 5. (E37 72)

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

(G49 123) (G59 7) (H18 127) (L16 174) (L17 108-9)

Even when 1. (C05 18)

2.

(J62 108)

11. 12. 13.

(L22 212) (P20 180) (P29 164)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 207 (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication Even 1. (B23 158) b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Potential Epistemic Concessive-Condition (3rd order / Non-factual / Nonpresupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

Even if 1. (C05 22)

2.

(F15 169)

3.

(G42 133)

(ii) Subjunctive Even if 1. (D01 99) II. (i)

With dependent verb form Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

208 María Jesús Pérez Quintero b. Closed predication (iv) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Clauses of Concession Eventive Concession (2nd order / ITR / Factual /Presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

(Al)though 1. (A13 222) 2. (A22 182) 3. (A16 98) 4. (A22 129) 5. (A39 207) 6. (B03 38) 7. (B23 207) 8. (C08 54) 9. (D02 196) 10. (D11 174) 11. (E28 32) 12. (F11 19) 13. (F11 79) 14. (F11 123) 15. (F11 134) 16. (F11 161) 17. (F29 41) 18. (F29 73)

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

(F41 184) (G26 65) (G26 90) (G29 24) (G46 98) (G49 107) (H18 34) (H19 120) (H23 37) (J19 140) (J25 10) (J25 13) (J30 175) (J53 45) (J57 161) (J63 50) (J63 154) (K02 98)

37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

(K10 43) (K27 106) (K27 165) (K29 57) (K29 131) (K29 137-8) (M06 16) (N01 38) (N01 129) (N02 4) (N12 96) (P03 110) (P07 104) (P16 137) (P29 28) (P29 65)

Even though 1. (B10 179) 2. (E36 191) 3. (F32 40)

4. 5. 6.

(F32 162) (G49 87) (H19 106)

7. 8. 9.

(J28 38) (P03 70) (P20 186)

Whilst 1. (H19 97)

2.

(H23 35)

3.

(J39 75-6)

(ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 209 a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication (Al)though 1. (A08 102) 2. (E16 173)

3. 4.

(F11 48) (G41 113)

While 1. (E37 135)

2.

(J35 83)

5.

(L01 186)

5.

(P03 3)

b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication (Al)though 1. (A11 43) 2. (A22 210)

3. 4.

(A30 55) (D02 166)

b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Epistemic Concession (3rd order / Factual /Presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

(Al)though 1. (A07 187) 2. (A08 106) 3. (A11 198) 4. (A16 202) 5. (A22 9) 6. (A27 51) 7. (A39 139) 8. (B03 9) 9. (B03 93)

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

(E26 57) (E28 64) (E28 97) (E28 164) (E28 184) (F22 83) (F32 27) (F41 20) (F41 25)

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

(G49 110) (G52 170) (G52 184) (H12 7) (H24 188) (J02 175) (J16 68) (J16 132) (J16 179)

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

210 María Jesús Pérez Quintero 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

(B13 80) (B23 120) (B23 143) (C05 5) (C05 42) (C13 182) (D02 176) (D11 171) (E10 35) (E10 103) (E10 153) (E16 91) (E18 132)

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

(F41 43) (F41 83) (F41 138) (G10 167) (G16 118) (G16 136) (G21 136) (G26 49) (G26 97) (G32 110) (G41 87) (G42 111) (G46 57)

54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

(J19 117) (J21 39) (J25 59) (J36 42) (J36 182) (J48 38) (J57 77) (J63 26) (L01 201) (M06 173) (N12 157) (P07 88) (P29 25)

While 1. (A30 89) 2. (E10 167) 3. (E16 41) 4. (E16 78) 5. (E18 99) 6. (E18 158)

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

(E36 63) (E36 129) (E36 179) (F15 96) (F19 140) (F41 156)

13. 14. 15. 16.

(G16 56) (H06 167) (J28 31) (J30 131)

However 1. (A39 82) 2. (B23 166) 3. (D11 117)

4. 5. 6.

(E18 126-7) (E26 69) (F16 182)

7. 8.

(G52 93) (G59 38)

Even though 1. (F32 21)

2.

(J16 33)

Whereas 1. (G64 116)

2.

(J53 40)

Whilst 1. (H19 61) (ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

Appendix II 211 b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication Illocutionary Concession (4th order / Factual /Presupposed) I. (i)

With independent verb form Indicative

(Al)though 1. (A07 54) 2. (A11 193) 3. (A27 208) 4. (A39 124) 5. (A39 187) 6. (B24 6) 7. (C02 134) 8. (C02 172) 9. (C05 59) 10. (C13 57) 11. (C13 126) 12. (D01 130) 13. (E16 122) 14. (E28 23) 15. (E37 197) 16. (F11 131)

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

(F15 98) (E21 62) (G16 14) (G19 136) (G26 35) (G35 87) (G41 79) (G41 95) (G41 151) (G41 155) (G45 82) (G61 88) (G64 102) (J25 41) (J28 146) (J30 12)

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

(J39 180) (J39 189) (J53 135) (J63 149) (K02 74) (K16 16) (L21 26) (M06 111) (N05 192) (N18 32) (P16 151) (P20 30) (P20 177) (R07 189)

While 1. (E26 44) (ii) Subjunctive II. With dependent verb form (i) Infinitive with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (ii) Infinitive with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access

212 María Jesús Pérez Quintero (iii) -ing form with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (iv) -ing form with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (v) Past participle with subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication (vi) Past participle with no subordinating particle a. Open predication b. Closed predication

María Jesús Pérez Quintero - 978-90-04-33419-9 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2020 08:24:06AM via free access