Book contents
- Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency
- Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Word Grammar in Its Intellectual Contexts
- 2 Raising in Phonology
- 3 Grammar Change in the Network
- 4 Word Formation Change in Word Grammar
- 5 The Metaphorical Bases of Constituency and Dependency
- 6 From Social Psychology to Cognitive Sociolinguistics
- 7 Hudson on Heads
- 8 Ordinary French Houses
- 9 Dependency Grammar and Subordination
- 10 Verb Phrases as Attributive Nominal Modifiers
- 11 Testing the Predictions of Word Grammar, the Minimalist Programme and the Matrix Language Frame Model for German/English Mixed Determiner–Noun Constructions
- 12 Factors Influencing Dependency Distance
- Index
- References
9 - Dependency Grammar and Subordination
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2024
Book contents
- Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency
- Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Word Grammar in Its Intellectual Contexts
- 2 Raising in Phonology
- 3 Grammar Change in the Network
- 4 Word Formation Change in Word Grammar
- 5 The Metaphorical Bases of Constituency and Dependency
- 6 From Social Psychology to Cognitive Sociolinguistics
- 7 Hudson on Heads
- 8 Ordinary French Houses
- 9 Dependency Grammar and Subordination
- 10 Verb Phrases as Attributive Nominal Modifiers
- 11 Testing the Predictions of Word Grammar, the Minimalist Programme and the Matrix Language Frame Model for German/English Mixed Determiner–Noun Constructions
- 12 Factors Influencing Dependency Distance
- Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter it is argued that language discretely combines lexical items into dependency structures rather than recursively embedding syntactic objects into phrase structures. This must be the case if language is to be able to manage discrete infinity and specifiers. In particular it is argued that the ubiquity of subordinators and other subordinating elements in the languages of the world and the fact that these are obligatory in many contexts clearly show that language is not recursive embedding. If language were recursive embedding, the subordinators would be completely redundant, since the subordinate clauses would automatically be embedded under the predicates. Other potential functions of universal subordinators such as Germanic that are discussed and refuted. The chapter will discuss several cases in English, Swedish and German where the universal subordinator is needed to embed the clause, and cases where it is not needed but where other subordination strategies are employed instead. Furthermore, it will be shown that in those cases where the subordinator is omitted and there is no other subordinating strategy, the clauses become desubordinated.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency , pp. 200 - 230Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Bayer, Josef & Salzmann, Martin. 2013. That-trace effects and resumption: How improper movement can be repaired. In Brandt, Patrick and Fuß, Eric (eds.), Repairs: The Added Value of Being Wrong, 275–333. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, K. & Berry, C. 1999. A Description of Abun: A West Papuan Language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rakesh Mohan. 1999. Verb Movement and the Syntax of Kashmiri. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2007. Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31(3), 569–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Kehayov, Petar (eds.). 2016. Complementizer Semantics in European Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper, van Lier, Eva & Theilgaard-Brink, E.. 2015. Epistemic complementizers. Language Sciences 51, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1995. The realis–irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian languages, and English. In Bybee, Joan L. and Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse, 349–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and Beyond, 104–31. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Otero, Carlos Peregrín (ed.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46(4), 621–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1995. A functional theory of complementizers. In Bybee, Joan L. and Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse, 473–502. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2020. Varieties of dependent V2 and verbal mood: A view from Icelandic. In Woods, Rebecca and Wolfe, Sam (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3), 663–87.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam & Tecumseh Fitch, W.. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298(5598), 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrmann, Tanja. 2005. Relative clauses in English dialects of the British Isles. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects, 21–124. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper [Bybee], Joan & Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465–97.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.). 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2010. An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Some observations on factivity. Papers in Lingusitics 4(1), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehayov, Petar & Boye, Kasper. 2016. Complementizer semantics in European languages: Overview and generalizations. In Boye, Kasper and Kehayov, Petar (eds.), Complementizer Semantics in European Languages, 809–78. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416619-023.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1998. Adverbial subordinators in the languages of Europe. In van der Auwera, Johan (ed.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, 457–562. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremers, Joost. 2017. Prosodic syntax. Postdoctoral dissertation. University of Göttingen. https://joostkremers.github.io/files/Kremers2017.pdf (accessed 9 April 2024).Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 2007. Prosodic Phonology: With a New Foreword. Studies in Generative Grammar 28. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110977790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, Pesetsky, David & Rodrigues, Cilene. 2009. Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85, 355–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordström, Jackie. 2010. Modality and Subordinators. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordström, Jackie. 2014. Language as a discrete combinatorial system, rather than a recursive-embedding one. The Linguistic Review 31(1), 151–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordström, Jackie. 2022. Language as Sound with Meaning: A Dual Model of Language. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Nordström, Jackie & Boye, Kasper. 2016. Complementizer semantics in the Germanic languages. In Boye, Kasper and Kehayov, Petar (eds.), Complementizer Semantics in European Languages, 131–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy. 2019. A Dependency Grammar of English. An Introduction and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Course in General Linguistics. [Edited by Bally, Charles and Sechehaye, Albert]. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw Hill Education.Google Scholar
Svenska Akademiens ordbok (SAOB). Göteborgs universitet. http://g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 2015 [1965]. Elements of Structural Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott, Elizabeth and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Grammaticalization. Volume 2, 313–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2), 219–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar