Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T22:33:12.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Insubordination’ in the light of the Uniformitarian Principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

ELIZABETH CLOSS TRAUGOTT
ELIZABETH CLOSS TRAUGOTT*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Margaret Jacks Hall, Building 460, Room 127, Stanford CA 94305-2150, USAtraugott@stanford.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Assuming that the Uniformitarian Principle refers to processes of production and perception, I argue that it remains invaluable for work on language in the last five thousand years or so, the period of linguistic historical record. In this article I show that some proposals about the development of ‘insubordination’ (Evans 2007), particularly those that link it to degrammaticalization (e.g. Higashiizumi 2006 on because-monoclauses; Brinton 2014 on as if clauses), are artifacts of theory (Kaiser & Struckmeier 2015), and do not conform to processes that can be projected from a Uniformitarian Process Principle that pays attention to interactional practices. I investigate evidence in the history of English for the development of finite independent monoclauses that are introduced by subordinators, for example, Because you don't understand, If we could see that picture again, As if you are not gorgeous. I conclude that, at least in English, such monoclauses are chunks that are used incrementally in on-line interaction, just like independent NPs and prepositional and adverbial phrases (Ford et al. 2002; Couper-Kuhlen 2011; see also Lindström & Londen 2008 on Swedish monoclauses with subordinators; Gras & Sansineña 2015 on Spanish monoclausal que-constructions). In such cases degrammaticalization is not relevant. The Uniformitarian Processes Principle can serve as an important corrective on artifacts of theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 289 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte & Gildea, Spike (eds.). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Beijering, Karin, D'Hertefelt, Sarah, Kaltenböck, Günther & Sansiñena, María Sol. 2015. Workshop on (Semi-)independent subordinate constructions, SLE, Leiden, 2–5 Sept.Google Scholar
Beijering, Karin & Norde, Muriel. 2015. Semi-independent subordination: A case of degrammaticalization at the clausal level? Paper presented at the Workshop on (Semi-)independent subordinate constructions, SLE, Leiden, 2–5 Sept.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2012. The uniformitarian principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and social history. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 80–98. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2014. The extremes of insubordination: Exclamatory as if! Journal of English Linguistics 42, 93–113.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle (ed.). 2001. Grammaticalization: A critical assessment . Special issue of Language Sciences 23 (2–3).Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2003. Reconstruction, typology, and reality. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Motives for language change, 234–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2011. When turns start with because: An exercise in interactional syntax. Studies in variation, contacts and change in English 8: Connectives in synchrony and diachrony in European languages. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/08/couper-kuhlen/ (accessed March 2016).Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Disterheft, Dorothy & Viti, Carlotta. 2010. Subordination. In Luraghi, Silvia & Bubenik, Vit (eds.), Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 230–49. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1988. Odd topic marking in Kayardild. In Austin, Peter (ed.), Complex sentences in Australian languages, 219–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farrelly, Michael & Seoane, Elena. 2012. Democratization. In Taavitsainen, Irma & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 392–401. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2010. Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames 2, 185–207.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), The language of time and sequence, 3–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Östman, Jan-Ola, 2005. Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1752–78.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas & Truswell, Robert. 2015. Old English headed relatives between parataxis and hypotaxis. Paper presented at the workshop on (Semi-)independent subordinate constructions, SLE, Leiden, 2–5 Sept.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2015. Nominalization, de-subordination and re-finitization. Chapter 27 of The diachrony of grammar, vol. 2, 661–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gras, Pedro & Sansineña, María Sol. 2015. An interactional account of que-constructions in Spanish. Text & Talk 35 (4), 505–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Some proposals toward a more rigorous corpus linguistics. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 54, 191–202.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel & Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Higashiizumi, Yuko. 2006. From a subordinate clause to an independent clause: A history of English because-clause and Japanese kara-clause. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Content clauses and reported speech. In Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey, The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 947–1030. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hüllen, Werner. 1995. A close reading of William Caxton's Dialogues ‘. . .to lerne Shortly frenssh and englyssh’. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical pragmatics, 99–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Sebastian & Struckmeier, Volker. 2015. When insubordination is an artefact (of sentence type theories). Paper presented at the workshop on (Semi-)independent subordinate constructions, SLE, Leiden, 2–5 Sept.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2016. On the grammatical status of insubordinate if-clauses. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.), Outside the clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 341–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1, 97–120.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Clause combining in discourse and grammar, 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa (2nd, rev. edn of Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch, 1982). A 2002 version is available at www.christianlehmann.eu Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan & Londen, Anne-Marie. 2008. Constructing reasoning: The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive), and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In Leino, Jaakko (ed.), Constructional reorganization, 105–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José & Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2012. On comparative complementizers in English: Evidence from historical corpora. In Vásquez-González, Nila (ed.), Creation and use of English corpora in Spain, 309–33. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Lyell, Charles. 1830–3. Principles of geology, 3 vols. London: Murray (repr. 1990–1, Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1997. Parallel corpora: A real-time approach to the study of language change in progress. In Ljung, Magnus (ed.), Corpus-based studies in English, 195–209. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Mato-Míguez, Beatriz. 2015. A syntactic and pragmatic approach to insubordinate if-clauses in formal spoken American English. Abstract for the workshop on (Semi-)independent subordinate constructions, SLE, Leiden, 2–5 Sept.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2001. Exclamative constructions. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Österreicher, Wulf & Raible, Walter (eds.), Language universals and language typology: An international handbook, 1038–50. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences 36, 32–46.Google Scholar
Parkes, M. B. 1992. Pause and effect: An introduction to the history of punctuation in the West. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2011. Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 34, 411–42.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696–735.Google Scholar
Sansineña, María Sol, Smet, Hendrik De & Cornillie, Bert. 2015. Between subordinate and insubordinate. Paths toward complementizer-initial main clauses. Journal of Pragmatics 77, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, Mary J. 1991. Paratactic because . Journal of Pragmatics 16, 323–37.Google Scholar
Schröder, Daniela. 2014. Exclamatives in the history of English. VCC Symposium, Logroño, 22–24 Oct.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. 2016. Independent si-clauses in Spanish: Functions and consequences for insubordination. In Evans, Nicholas & Watanabe, Honoré (eds.), Insubordination, 89–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1999. Dialogues in Late Medieval and Early Modern English medical writing. In Jucker, Andreas H., Fritz, Gerd & Lebsanft, Franz (eds.), Historical dialogue analysis, 243–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 37–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van linden, An & Van de Velde, Freek. 2014. (Semi-)autonomous subordination in Dutch: Structures and semantic-pragmatic values. Journal of Pragmatics 60, 226–60.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, D'Hertefelt, Sarah & Van linden, An. 2012. A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language 36, 123–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The status of hwæt in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 17, 465–88.Google Scholar
Winters, Margaret E. 2010. Introduction: On the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. In Winters, Margaret E., Tissari, Heli & Allan, Kathryn (eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics, 3–27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2006. Formulaic language. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics, 2nd edn, vol. 4, 590–7. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar