Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:29:30.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The positioning of concessive adverbial clauses in English: assessing the importance of discourse-pragmatic and processing-based constraints1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2013

DANIEL WIECHMANN  and
ELMA KERZ
DANIEL WIECHMANN
Affiliation:
Department of English, American and Romance Language Studies, RWTH Aachen University, Kármánstr. 17/19, D-52062 Aachen, Germanywiechmann@anglistik.rwth-aachen.de, kerz@anglistik.rwth-aachen.de
ELMA KERZ
Affiliation:
Department of English, American and Romance Language Studies, RWTH Aachen University, Kármánstr. 17/19, D-52062 Aachen, Germanywiechmann@anglistik.rwth-aachen.de, kerz@anglistik.rwth-aachen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English permits adverbial subordinate clauses to be placed either before or after their associated main clause. Previous research has shown that the positioning is conditioned by various factors from the domains of semantics, discourse pragmatics and language processing. With the exception of Diessel (2008), these factors have never been investigated in concert, which makes it difficult to understand their relative importance. Diessel's study, however, discusses only temporal constructions and identifies iconicity of sequence as the strongest predictor of clause position. Since this explanation is, in principle, unavailable for other types of subordinate clauses, the generalizability of Diessel's findings is somewhat limited. The present study offers a multifactorial analysis of 2,000 concessive constructions from the written part of the BNC and assesses the variable importance of six factors for the ordering choice, showing that semantic and discourse-pragmatic factors are much stronger predictors of clause position than processing-based, weight-related ones. On a methodological note, the study proposes that random forests using conditional inference trees constitute the preferred tool for the general type of problem investigated here.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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.)

Footnotes

1

We thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor Bas Aarts for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. All remaining errors are of course our own.

References

Aarts, Bas. 1988. Clauses of concession in written present-day British English. Journal of English Linguistics 21, 39–58.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 1984. Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica 38, 20–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altman, Pam, Caro, Mari, Metge-Egan, Lisa & Roberts, Leslie. 2010. Sentence-combining workbook. 3rd edn.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony & Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76 (1), 28–55.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baldi, Pierre & Brunak, Soren. 2002. Bioinformatics: A machine learning approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, vol. 4: Wortstellung, Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (1), 2–20.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bishop, Christopher. 2006. Pattern recognition and machine learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45 (1), 5–32.Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo, Friedman, Jerome, Stone, Charles J. & Olshen, R. A.. 1984. Classification and regression tree. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Burnard, Lou. 1995. Users’ reference guide for the British National Corpus, version 1.0. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1984. How people use adverbial clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10, 437–49.Google Scholar
Cowan, Ron. 2008. The teacher's grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination strategies: A typological study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2009. Words as constructions. In Evans, Vyvyan & Pourcel, Stéphanie (eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 201–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2001. The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: A typological study. Language 77, 345–65.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43, 449–70.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2008. Iconicity of sequence. A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19, 457–82.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger & Hetterle, Katja. 2011. Causal clauses: A cross-linguistic investigation of their structure, meaning, and use. In Siemund, Peter (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation, 21–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1971. On the concept of communicative dynamism in the theory of functional sentence perspective. Philologica Pragensia 8, 135–44.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, Alec, Miyashita, Yasushi & O'Neil, Wayne (eds.), Image, language, brain, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism and nonarbitrary coding in syntax. In Haiman, John (ed.), Natural syntax, 187–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1995a. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1995b. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. In Simone, Raffaele (ed.), Iconicity in language, 47–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 1997. On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in academic English: Native and non-native writers compared. In Aarts, Jan, de Mönnink, Inge & Wekker, Herman (eds.), Studies in English language and teaching, 185–98. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, John (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1988. Syntactic devices for compression in English. In Klegraf, Josef & Nehls, Dietrich (ed.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel's 60th birthday, 3–10. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part II. Journal of Linguistics 3, 199–244.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 2000. The relative ordering of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond manner-place-time. Language Variation and Change 11, 231–66.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Hornik, Kurt & Zeileis, Achim. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15 (3), 651–74.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994. Sprachwandel – Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Tübingen: FranckeGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN3-900051-07-0, www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Ramsay, Violetta. 1987. The functional distribution of preposed and postposed if and when clauses in written discourse. In Tomlin, Russell (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 383–408. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2004. On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In Purnelle, Gérard, Fairon, Cédrick & Dister, Anne (eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis. Louvain-la-Neuve, 10–12.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Boulesteix, Anne-Laure, Zeileis, Achim & Hothorn, Torsten. 2008. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics, 8–25.Google Scholar
Strobl, Caroline, Malley, James & Tutz, Gerhard. 2009. An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods 14 (4), 323–48.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Baayen, Harald. 2012. Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24 (2), 135–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temperley, David. 2007. Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition 105 (2), 300–33.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra. 1985. Grammar and written discourse. Initial and final purpose clauses in English. In Givón, Talmy (ed.), Quantified studies in discourse. Special issue of Text 5, 55–84.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra & Longacre, Robert E.. 1985. Adverbial clauses. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2, 171–234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2004. Initial and final position of adverbial clauses in English: The constructional basis of the discursive and syntactic differences. Linguistics 42, 819–53.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel. 2011. Exploring probabilistic differences between genetically related languages. Language in Contrast 11 (2), 193–215.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel & Lohmann, Arne. 2013. Modeling domain minimization: PP ordering revisited. Language Variation and Change 25 (1).Google Scholar