Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T16:58:08.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The syntax of peripheral adverbial clauses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2022

LINDA BADAN
Affiliation:
Department of Translation, Interpreting, and Communication, Ghent University, Groot-Brittanniëlaan 45, 9000Gent, BelgiumLinda.Badan@UGent.be
LILIANE HAEGEMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Ghent University & University of Geneva, Blandijnberg 2, 9000Gent, BelgiumLiliane.Haegeman@UGent.be

Abstract

This paper explores the relation between the interpretations of while in English and mentre in Italian introducing adverbial clauses. Central while/mentre clauses express a temporal/aspectual modification of the proposition in the host clause. Peripheral while/mentre clauses make accessible a proposition from the discourse context enhancing the relevance of the host proposition. In one approach, clauses introduced by adversative while/mentre are analyzed as ‘less integrated’ with the associated clause than those introduced by temporal while/mentre. In another approach, adverbial clauses introduced by adversative while/mentre are considered not syntactically integrated with the host clause. This paper re-examines the nature of the syntactic integration of the adverbial clauses with the host clause, revealing a parallelism between the adversative peripheral while/mentre clauses and speaker-related sentential adverbs, leading to the conclusion that the non-integration analysis is not appropriate for this type of peripheral clauses and that any analysis must be aligned with that of the relevant non-clausal adverbials, supporting Frey (2018, 2020a, b). We also argue that central adverbial clauses recycled as speech event modifiers must be considered non-integrated. Concretely, we propose that they are integrated in discourse, through a specialized layer FrameP (Haegeman & Greco 2018).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

We thank three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for their generous and extremely helpful and constructive comments, which have greatly improved our paper. Obviously, they cannot be held responsible for the outcome. Thanks to Gaetano Fiorin and Andrew Radford for comments on the paper and to Manuela Schönenberger for her comments on Section 5.

References

REFERENCES

Charnavel, Isabelle. 2020. French causal puisque-clauses in the light of (not-)at-issueness. In Vogel, Irene (ed.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 16: Selected papers from the 47th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL47), 5064. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Ken Ramshoj, Jorgegnsen, Henrik & Wood, Johanna L. (eds.). 2019. The sign of the V: Papers in honour of Sten Vikner. Aarhus: Department of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2004. Issues in adverbial syntax. Lingua 114, 683710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2008. Two types of nonrestrictive relatives. In Bonami, Olivier & Hoffherr, Patricia Cabredo (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7, 99137. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2019. The different merge positions of different types of relative clauses. In Christensen et al. (eds.), 131147.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikelen: Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensatzen (Studia grammatica 73). Berlin: Akademie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, Mark. 2009. The left and right periphery in Dutch. The Linguistic Review 26, 291327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat & Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. The double system of tense forms referring to future time in English. Journal of Semantics 12.3, 269310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat & Reed, Susan. 2001. Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delfitto, Denis & Fiorin, Gaetano. 2017. Adverb classes and adverb placement. In Eeraert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk C. (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn., 83120. Oxford: Wiley and Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ebert, Christian, Ebert, Cornelia & Hinterwimmer, Stefan. 2014. A unified analysis of conditionals as topics. Linguistics and Philosophy 37, 353408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 2004. Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In Adger, David, DeCat, Cécile & Tsoulas, Georges (eds.), Peripheries, 75121. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endo, Yoshido & Haegeman, Liliane. 2019. Adverbial clauses and adverbial concord. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4.1, 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endriss, Cornelia. 2009. Quantificational topics: A scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2001. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. Adjuncts and word order asymmetries. In Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.), Asymmetry in grammar, vol. I: Syntax and semantics, 178207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2007. On the role of semantics in a theory of adverb syntax. Lingua 117, 10081033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27, 497544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1990. The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistic 26, 5779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2016. Dislocations and framings. Ms., Università RomaTre.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2016. On some correlations between formal and interpretative properties of causal clauses. In Reich, Ingo & Speyer, Augustin (eds.), Co- and subordination in German and other languages: Special issue of Linguistische Berichte 21, 153179. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2018. On the syntax–discourse interface with different kinds of not-at-issue expressions. Presented at CGSW33 (2018) – Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop, 27–18 August 2018, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2020a. On the categorical status of different dependent clauses. Ms., ZAS Leibniz-Centre General Linguistics, BerlinGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2020b. German concessives as TPs, JPs and ActPs. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5.10, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra. 2014. Prosodic signals as syntactic formatives in the left periphery. In Cardinaletti, Anna, Cinque, Guglielmo & Endo, Yoshido (eds.), On peripheries: Exploring clause-initial and clause-final positions, 161188. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobe Publishing.Google Scholar
Giuliana, Giusti. 2001. Frasi avverbiali: temporali 2.1, causali 2.2. In Renzi, Lorenzo, Gianpaolo, Salvi & Cardinaletti, Anna (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione vol. 2, XIII, 720751. [First edition 1995]Google Scholar
Greco, Ciro & Haegeman, Liliane. 2020. Frame setters and microvariation of subject-initial verb second. In Rebecca, Woods & Wolfe, Sam (eds.), Rethinking verb second, 6189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, James & de Vries, Mark. 2013. The syntactic integration of appositives: Evidence from fragments and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 332344.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1984a. Parasitic gaps and adverbial clauses. Journal of Linguistics 20, 229232.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1984b. Pragmatic conditionals in English. Folia Linguistica 18, 485502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1984c. Remarks on adverbial clauses and definite anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 712715.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Parenthetical adverbials: The radical orphanage approach. In Chiba, Shuki, Ogawa, Akira, Fuiwara, Yasuaki, Yamada, Norio, Koma, Osamu & Yagi, Takao (eds.), Aspects of modern English linguistics: Papers presented to Masatomo Ukaji on his 60th birthday, 232254. Tokyo: Kaitakushi. [Reprinted as Haegeman 2009]Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2002. Sentence-medial NP-adjuncts in English. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25.1, 79108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18, 317339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2009. Parenthetical adverbials: The radical orphanage approach. In Shaer et al. (eds.), 331347. [Reprint of Haegeman 1991]Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. The movement derivation of conditional clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 595621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena and the composition of the left periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2019. The temporal interpretation of West Flemish non-inverted V3. In Christensen et al. (eds.), 625643.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2020. Central adverbial clauses and the derivation of subject-initial V2. In Holler, Anke, Suckow, Katja & de la Fuente, Israel (eds.), Information structuring in discourse (Current research in the semantics–pragmatics interface 40), 163200. Leiden & Boston, MA: Brill.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Greco, Ciro. 2018. West Flemish V3 and the interaction of syntax and discourse. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21.1, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, Lander, Eric & Schönenberger, Manuela. 2021. Adverbial clauses. The division of labour between sentence and discourse. Ms., DiaLing Research Group Colloquium, Ghent University & University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Robinson, Brian. 1979. A note on some aspects of the use of will in affirmative declarative sentences. Journal of Linguistics 15, 109110.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Schönenberger, Manuela. 2021. A reassessment of the typology of adverbial clauses. Ms., DiaLing Research Group Colloquium, Ghent University & Department of Linguistics, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, Shaer, Benjamin & Frey, Werner. 2009. Postscript: Problems and solutions for orphan analyses. In Shaer et al. (eds.), 348365.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Wekker, Herman. 1984. The syntax and interpretation of futurate adverbials in English. Journal of Linguistics 20, 4555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2017. Embedded root phenomena. In Everaert, Martin & Van Riemsdijk, Henk C. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn., 174209. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Hopper Paul, J. & Traugott, Elisabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As time goes by. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1984. Funktionale Satzperspektive und Illokutionssemantik. Linguistische Berichte 91, 2558.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Lyle. 1972. Will-deletion. In Peranteau, Paul P., Levy, Judith N. & Phares, Gloria C. (eds.), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 8), 173183. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kearns, John T. 2006. Conditional assertion, denial, and supposition as illocutionary acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 29, 455485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan. 2000. Extraposition as parallel construal. Ms., University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2017. Assertions and and judgements, epistemics and evidentials. Presented at the Workshop Speech Acts: Meanings, Uses, Syntactic and Prosodic Realizations, 29–31 May, Leibniz–ZAS Berlin.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. To appear. Layers of assertive causes: Propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. In Hartmann, Jutta M. & Wöllstein, Angelika (eds.), Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich: Theorie und Empirie/Propositional arguments in cross-linguistic research: Theoretical and empirical issues [Studien zur Deutschen Sprache]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Li, Yafeu, Shields, Rebecca & Lin, Vivian. 2012. Adverb classes and the nature of minimality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30, 217260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 1979. Final parentheticals with English questions: Their illocutionary function and grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 3, 401412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita, Huddleston, Rodney & Collins, Peter. 2002. The clause: Adjuncts. In Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 663784. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niewint, Pieter. 1986. Present and future in conditional protases. Linguistics 24, 371– 92.Google Scholar
Nilsen, Oystein. 2004. Domains for adverbs. Lingua 114.6, 809847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1965. A linguistic study of the English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1974. The English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1990. Modality and the English modals. London: Longman Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1997. Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. Sprache im Fokus. In Christa, Dürscheid, Karl-Heinz, Ramers & Schwarz, Monika (eds.), Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, 121144. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo, Salvi, Giampaolo & Cardinaletti, Anna. 2001. Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, 2nd edn. Bologna: Il Mulino. [First edition 1995]Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane, Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook of generative syntax, 281337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 663690.Google Scholar
Manuela, Schönenberger & Haegeman, Liliane. 2021. English rationale since and a reassessment of the typology of adverbial clauses. Ms., DiaLing Research Group Colloquium, Ghent University and Department of Linguistics, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Shaer, Benjamin, Cook, Philippa, Frey, Werner & Maienborn, Claudia (eds.). 2009. Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaer, Benjamin & Frey, Werner. 2004. ‘Integrated’ and ‘non-integrated’ left peripheral elements in German and English. In Benjamin, Shaer, Werner, Frey & Maienborn, Claudia (eds.), Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, ZAS Berlin, November 2003: ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35(2), 465502.Google Scholar
Elizabeth, Traugott C.. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Elizabeth, Traugott C.. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65, 3155.Google Scholar
Elizabeth, Traugott C.. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 3754. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elizabeth, Traugott C. & König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization I, 189218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Velde, John. 2005. Deriving coordinate symmetries. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2002. Interpersonal grammar and clause combining in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven.Google Scholar