Taxonomic network for comment clauses 

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... of a speaker comment reflects this ambivalence in function by allowing for two essentially different structures: syntactically backgrounded in the form of a sentence adverbial (or pragmatic marker) or syntactically foregrounded in the form of a matrix (or superordinate) clause. 7 Let me briefly look at these in turn: (i) Sentence adverbials (‘stance adverbials’ Biber et al. 1999: 969, ‘disjuncts’ Quirk et al. 1985) may of course take various forms, such as single adverbs (e.g. probably ), adverb phrases (e.g. funnily enough ), prepositional phrases (e.g. in my opinion ), noun phrases (e.g. no doubt ), finite and non-finite clauses (e.g. I guess, as one might expect; to tell you the truth ). Of these, single adverbs are the most frequent, especially in spoken language (Biber et al. 1999: 862). Adverbs are related functionally and historically to another category, viz. that of pragmatic markers (e.g. indeed, only, actually ), for which adverbs represent the historical source out of which pragmatic markers have developed either directly, via sentence adverbials, or via conjunctions (e.g. Traugott 1995a, Brinton 2008: 246). Both sentence adverbials and pragmatic markers are not only similar functionally, in their wide-scope evaluation (of a proposition or upcoming text respectively), but also in their coding as syntactically backgrounded: both are in a non-governing relationship to their commentatum, which iconically reflects their secondary status. (ii) Coding as a syntactically governing constituent, on the other hand, is less varied. It only takes the form of a matrix clause, albeit with different types of complementation, such as object clauses (e.g. I believe that John is in London ) and extraposed subject complements (e.g. It is amazing that John went to London ). 8 Both patterns are highly frequent in spoken and written language, with direct object clauses representing the most common type of clausal complementation (Greenbaum, Nelson & Weitzman 1996: 88-89). Additionally, the pattern matrix clause + object clause can be seen as representing a highly dominant schema owing to its taxonomic link with the more schematic Transitive construction ([S BJ ] [T RN V ERB ] [O BJ ]; e.g. I believe it ). Syntactic foregrounding of speaker comment in the form of a matrix clause is also reflected in the typical information structure of matrix + that -complement clause structures, where the subordinate clause has been noted to “harbour, rather consistently, presupposed clauses” (Givón 1989: 132; cf. also Sadock 1984, Mackenzie 1984 for similar observations). This seems to be true especially with complements of cognition verbs ( I knew that she was there ) and complements of evaluative adjectives ( It’s terrible that he drinks so much ) (Givón 1989: 132). From a Construction Grammar perspective (as noted in Section 4 above), constructions are independent, but not isolated entities. They are linked with other, related constructions of different levels of schematicity in a larger taxonomic network of constructions. The nature of these links is still a matter of some discussion (e.g. Croft & Cruse 2004: ch. 10), but can be assumed to include analogical relationships, i.e. based on the perceived similarity of two entities. For comment clauses it is possible to identify analogical links to the two constructions outlined above: the matrix-complement schema and the sentence adverbial (pragmatic marker) schema. Since constructions are form- meaning pairings, these links will be of both a formal and a functional kind. Analogy, too, operates on both levels, as we are reminded, for instance, by Givón (1991: 258), who notes that analogical language change “involves the language user’s recognition – conscious or subliminal – of similarities between two structural or functional contexts”. The functional similarity of comment clauses with the two constructions has been briefly outlined above: both constructions serve as repository for speaker comment (stance). Given the reduced semantic meaning of comment clauses (cf. epistemic use), however, they would seem to be functionally more prone to coding as secondary comments, i.e. as sentence adverbials and ultimately (in their semantically reduced, pragmatically enriched form) as pragmatic markers. Formally, comment clauses display varying links. Their subject-predicate form is, of course, strongly reminiscent of main clauses and, together with clause-initial position (the typical position of main clauses), can be expected to activate the matrix-complement schema. With non-initial comment clauses the feature of positional flexibility may be more prominent and responsible for a strong link to ‘coding as secondary comments’, i.e. sentence adverbials, but still with some analogic link to matrix clauses, owing to their clausal form and potential for initial position. The network relations of the comment clause construction can be represented in diagram form as in Figure 2. As illustrated in Figure 2, comment clauses are not isolated constructions but members of a larger constructional network and as such are informed by their relationship to related constructions. In the case of comment clauses these have been identified as the ‘Matrix clause-object clause’ construction (and by extension the more schematic Transitive construction) and the ‘Sentence adverbial’ construction, which by extension also relates to pragmatic markers (as evidenced by the historical development of you know and I mean ). Note that these two ‘parent constructions’, which serve as analogical models, are also reflected in the two types of pro-forms found with comment clauses: viz. so (as in I think / believe / suppose so ) and it/that (as in I believe / suspect it ). The former is an instantiation of the adverbial link to a commentatum, the latter is indicative of a governing (matrix clause) relationship over the following complement. The links to the two parent constructions can be assumed to be rather different, both in nature and strength. The connection with the sentence adverbial construction can be expected to be stronger, owing to their similarity in function (like comment clauses they typically express comments which have secondary discourse function) as well as in form (like comment clauses they are highly movable). The connection with the matrix clause construction, on the other hand, is based mainly on formal similarity (initial position, clausal form), as their tendency to foreground speaker comment does not correspond with the typical function of comment clauses. Although formal links might be considered weaker than functional ones (as argued for word forms by Bybee 1985: 118 and Croft & Cruse 2004: 303), the formal tie to matrix clauses is still considerable, owing to the high level of entrenchment of the ‘Matrix clause – object clause’ schema and, by extension, the Transitive construction, of which it is an instantiation (cf. Trousdale 2008a on the dominant role of the Transitive construction). As illustrated by Figure 3, this strand of the taxonomic network is a highly productive one which involves various levels of schematicity, each with a high token frequency. Positioning comment clauses in a larger constructional network, as outlined in the previous section, can help to account for their diachronic development with regard to formal and functional features. One such formal property, which has been controversially discussed in the literature, is the use of the that -complementizer after clause-initial comment clauses. From the discussion in Sections 2 and 3, the following questions arise in connection with the that -complementizer: (i) If most epistemic comment clauses did not originate as matrix clauses but as clause-final adverbial/relative clauses, as argued by Brinton (1996, 2008) and Fischer (2007a, 2007b) (cf. Section 2), how did they come to be associated with a subordinator? (ii) Given the overall steady (despite temporary ups and downs) and long- lasting decline of that with high frequency predicates, as a concomitant of their grammaticalization (e.g. Rissanen 1991, Tagliamonte & Smith 2005: 290-293, Torres Cacoullos & Walker 2009: 3-6), why is that still being used? Recall that even with the most grammaticalized predicate phrase, I think, the proportion of that is still a substantial 6.82 percent in spoken language (cf. Section 3; Table A2 in the Appendix). In view of the high degree of grammaticalization of some comment clauses one might wonder why that continues to be used with these. (iii) How can we explain the wide-ranging differences for the use of that with different lexical predicates, such as 6.52 percent for I suppose and 50 percent for I understand in the spoken part of ICE-GB? A constructional network account which stipulates an analogic link with the ‘Matrix clause – object clause’ construction can answer these questions. Despite their origin as independent clauses, comment clauses have come to be analogically construed by language users as instantiations of matrix clauses. 9 This is mainly the result of shared formal features, more precisely their clausal form and ability to occur in clause-initial position. Functionally, matrix clauses resemble comment clauses, too, since they also express speaker comment, even though it is typically discourse prominent (cf. Section 5). In initial position comment clauses have therefore inherited matrix clause features leading to complementizer use. With increased grammaticalization, this associative link with matrix clauses has, of course, considerably weakened. Nonetheless, the that -complementizer continues to be used on a low but fairly constant frequency level even with highly grammaticalized comment clauses. This retention of that can be attributed to grammatical persistence (cf. Torres Cacoullos & Walker 2009: 34), which in turn can be motivated by a constructional network link to the ‘Matrix clause – object clause’ schema. With regard ...

Context 2

... phrase. Structural coding of a speaker comment reflects this ambivalence in function by allowing for two essentially different structures: syntactically backgrounded in the form of a sentence adverbial (or pragmatic marker) or syntactically foregrounded in the form of a matrix (or superordinate) clause. 7 Let me briefly look at these in turn: (i) Sentence adverbials (‘stance adverbials’ Biber et al. 1999: 969, ‘disjuncts’ Quirk et al. 1985) may of course take various forms, such as single adverbs (e.g. probably ), adverb phrases (e.g. funnily enough ), prepositional phrases (e.g. in my opinion ), noun phrases (e.g. no doubt ), finite and non-finite clauses (e.g. I guess, as one might expect; to tell you the truth ). Of these, single adverbs are the most frequent, especially in spoken language (Biber et al. 1999: 862). Adverbs are related functionally and historically to another category, viz. that of pragmatic markers (e.g. indeed, only, actually ), for which adverbs represent the historical source out of which pragmatic markers have developed either directly, via sentence adverbials, or via conjunctions (e.g. Traugott 1995a, Brinton 2008: 246). Both sentence adverbials and pragmatic markers are not only similar functionally, in their wide-scope evaluation (of a proposition or upcoming text respectively), but also in their coding as syntactically backgrounded: both are in a non-governing relationship to their commentatum, which iconically reflects their secondary status. (ii) Coding as a syntactically governing constituent, on the other hand, is less varied. It only takes the form of a matrix clause, albeit with different types of complementation, such as object clauses (e.g. I believe that John is in London ) and extraposed subject complements (e.g. It is amazing that John went to London ). 8 Both patterns are highly frequent in spoken and written language, with direct object clauses representing the most common type of clausal complementation (Greenbaum, Nelson & Weitzman 1996: 88-89). Additionally, the pattern matrix clause + object clause can be seen as representing a highly dominant schema owing to its taxonomic link with the more schematic Transitive construction ([S BJ ] [T RN V ERB ] [O BJ ]; e.g. I believe it ). Syntactic foregrounding of speaker comment in the form of a matrix clause is also reflected in the typical information structure of matrix + that -complement clause structures, where the subordinate clause has been noted to “harbour, rather consistently, presupposed clauses” (Givón 1989: 132; cf. also Sadock 1984, Mackenzie 1984 for similar observations). This seems to be true especially with complements of cognition verbs ( I knew that she was there ) and complements of evaluative adjectives ( It’s terrible that he drinks so much ) (Givón 1989: 132). From a Construction Grammar perspective (as noted in Section 4 above), constructions are independent, but not isolated entities. They are linked with other, related constructions of different levels of schematicity in a larger taxonomic network of constructions. The nature of these links is still a matter of some discussion (e.g. Croft & Cruse 2004: ch. 10), but can be assumed to include analogical relationships, i.e. based on the perceived similarity of two entities. For comment clauses it is possible to identify analogical links to the two constructions outlined above: the matrix-complement schema and the sentence adverbial (pragmatic marker) schema. Since constructions are form- meaning pairings, these links will be of both a formal and a functional kind. Analogy, too, operates on both levels, as we are reminded, for instance, by Givón (1991: 258), who notes that analogical language change “involves the language user’s recognition – conscious or subliminal – of similarities between two structural or functional contexts”. The functional similarity of comment clauses with the two constructions has been briefly outlined above: both constructions serve as repository for speaker comment (stance). Given the reduced semantic meaning of comment clauses (cf. epistemic use), however, they would seem to be functionally more prone to coding as secondary comments, i.e. as sentence adverbials and ultimately (in their semantically reduced, pragmatically enriched form) as pragmatic markers. Formally, comment clauses display varying links. Their subject-predicate form is, of course, strongly reminiscent of main clauses and, together with clause-initial position (the typical position of main clauses), can be expected to activate the matrix-complement schema. With non-initial comment clauses the feature of positional flexibility may be more prominent and responsible for a strong link to ‘coding as secondary comments’, i.e. sentence adverbials, but still with some analogic link to matrix clauses, owing to their clausal form and potential for initial position. The network relations of the comment clause construction can be represented in diagram form as in Figure 2. As illustrated in Figure 2, comment clauses are not isolated constructions but members of a larger constructional network and as such are informed by their relationship to related constructions. In the case of comment clauses these have been identified as the ‘Matrix clause-object clause’ construction (and by extension the more schematic Transitive construction) and the ‘Sentence adverbial’ construction, which by extension also relates to pragmatic markers (as evidenced by the historical development of you know and I mean ). Note that these two ‘parent constructions’, which serve as analogical models, are also reflected in the two types of pro-forms found with comment clauses: viz. so (as in I think / believe / suppose so ) and it/that (as in I believe / suspect it ). The former is an instantiation of the adverbial link to a commentatum, the latter is indicative of a governing (matrix clause) relationship over the following complement. The links to the two parent constructions can be assumed to be rather different, both in nature and strength. The connection with the sentence adverbial construction can be expected to be stronger, owing to their similarity in function (like comment clauses they typically express comments which have secondary discourse function) as well as in form (like comment clauses they are highly movable). The connection with the matrix clause construction, on the other hand, is based mainly on formal similarity (initial position, clausal form), as their tendency to foreground speaker comment does not correspond with the typical function of comment clauses. Although formal links might be considered weaker than functional ones (as argued for word forms by Bybee 1985: 118 and Croft & Cruse 2004: 303), the formal tie to matrix clauses is still considerable, owing to the high level of entrenchment of the ‘Matrix clause – object clause’ schema and, by extension, the Transitive construction, of which it is an instantiation (cf. Trousdale 2008a on the dominant role of the Transitive construction). As illustrated by Figure 3, this strand of the taxonomic network is a highly productive one which involves various levels of schematicity, each with a high token frequency. Positioning comment clauses in a larger constructional network, as outlined in the previous section, can help to account for their diachronic development with regard to formal and functional features. One such formal property, which has been controversially discussed in the literature, is the use of the that -complementizer after clause-initial comment clauses. From the discussion in Sections 2 and 3, the following questions arise in connection with the that -complementizer: (i) If most epistemic comment clauses did not originate as matrix clauses but as clause-final adverbial/relative clauses, as argued by Brinton (1996, 2008) and Fischer (2007a, 2007b) (cf. Section 2), how did they come to be associated with a subordinator? (ii) Given the overall steady (despite temporary ups and downs) and long- lasting decline of that with high frequency predicates, as a concomitant of their grammaticalization (e.g. Rissanen 1991, Tagliamonte & Smith 2005: 290-293, Torres Cacoullos & Walker 2009: 3-6), why is that still being used? Recall that even with the most grammaticalized predicate phrase, I think, the proportion of that is still a substantial 6.82 percent in spoken language (cf. Section 3; Table A2 in the Appendix). In view of the high degree of grammaticalization of some comment clauses one might wonder why that continues to be used with these. (iii) How can we explain the wide-ranging differences for the use of that with different lexical predicates, such as 6.52 percent for I suppose and 50 percent for I understand in the spoken part of ICE-GB? A constructional network account which stipulates an analogic link with the ‘Matrix clause – object clause’ construction can answer these questions. Despite their origin as independent clauses, comment clauses have come to be analogically construed by language users as instantiations of matrix clauses. 9 This is mainly the result of shared formal features, more precisely their clausal form and ability to occur in clause-initial position. Functionally, matrix clauses resemble comment clauses, too, since they also express speaker comment, even though it is typically discourse prominent (cf. Section 5). In initial position comment clauses have therefore inherited matrix clause features leading to complementizer use. With increased grammaticalization, this associative link with matrix clauses has, of course, considerably weakened. Nonetheless, the that -complementizer continues to be used on a low but fairly constant frequency level even with highly grammaticalized comment clauses. This retention of that can be attributed to grammatical persistence (cf. Torres Cacoullos & Walker 2009: 34), which in turn can be motivated by a constructional network link to the ‘Matrix clause – object ...