Unpublished conference/Abstract (Scientific congresses and symposiums)
Propositions vs. States-of-Affairs: Insights from adjectival and nominal complementation in English
Davidse, Kristin; Van linden, An
2016Forty-ninth Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE 49)
Peer reviewed
 

Files


Full Text
KD_AVL_2016_prop_soa_SLE.pdf
Author postprint (527.9 kB)
Download

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to



Details



Abstract :
[en] This paper focuses on two non-verbal types of complement-taking predicates (CTPs) in English that pattern with both SoA and propositional complements (Hengeveld 1989), i.e. adjectival predicates, like BE important/fitting, and nominal ones, like THERE/IT BE (no) need/wonder/doubt/question. These two types of CTPs express either modal or evaluative meaning, with a number of them displaying polysemy. Adjectival matrices expressing a weak degree of desirability in the deontic domain, such as BE important, take to-infinitival clauses as their default complements, which express as yet unrealized but desired SoAs, e.g. (1). They tend to have a second use in which the speaker evaluates a factive proposition, typically encoded by a grounded finite clause, e.g. (2), where the event has already actualized. (1) The Cowboys believe it is important to have licensed premises at a central location in addition to their headquarters. (WB) (2) This book presents a balanced and sensible self-help programme or bulimia. It is particularly important that … it is written by someone who has experienced the syndrome herself. (WB) Nominal CTPs tend to specialize more: for the evaluation of a factive proposition, e.g. IT BE no wonder (3a), for deontic-dynamic meaning, e.g. THERE BE no need (4a), or for the epistemic assessment of a non-factive proposition, e.g. THERE BE no doubt. However, THERE BE no question is polysemous between expressing deontic-dynamic meaning (5a) and epistemic assessment (5b). The default complements of the nominal CTPs are, again, non-finite clauses for non-actualized SoAs (4a)-(5a) and finite clauses grounded by tense or speaker-related modals for propositions (3a)-(5b). These nominal strings also occur without expletive, finite verb, and complement, as in (3b)-(4b). Importantly, their qualificational meanings continue to determine the levels of clause structure of the material in their scope. In (3b), no wonder expresses the speaker’s evaluation of the fact that the relatives were annoyed, while in (4b), no need indicates that a potential SoA (holding the connection) is unnecessary. In (3b) no wonder modifies a proposition, and functions as a disjunct adverbial (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 615) as shown by its positional flexibility. By contrast, no need in (3b) modifies a potential SoA and cannot occur in sentence-final position (*to keep holding, no need). Hence, we analyse no need as an elliptical expression, not an adverbial. (3) (a) It’s no wonder Norwegians hunt whale. There’s nothing else left to catch. (WB) (b) The relatives were very annoyed, no wonder, and it caused friction in the family. (WB) (4) (a) A: Why don’t we reschedule for, say, Tuesday? B: Oh, there is no need to reschedule. (CASO) (b) A: You want to keep holding? B: Uh -- tell you what -- no need. (CASO) (5) (a) Craig is under contract ... There’s absolutely no question of him leaving (WB) (b) There was no question that she would throw down the keys. (WB) We claim that the meaning of the adjectival and nominal strings is the central factor determining whether they take SoA or propositional complements, with the latter subdividing further into [+/- factive] (Boye 2012), [+/- modal elements], etc. Incorporating Langacker’s (1991) thinking on clausal grounding by tense and speaker-related modals, we offer a systematic account of the synchronic system of adjectival and nominal qualificational expressions, distinguishing unmarked and marked patterns (data from WordBanksOnline and Corpus of American Soap Operas). We also briefly discuss the diachronic changes that led to the current system (e.g. Van linden & Davidse 2009, Van linden 2012, Davidse & De Wolf 2012, Davidse, De Wolf & Van linden 2015, Gentens et al forthc.). References Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Davidse, Kristin & Simon De Wolf. 2012. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: modal modifier constructions with no question. Text and Talk 32: 569-591. Davidse, Kristin, Simon De Wolf & A. Van linden. 2015. The development of the modal and discourse marker uses of (there/it is / I have) no doubt. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16: 25-58. Gentens, Caroline, Ditte Kimps, Kristin Davidse, Gilles Jacobs & An Van linden & Lot Brems. (forthcoming) Mirativity and rhetorical structure: The development of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials no wonder. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Arne Lohmann & Evelien Keizer (eds) Outside the Clause. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hengeveld, Kees. 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25. 127-157. Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, & David Crystal. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Van linden, An. 2012. Modal adjectives: English deontic and evaluative constructions in diachrony and synchrony. Berlin: Mouton. Van linden, An & Kristin Davidse. 2009. The clausal complementation of deontic-evaluative adjectives in extraposition constructions: a synchronic-diachronic approach. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 43: 171-211.
Research center :
Lilith - Liège, Literature, Linguistics - ULiège
Disciplines :
Languages & linguistics
Author, co-author :
Davidse, Kristin
Van linden, An  ;  Université Catholique de Louvain - UCL
Language :
English
Title :
Propositions vs. States-of-Affairs: Insights from adjectival and nominal complementation in English
Publication date :
2016
Event name :
Forty-ninth Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE 49)
Event organizer :
University of Naples
Event place :
Italy
Event date :
31 August – 3 September 2016
Audience :
International
Peer reviewed :
Peer reviewed
Available on ORBi :
since 30 May 2017

Statistics


Number of views
126 (5 by ULiège)
Number of downloads
8 (0 by ULiège)

Bibliography


Similar publications



Contact ORBi