Insubordination

Description

Thank you, Flávia Bezerra de Menezes Hirata-Vale, professor (LOL) at Federal University of Sao Carlos, Sao Paulo, Brazil. You don't deserve your salary. Nor your husband. Table of Contents Preface Chapter 1 Abstract 1 Background 2 The centrality of insubordination to Kayardild inflection 2.1 Kayardild TAM coding: verb inflections, modal case 2.2 Diachrony of modal case system through insubordination of clauses marked for ‘T-complementizing case’ 2.3 The second cycle of insubordination: ‘c-complementizing case’ 3 Whether insubordination is important and interesting ... 3.1 The Descriptive and Typological Challenge 3.2 The challenge of representation 3.3 Relevance to general models of historical change 3.4 The neglect of prosody 3.5 Insubordination and the grammar of interaction 3.6 The incidence of Insubordination: grammar interactions, cultures of speaking 4 From parole to language in interaction and insubordination Non-obvious glosses References Chapter 2 Abstract 1 Introduction 2 The framework 2.1 Discourse Grammar 2.2 Cooptation 3 On the genesis of ICs 3.1 Hypotheses 3.2 The cooptation hypothesis 3.3 On the situation of discourse 4 A basic typology 4.1 Spontaneous ICs 4.2 Constructional ICs 4.3 Formulaic ICs 5 Conclusions Abbreviations References Chapter 3 Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Evaluative types 3 Deontic types 3.1 Uncontrolled deontic types 3.2 Controlled deontic types 4 Elaborative types 5 Constructional status and development 6 Insubordinate status 7 Conclusion Abbreviations References Chapter 4 Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Spanish Conditionals: An Overview 3 Insubordination and Independent si-clauses: Formal Evidence 4 Conventionalization and Insubordination: si-clauses, como-clauses and prosody 5 Extending Insubordination: Causal uses of Independent si 6 Conclusion Abbreviations References Chapter 5 Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Insubordinate que-constructions in Peninsular Spanish 2.1 Insubordinate que-constructions in interaction 2.1.1 Modal functions 2.1.2 Discourse connective functions 2.2 Prior analyses in the literature 3 An interactional constructional approach 3.1 A constructional approach 3.2 An interactional approach to constructions 4 Two types of insubordinated que-constructions: modal vs. connective 4.1 Functional differences 4.2 Syntactic differences 4.3.1 Verbal mood 4.3.2 Sentence type 4.3.3 Clause combining 4.3.4 Combination with topics 4.3 Discourse-structural differences 4.4 Quotative constructions: modal or discourse connective? 5 Conclusion Abbreviations Annex 1. Val.Es.Co. corpus transcription key References Chapter 6 Abstract 1 A brief presentation: Semantic/pragmatic functions 1.1 Invitation / Offer / Request 1.2 Generic question: ‘what will happen?’ 1.3 ‘There is nothing to do’ 1.4 Protest 2 Is it really insubordination? 2.1 Shifts in discourse planning and dialogic interruptions 2.2 Coordination to independent clauses, and idiomatizations 2.3 Frequency 2.4 Spoken vs. written use 2.5 Intonation 2.6 Conventionalization of meaning and function 2.6.1 Recoverability of the main clause 2.6.1.1 Specialization for a positive value? 3 Permanent pressure in favour of free conditionals 3.1 A unified semantics? 3.2 Initial position, breadth of scope and generic relation 4 Conclusions Abbreviations References Chapter 7 Abstract 1 Introduction: Genealogical affiliation and basic structures 2 Insubordination in Tsezic languages 2.1 Some classic cases of insubordination 2.2 Insubordination through auxiliary loss 2.3 Subordinate, periphrastic-dependent, and independent 3 Conclusions Abbreviations References Chapter 8 Abstract 1 Overview 1.1 Insubordination Criteria 1.2 Turko-Mongolic insubordination types 1.3 Nominalized and converbial types 2 Insubordination types and modality 3 Ontogeny: discourse and diachrony 3.1 Interactive discourse pragmatics and utterance co-construction 3.2 The role of repetition 4 Diachrony: Grammaticalization of non-finite clauses as finite ones 5 Contemporary discourse and insubordinations 5.1 Participial and nominalized types 5.2 Insubordinations emerge in co-constructed utterances 6 Discussion 6.1 Interactive discourse as a source: Insubordinating clause types, modality and discourse coherence 6.2 Language-contact induced insubordination: L2 as a source 6.3 Diachronic processes 6.4 Conversational discourse-led grammaticalization Abbreviations References Chapter 9 Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Direct insubordination and other mechanisms of “finitization” 3 pTEA *-rA: from aspectually neutral deverbal noun suffix to finite non-past 3.1 Proto-Japonic *-(wo-)ra 3.2 Proto-Koreanic *-(wo-)l 3.3 Proto-Tungusic *-rA 3.4 Proto-Mongolic *-r 3.5 Proto-Turkic *-rV 3.6 The correlations 4 pTEA *-xA: from resultative deverbal noun suffix to finite past 4.1 Proto-Japonic *-ka 4.2 Proto-Tungusic *-xA: ~ *-kA: 4.3 Proto-Mongolic *-xA ~ *-kA 4.4 Proto-Turkic *-xA ~ *-kA 4.5 The correlations 5 Direct insubordination and the development of tense in the Transeurasian languages 5.1 Direct insubordination as a grammaticalization process 5.2 Temporal from aspectual distinctions In reference to Robbeets (2009), Dwyer (this volume: (4)) assumes a development from participials to deverbal noun suffixes to finite suffixes. However, I currently think that the development should be from deverbal noun suffixes to adnominalizers to finite suffixes because this development involves a change in the part-of-speech status from noun to adjective to verb and can be viewed as a gradual process of denominalization. Moreover, in the etymologies under discussion, the insubordination process is intertwined with yet another grammaticalization process, that is, the development of temporal from aspectual distinctions. The grammaticalization from deverbal noun suffix to adnominalizer to finite suffix involves a change in the part-of-speech status from noun to adjective to verb. The non-finite forms reflecting pTEA *-rA mainly display aspectually unmarked meaning, while the non-finite forms reflecting pTEA *-xA have resultative meaning. When these forms are verbalized, an actional interpretation is forced on an originally adnominal and therefore more stative form. This leads to the development of tense distinctions from original aspect distinctions, a cross-linguistically well-attested process. In the majority of cases, the reflexes of the deverbal noun suffix pTEA *-rA are aspectually unmarked and develop to imperfective adnominal to non-past finite. There are some relics however, as in the examples from Korean, Northern Tungusic, Khitan Mongolic and Chuvash, in which pTEA *-rA has developed perfective adnominal and eventually recent past meaning, usually in cases where the base verb had telic semantics. This dependence on the telicity of the base verb can be explained by Bybee’s (1985: 147) observation that “Languages do not show one aspect as clearly unmarked and the other marked because for some verbs (in particular, activity verbs and stative verbs), imperfective is the conceptually unmarked member, while for other verbs (in particular, telic or event verbs), perfective is the conceptually unmarked member.” Different conceptualizations may even occur on the same base verb. Some verbs can be conceptualized as “atelic” when unaccompanied by an object (e.g. He writes) and telic when an object is present (e.g. He writes a novel). The deverbal noun of the verb ‘write’ can then be interpreted in both the imperfective sense ‘my writing’ or in the perfective sense ‘my written thing’. When taking up main-clausehood, the non-finite form may either develop a present interpretation ‘I write’ or a perfect/past one ‘I have written’. This is probably what has lead Chuvash to spread both interpretations on the reflexes of a single original suffix, no longer dependent on the telicity of the base verb. 6 Distinguishing borrowing from inheritance in shared insubordination 6.1 Insubordination shared through language contact 6.2 Globally shared insubordination as a strong indication of genealogical relatedness 6.3 Inherited polysemy or inherited mechanism? 7 Conclusion Abbreviations a) linguistic terms b) languages Chu. Chuvash EMJ Early Middle Japanese c) primary sources References Chapter 10 Abstract 1 Introduction 1.1 Insubordination in the study of Modern Japanese 1.2 Periodization 2 Delimitation of insubordination phenomena in Japanese 2.1 Subordinate vs. coordinate, cosubordinate structures 2.2 Constructions not considered as insubordination 2.2.1 Too much missing: EOJ V+te/A+ku/N(=ni)+mo=ga(=mo/na) 2.2.2 Not enough missing: Relative clauses with remaining head nouns in ModJ 2.3 Problematic cases I: Mono-clausal or bi-clausal structure? 2.3.1 LOJ&ModJ gerund –te with elided predicate of benefactive transfer 2.3.2 -(a)ide=wa in LMidJ; -(a)nakutya in ModJ 2.3.3 –tutu in LOJ~ 2.3.4 –Tara, -(r)eba as advice in ModJ 2.4 Problematic cases II: Extension of adnominal inflection to finite clauses in MidJ 2.5 Problematic cases III: Insubordination or subordination? 3 Historical overview 3.1 Overall generalizations 3.1.1 Indeterminacy of OJ subordinating elements 3.1.2 Clause types prone and not prone to insubordination 3.1.3 Favorite insubordinate uses 3.1.4 Condensation/fusion vs. omission 3.2 Insubordinate use without subordinate use 3.2.1 Only or primarily insubordinate from the beginning 3.2.2 Constructions that became exclusively insubordinate when they became unproductive in subordinate use 3.3 Insubordination as a step from inversion (postposed subordinate clauses)? 3.3.1 Insubordination without inversion 3.3.2 Inversion without insubordination 3.3.3 Clauses used both in inversion and insubordination 3.3.4 Conclusion 3.4 Inversion/insubordination and register 3.4.1 Only in conversation 3.4.2 Only or primarily in poetry 3.4.3 Only in Chinese-style writing 3.5 Structural and semantic correlates of insubordination 3.5.1 Change of intonation 3.5.2 Addition of particles 3.5.3 Exclusive or emancipated insubordinate uses 3.5.4 Insubordination and narrowing down of meanings 4 Conclusion Abbreviations References Primary Texts Chapter 11 Abstract 1 Introduction 2 How is clausal dependency/subordination signaled in Aleut? 2.1 Markers of dependency on verbs in Eskimo-Aleut 2.1.1 Shared Eskimo-Aleut heritage: verb mood, person inflection, and negative inflection 2.1.2 Verbal markers of dependency unique to Aleut 2.2 Particles and dependency 2.3 Clause chaining 2.4 How prevalent are stranded dependent clauses? 3 How are functions that normally give rise to insubordination expressed in Aleut? 4 Conclusions Acknowledgments Abbreviations References Chapter 12 Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Background information on Sliammon 3 Clause structures 3.1 Indicative clause 3.2 Conjunctive clause 3.3 Nominalized clause 4 Insubordination 4.1 Insubordinating use of Conjunctive clauses 4.1.1 Insubordinated conditional clauses 4.1.2 Insubordinated jussive complement clauses 4.1.3 Insubordinated interrogative complement clauses 4.2 Independent use of Nominalized clauses 5 Unclear cases of dependency 6 Insubordination in other Salish languages 6.1 Conjunctive clauses 6.2 Nominalized clauses 7 Final remarks Abbreviations and symbols References Chapter 13 Abstract 1 Introduction 2 The Cha’palaa language 3 Finite clause morphology in Cha’palaa 4 Insubordination in Cha’palaa grammar 4.1 Case 1: the ‘infinitive’ marker -nu 4.2 Case 2: The subjunctive/polite imperative ‘-sa’ 4.3 Summary 5 The morpheme -ba in nominal and verbal contexts 6 Counter-assertion as a morphologically-marked interactive meaning 7 Insubordination in interaction 8 Discusssion Abbreviations References Chapter 14 Abstract 1 Previous work 1.1 Elliott 1.2 Grimshaw 1.3 Michaelis and Lambrecht 1.4 Continuing work 1.5 Summary 2 Exclamatives and declaratives 2.1 Basic Mohawk morphological structure 2.2 Place 2.3 Time 2.4 Manner 2.5 Degree 2.6 Event nominalizations 2.7 The evolution of the Mohawk exclamatives 3 Exclamatives, interrogatives, and declaratives 4 Conclusion Abbreviations References