Complementation in Functional Discourse Grammar Kees Hengeveld Amsterdam Center for Language and...

Complementation in Functional Discourse Grammar

Kees HengeveldAmsterdam Center for Language and

Communication

2

Introduction

- Earlier work on adverbial subordination (Hengeveld 1997) led to the identification of three parameters that govern the selection of deranked (≈non-finite) and/or balanced (≈finite) verb forms in adverbial clauses- These parameters were defined independently of the adverbial nature of the clauses studied, and should therefore be equally applicable to complement clauses

3

Introduction

- The current paper tests this prediction by applying the parameters concerned to the systems of complementation in the languages of the same sample that was used for adverbial subordination.- In doing so I will also apply some new insights that have come out of work on Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld & Mackenzie (2008), which allow for a more systematic treatment.

4

Introduction

5

Introduction

Some recurrent abbreviations:CC = complement clauseCTP = complement taking predicate

6

Contents

1. Layering in Functional Discourse Grammar2. Layers and CCs3. Initial prediction4. Layers and the typology of CCs5. Factuality and the typology of CCs6. Presupposedness and the typology of CCs7. Interaction between layers, factuality, and presupposedness8. Conclusions

1. Layering in Functional Discourse Grammar

Frames, Lexemes,Primary operators

Templates,Auxiliaries, Secondary operators

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Formulation

Morphosyntactic Encoding

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Encoding

Phonological Level

Prosodic patterns,Morphemes, Tertiary operators

Frames, Lexemes, Primary operators

Templates,Auxiliaries, Secondary operators

Interpersonal Level

Representational Level

Formulation

Morphosyntactic Encoding

Morphosyntactic Level

Phonological Encoding

Phonological Level

Prosodic patterns,Morphemes, Tertiary operators

11

Interpersonal Level

(π M1: [

Move(π A1: [

Discourse Act(π F1)

Illocution

(π P1)S

Speaker

(π P2)A

Addressee(π C1: [

Communicated Content

(π T1)Φ

Ascriptive Subact

(π R1)Φ

Referential Subact

] (C1)Φ

Communicated Content] (A1)Φ

Discourse Act] (M1))

Move

12

Representational Level(π p1:

Propositional Content

(π ep1:

Episode(π e1:

State-of-Affairs

[(π f1: [Configurational Property

(π f1)Lexical Property

(π x1)Φ

Individual

] (f1))Configurational

Property(e1)Φ])

State-of-Affairs(ep1))

Episode(p1))

Propositional Content

13

Operators and modifiers

- A layer can be further specified in two different ways, through operators (π) and modifiers (σ) These grammatical strategies are different, but the semantic effects are comparable. Some examples:

14


(π p1: [.....] (p1))

π = InferHe must be home.

( p1: [.....] (p1): σ (p1) σ = apparently

Apparently he is home

15


(π e1: [.....] (p1))

π = HabHe used to arrive late.

( e1: [.....] (p1): σ (p1) σ = normally

He normally arrives late

16

Layers and complementation

- Layers can also occur as arguments of CTPs, and thus be the pragmatic and/or semantic counterpart of complement clauses- Every layer stands for a certain entity type, such as ‘propositional content’, ‘state-of-affairs’, etc.- The semantics of the CTP determines with which entity type it can combine, e.g.

17

Layers and complementation

(CTP) (π p1: [.....] (p1): σ (e1))ϕ

CTP = seemIt seems that he is home

(CTP) (π e1: [.....] (e1): σ (e1))ϕ

CTP = customaryIt is customary for him to arrive late

18

Operators, modifiers, CTPs

- As a result of this approach, interpersonal and representational layers can be interpreted as a classification of CCs, with a steadily decreasing degree of internal complexity the lower one gets in the hierarchical structure.- At the same time, the underlying layers predict what kind of distintions can and cannot be expressed in CCs of these different types, as the lower one gets, the more operator and modifier positions are lost.

2. Layering and complement clauses

20

Interpersonal layers underlying complement clauses

(π M1: (π A1: [… (π C1: [(T1) (R1)] (C1): Σ (C1))] (A1): Σ (A1)) (M1): Σ (M1))

ex. CTP conclude(π A1: [… (π C1: [(T1) (R1)]

(C1): Σ (C1))] (A1): Σ (A1))

ex. CTP go_without_saying

(π C1: [(T1) (R1)] (C1): Σ (C1))

ex. CTP say

21

M-complement

(f1: [(f2: concludeV (f2)) (x1)A (M1: [(A1), (A2) ... ] (M1) Σ (M1 ))U] (f1))

While it is difficult to make generalizations about such a diverse public, it is easy to conclude [that, in sum these actions have led to a net loss of vegetative cover relative to pre-settlement condi-tions, as well as a substantial change in the type of vegetation present. At the same time, public consciousness regarding the importance of urban vegetation has certainly risen in the last ten years, although how much of that awareness has translated into changed behavior vis a vis urban plants in Quito is an open question.] (Internet)

22

A-complement

(f1: [(f2: go_without_sayingV (f2)) (A1: [... (C1)] (A1): Σ (A1))U] (f1))

It goes without saying [that, in addition (*in sum), issues such as quality and a customer-oriented approach will be kept in mind.] (Internet)

23

C-complement

(f1: [(f2: sayV (f2)) (x1)A (C1: [(T1) (R1)] (C1): Σ (C1 ))U] (f1))

He said [that reportedly (*in addition) there was some history of threats of domestic abuse in the family.] (Internet)

24

Representational layers underlying complement clauses

(π p1: (π ep1: (π e1: (π f1: [(f2) (x1)] (f1): σ (f1)) (e1): σ (e1)) (ep1): σ (ep1)) (p1): σ (p1))

(ex. CTP believe)(π ep1: (π e1: (π f1: [(f2) (x1)] (f1): σ (f1)) (e1): σ (e1))

(ep1): σ (ep1))

(ex. CTP be_possible) (π e1: (π f1: [(f2)

(x1)] (f1): σ (f1)) (e1): σ (e1))

(ex. CTP see)

(π f1: [(f2) (x1)] (f1): σ (f1))

(ex. CTP continue)

25

p-complement

(f1: [(f2: believeV (f2)) (x1)A (p1: (ep1) … (ep2) (p1): σ (p1))U] (f1))

We believe [that possibly (*reportedly) as much as 60 percent (or more) of the population already believe [that the government is hiding what they know about worldly visitors.] (Internet)

26

ep-complement

(f1: [(f2: possibleAdj (f1)) (ep1: (e1) … (e2)) (ep1): σ (ep1))U] (f1))

It is possible [that later today or tomorrow (*probably) she will cover for the Loch Fyne allowing her larger fleet mate to go for her annual overhaul].

27

e-complement

(f1: [(f2: wantV (f2)) (x1)A (e1: (f3: … (f3)) (e1): σ (e1))U] (f1))

Lili wanted me [to come over after lunch (*yesterday)]. (Internet)

28

f-complement

(f1: [(f2: continueV (f2)) (x1)A (f3: [(f4) (x1)A] (f3): σ (f3))U] (f1))

The police continued [to shoot indiscriminately into the crowd (*after lunch)]. (Internet)

3. Initial prediction

30

Initial prediction

- The higher the highest layer underlying a complement clause is, the more likely it is that the verb form it contains is a balanced one. - The lower the highest layer underlying a complement clause is, the more likely it is that the verb form it contains is a deranked one.

31

Initial prediction

- A balanced verb form is one that can be used in a main clause. - A deranked verb form is one that can only be used in a subordinate clause.

32

Initial prediction

- Explanation 1: The higher the highest layer underlying a complement clause is, the more operator positions it contains. The operators occupying these positions have to be expressed, generally on the verb.- Explanation 2: The higher the highest layer underlying a complement clause is, the more the complement clause is like a main clause.

4. Layering and the typology of complement clauses

34

The entity type hierarchy

f ⊃ e ⊃ ep ⊃ p⊃ C (⊃ A ⊃ M)

The more to the right on the hierarchy the highest layer is that a CC expresses, the more likely it is that this CC contains a balanced verb form

The more to the left on the hierarchy the highest layer is that a CC expresses, the more likely it is that this CC contains a deranked verb form

35

CCs, CTPs and layers

f e ep p CPhase

continuePerception

seeCertainty

be_certainBelief

believeAssertion

say

36

The entity type hierarchyf

Phasee

Perceptionep

Certaintyp

BeliefC

AssertionAbkhaz + + + + +English + + +/– +/– +/–Dutch + + – +/– +/–Spanish + + – +/– –Basque + + – – –Polish + – – – –Greek – – – – –

37

The entity type hierarchy: Immediate perception

38

The entity type hierarchyf

Phasee

Perceptionep

Certaintyp

BeliefC

AssertionAbkhaz + + + + +English + + +/– +/– +/–Dutch + + – +/– +/–Spanish + + – +/– –Basque + + – – –Polish + – – – –Greek – – – – –

39

The entity type hierarchy?f

Phasee

Perceptionep

Possibilityp

BeliefC

AssertionAbkhaz + + + + +English + + – +/– +/–Dutch + + – +/– +/–Spanish + + – +/– –Basque + + – – –Polish + – – – –Greek – – – – –

40

The entity type hierarchy?

English

(1) a. It is certain that Tom will come.b. Tom is certain to come.

(2) a. It is possible that Tom will come.b. *Tom is possible to come.

5. Factuality and the typology of complement clauses

42

Factuality

- In some languages there is a major division between complement clauses that are factual in nature and those that are not. - Factuality is a cover term that hosts distinctions that apply in different ways to the different entity types.

43

FactualityFactual Non-factual

C Endorsed by the speaker Not endorsed by the speakerp True Not trueep Real Not reale Realized Not realizedf Applicable Not applicable

44

Factual and non-factual CCs

f e ep p CFactual Phase

continue

Percep-tionsee

Cer-tainty

certain

Belief

believe

Asser-tionsay

Non-factual

-- Wanting

want

Possi-bility

possible

Doubt

doubt

Ques-tionask

45

The factuality hierarchy

factual ⊃ non-factual

Non-factual CCs are more likely to contain a balanced verb form than factual CCs.

Factual CCs are more likely to contain a deranked verb form than non-factual CCs.

46


Explanation:

There is a tendency in languages to mark the non-factual rather than the factual status of a complement clause explicitly, e.g. by means of a subjunctive

47



continue

Percep-tionsee

Cer-tainty

certain

Belief

believe

Asser-tionsay

Non-factual

Wanting

want

Possi-bility

possible

Doubt

doubt

Ques-tionask

48


ePerception

eWanting

Chuvash + +

Irish + +/–

Armenian +/– +/–

Polish – +/–

Albanian +/– –

Maltese – –

49



continue

Percep-tionsee

Cer-tainty

certain

Belief

believe

Asser-tionsay

Non-factual

Wanting

want

Possi-bility

possible

Doubt

doubt

Ques-tionask

50


epCertainty

epPossibility

Turkish + +

Latin + +/–

Finnish +/– +/–

English +/– –

Armenian – –

51



continue

Percep-tionsee

Cer-tainty

certain

Belief

believe

Asser-tionsay

Non-factual

Wanting

want

Possi-bility

possible

Doubt

doubt

Ques-tionask

52


pBelief

pDoubt

Turkish + +

Latin + +/–

Georgian +/– +/–

Danish +/– –

Hungarian – –

53



continue

Percep-tionsee

Cer-tainty

certain

Belief

believe

Asser-tionsay

Non-factual

Wanting

want

Possi-bility

possible

Doubt

doubt

Ques-tionask

54


CAssertion

CQuestion

Abkhaz + +

German +/– –

Latvian – –

55

The factuality hierarchy: Wanting

56

The entity type hierarchy: Immediate perception

57

Factuality and Entity Type

Arme-nian

f e ep p C

Factual Phase Percep-tion

Cer-tainty

Belief Asser-tion

+ +/– – – –Non-factual

Wanting Possi-bility

Doubt Ques-tion

+/– – – –

58


Abkhaz f e ep p C


Cer-tainty

Belief Asser-tion

+ + + + +Non-factual


Doubt Ques-tion

+ + + +

59


Bulga-rian

f e ep p C


Cer-tainty

Belief Asser-tion

– – – – –Non-factual


Doubt Ques-tion

– – – –

60


Latin f e ep p C


Cer-tainty

Belief Asser-tion

+ + + + +/–Non-factual


Doubt Ques-tion

+ – +/– –

61


Alba-nian

f e ep p C


Cer-tainty

Belief Asser-tion

+/– +/– – – –Non-factual


Doubt Ques-tion

– – – –

62


ePerception

eWanting

Chuvash + +

Irish + +/–

Lithuanian +/– +/–

Polish – +/–

Albanian +/– –

Maltese – –

63

The factuality hierarchy?

ePerception

eImpediment

Chuvash + +

Irish + +

Lithuanian +/– +

Polish – +/–

Albanian +/– –

Maltese – –

64

The factuality hierarchy?Lithuanian(1) Aš nori-u, kad

ji ižei-tų.I.NOM want-PRES.1.SG that she.NOM

leave.SUBJ.3‘I want her to leave.’

(2) Aš nori-u ižei-ti.I.NOM want-PRES.1.SG leave-INF‘I want to leave.’

(3) Jis sutrukd-é Tom-uiten nuei-ti.he prevent-PST.3.SG Tom-DAT therego-INF

‘He prevented Tom from going there.’

6. Presupposedness and the typology of complement clauses

66

Presupposedness

- In some languages there is a major division between complement clauses that are presupposed in nature and those that are not. - Presupposedness is a cover term that hosts distinctions that apply in different ways to the different entity and factuality types

67

Presupposedness

Factuale implied to be realized (force)ep presupposed to be real (commentative)p presupposed to be true (knowledge)Non-factuale implied not to be realized (prevent)ep presupposed not to be real (pretence)p presupposed not to be true (unreal wish)

68

The presupposedness hierarchy

Presupposed ⊃ Non-presupposed

Non-presupposed CCs are more likely to contain a balanced verb form than presupposed CCs.

Presupposed CCs are more likely to contain a deranked verb form than non-presupposed CCs.

69


Explanation

The factuality or non-factuality value of a presupposed CC is implied by the meaning of the CTP and therefore there is less need to express this value explicitly.

70

Presupposed and non-presupposed CCs

f e ep p C

Factual Non-pre-supposed

Phase

continue

Perception

see

Certainty

certain

Belief

believe

Assertion

sayPresupp. Manipu-

lationforce

Com-mentregret

Know-ledgeknow

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

want

Possi-bility

possible

Doubt

doubt

Question

askPresupp. Impedi-

mentprevent

Pretence

act as if

Unreal Wishwish

71


f e ep p C


Phase

continue

Perception

see

Certainty

certain

Belief

believe

Assertion

sayPresupp. Manipu-

lationforce

Com-mentregret

Know-ledgeknow

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

want

Possi-bility

possible

Doubt

doubt

Question

askPresupp. Impedi-

mentprevent

Pretence

act as if

Unreal Wishwish

72


e - factualManipulation

e - factualPerception

Lezgian + +

Lithuanian + +/–

Danish +/– +/–

Armenian + –

Polish +/– –

Kurmanji – –

73


f e ep p C


Phase

continue

Perception

see

Certainty

certain

Belief

believe

Assertion

sayPresupp. Manipu-

lationforce

Com-mentregret

Know-ledgeknow

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

want

Possi-bility

possible

Doubt

doubt

Question

askPresupp. Impedi-

mentprevent

Pretence

act as if

Unreal Wishwish

74


ep - factualComment

e - factualCertainty

Chuvash + +

English +/– +/–

Lithuanian +/– –

Ossetic – –

75


f e ep p C


Phase

continue

Perception

see

Certainty

certain

Belief

believe

Assertion

sayPresupp. Manipu-

lationforce

Com-mentregret

Know-ledgeknow

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

want

Possi-bility

possible

Doubt

doubt

Question

askPresupp. Impedi-

mentprevent

Pretence

act as if

Unreal Wishwish

76


p - factualKnowledge

p - factualBelief

Latin + +

Spanish +/– +/–

Chechen + –

Armenian +/– –

Bulgarian – –

77


f e ep p C


Phase

continue

Perception

see

Certainty

certain

Belief

believe

Assertion

sayPresupp. Manipu-

lationforce

Com-mentregret

Know-ledgeknow

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

want

Possi-bility

possible

Doubt

doubt

Question

askPresupp. Impedi-

mentprevent

Pretence

act as if

Unreal Wishwish

78


e – non-factualImpediment

e – non-factualWanting

Finnish + +

Ossetic + +/–

Russian +/– +/–

Albanian – –

79


f e ep p C


Phase

continue

Perception

see

Certainty

certain

Belief

believe

Assertion

sayPresupp. Manipu-

lationforce

Com-mentregret

Know-ledgeknow

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

want

Possi-bility

possible

Doubt

doubt

Question

askPresupp. Impedi-

mentprevent

Pretence

act as if

Unreal Wishwish

80


ep – non-factualPretence

ep – non-factualPossibility

Turkish + +

Irish +/– +/–

Armenian +/– –

Basque – –

81


f e ep p C


Phase

continue

Perception

see

Certainty

certain

Belief

believe

Assertion

sayPresupp. Manipu-

lationforce

Com-mentregret

Know-ledgeknow

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

want

Possi-bility

possible

Doubt

doubt

Question

askPresupp. Impedi-

mentprevent

Pretence

act as if

Unreal Wishwish

82


p – non-factualUnreal Wish

p – non-factualDoubt

Turkish + +

German +/– +/–

Armenian +/– –

Danish – –

83

The presupposedness hierarchy: Manipulation

84

The presupposedness hierarchy: Perception

85

The presupposedness hierarchy: Commentative

86

Presupposedness and factuality

Albanian f e ep p C


Phase Perception Certainty Belief Assertion

+/- +/- + + +

Presupp. Manipu-lation

Com-ment

Know-ledge

+/- + + +

87


Lithua-nian

f e ep p C



+ +/- - - -


Com-ment

Know-ledge

+ +/- -

88


Arme-nian

f e ep p C



+ +/- - - -


Com-ment

Know-ledge

+ +/- +/-

89


Polish f e ep p C

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Question

+/- - - -

Presupp. Impedi-ment

Pretence Unreal Wish

+/- - -

90


Irish f e ep p C

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Question

+/- +/- +/- -



+ +/- +/-

91


Lithua-nian

f e ep p C

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Question

+/- - - -



+ +/- - -

7. Interaction between entity types, factuality, and presupposedness

93

Interaction

f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-

supposedPhase Percep-

tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-

tionPresupp. Manipu-

lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

94

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

95

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

96

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

97

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

98

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

99

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

100

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

101

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

102

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

103

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

104

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

105

The layering hierarchy – factual presupposed

eManipulation

epComment

CKnowledge

Chechen + + +Finnish + +/– +/–Georgian +/– +/– +/–Basque + +/– –Catalan +/– +/– –Ossetic + – –Albanian +/– – –Bulgarian – – –

106

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

107

The layering hierarchy – non-factual non-presupposed

eWanting

epPossibility

pDoubt

CQuestion

Turkish + + + +Finnish + +/– +/– –English +/– – +/– –Georgian +/– +/– +/– –Basque +/– – – –Maltese – – – –

108

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

109

The layering hierarchy – non factual presupposed

eImpediment

epPretence

CUnreal Wish

Turkish + + +Armenian + +/– +/–Spanish +/– +/– +/–Lithuanian + +/– –Latvian + – –Polish +/– – –Kurmanji – – –

110

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

111

The factuality hierarchy - presupposed

e – presupposedManipulation

e – presupposedImpediment

Latvian + +

Basque + +/–

Danish +/– +/–

Georgian +/– –

Maltese – –

112

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

113


e – presupposedComment

e – presupposedPretence

Chuvash + +

Latin + +/–

German +/– +/–

Catalan +/– –

Ossetic – –

114

Interaction



tionCer-

taintyBelief Asser-


lationCom-ment

Know-ledge

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed


Doubt Ques-tion


Pre-tence

Unreal Wish

115


e – presupposedKnowledge

e – presupposedUnreal Wish

Turkish + +

Russian +/– +/–

Danish +/– –

Lithuanian – –

116

Interaction - Types

Type 1: strictly balancingType 2: balancing > eType 3: balancing > epType 4: balancing > pType 5: deranking CType 6: strictly deranking

117

Type 1: strictly balancingMaltese f e ep p C


Phase

–

Percep-tion

–

Cer-tainty

–

Belief

–

Asser-tion

–


–

Com-ment

–

Know-ledge

–

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

–

Possi-bility

–

Doubt

–

Ques-tion

–


–

Pre-tence

–

Unreal Wish

–

118

Type 2: balancing > eOssetic f e ep p C


Phase

+

Percep-tion+/–

Cer-tainty

–

Belief

–

Asser-tion

–


+

Com-ment

–

Know-ledge

–

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

+/–

Possi-bility

–

Doubt

–

Ques-tion

–


+

Pre-tence

–

Unreal Wish

–

119

Type 3: balancing > ep Basque f e ep p C


Phase

+

Percep-tion

+

Cer-tainty

–

Belief

–

Asser-tion

–


+

Com-ment+/–

Know-ledge

–

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

+/–

Possi-bility

–

Doubt

–

Ques-tion

–

Presupp. Impedi-ment+/–

Pre-tence

–

Unreal Wish

–

120

Type 4: balancing > pArme-nian

f e ep p C


Phase

+

Percep-tion+/–

Cer-tainty

–

Belief

–

Asser-tion

–


+

Com-ment+/–

Know-ledge+/–

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

+/–

Possi-bility

–

Doubt

–

Ques-tion

–


+

Pre-tence+/–

Unreal Wish+/–

121

Type 5: deranking CFinnish f e ep p C


Phase

+

Percep-tion

+

Cer-tainty

+/–

Belief

+/–

Asser-tion+/–


+

Com-ment+/–

Know-ledge+/–

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

+

Possi-bility+/–

Doubt

+/–

Ques-tion

–


+

Pre-tence+/–

Unreal Wish+/–

122

Type 6: strictly derankingTurkish f e ep p C


Phase

+

Percep-tion

+

Cer-tainty

+

Belief

+

Asser-tion

+


+

Com-ment

+

Know-ledge

+

Non-factual

Non-pre-supposed

Wanting

+

Possi-bility

+

Doubt

+

Ques-tion

+


+

Pre-tence

+

Unreal Wish

+

123

Types

124

Interaction - Types

Type 1: strictly balancing blueType 2: balancing > e

lavenderType 3: balancing > ep

purpleType 4: balancing > p

redType 5: deranking C

orangeType 6: strictly deranking yellow

8. Conclusions

126

Conclusions

- The layered approach to complementation allows for a fine-grained classification of CCs- There is a strong crosslinguistically valid correlation between the highest layer the underlying representation a CC contains and its balanced or deranked expression- This correlation only obtains systematically when factual and non-factual and presupposed and non-presupposed CCs are distinguished and kept separate

127

This presentation is available at www.keeshengeveld.nl

Complementation in Functional Discourse Grammar Kees Hengeveld Amsterdam Center for Language and...

Documents

Transcript of Complementation in Functional Discourse Grammar Kees Hengeveld Amsterdam Center for Language and...