complementation in functional discourse grammar kees hengeveld amsterdam center for language and...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
Operators and modifiers
(π p1: [.....] (p1))
π = InferHe must be home.
( p1: [.....] (p1): σ (p1) σ = apparently
Apparently he is home
15
Operators and modifiers
(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
The factuality hierarchy
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
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
48
The factuality hierarchy
ePerception
eWanting
Chuvash + +
Irish + +/–
Armenian +/– +/–
Polish – +/–
Albanian +/– –
Maltese – –
49
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
50
The factuality hierarchy
epCertainty
epPossibility
Turkish + +
Latin + +/–
Finnish +/– +/–
English +/– –
Armenian – –
51
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
52
The factuality hierarchy
pBelief
pDoubt
Turkish + +
Latin + +/–
Georgian +/– +/–
Danish +/– –
Hungarian – –
53
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
54
The factuality hierarchy
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
Factuality and Entity Type
Abkhaz f e ep p C
Factual Phase Percep-tion
Cer-tainty
Belief Asser-tion
+ + + + +Non-factual
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
+ + + +
59
Factuality and Entity Type
Bulga-rian
f e ep p C
Factual Phase Percep-tion
Cer-tainty
Belief Asser-tion
– – – – –Non-factual
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
– – – –
60
Factuality and Entity Type
Latin f e ep p C
Factual Phase Percep-tion
Cer-tainty
Belief Asser-tion
+ + + + +/–Non-factual
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
+ – +/– –
61
Factuality and Entity Type
Alba-nian
f e ep p C
Factual Phase Percep-tion
Cer-tainty
Belief Asser-tion
+/– +/– – – –Non-factual
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
– – – –
62
The factuality hierarchy
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
The presupposedness hierarchy
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
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
72
The presupposedness hierarchy
e - factualManipulation
e - factualPerception
Lezgian + +
Lithuanian + +/–
Danish +/– +/–
Armenian + –
Polish +/– –
Kurmanji – –
73
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
74
The presupposedness hierarchy
ep - factualComment
e - factualCertainty
Chuvash + +
English +/– +/–
Lithuanian +/– –
Ossetic – –
75
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
76
The presupposedness hierarchy
p - factualKnowledge
p - factualBelief
Latin + +
Spanish +/– +/–
Chechen + –
Armenian +/– –
Bulgarian – –
77
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
78
The presupposedness hierarchy
e – non-factualImpediment
e – non-factualWanting
Finnish + +
Ossetic + +/–
Russian +/– +/–
Albanian – –
79
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
80
The presupposedness hierarchy
ep – non-factualPretence
ep – non-factualPossibility
Turkish + +
Irish +/– +/–
Armenian +/– –
Basque – –
81
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
82
The presupposedness hierarchy
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
Factual Non-pre-supposed
Phase Perception Certainty Belief Assertion
+/- +/- + + +
Presupp. Manipu-lation
Com-ment
Know-ledge
+/- + + +
87
Presupposedness and factuality
Lithua-nian
f e ep p C
Factual Non-pre-supposed
Phase Perception Certainty Belief Assertion
+ +/- - - -
Presupp. Manipu-lation
Com-ment
Know-ledge
+ +/- -
88
Presupposedness and factuality
Arme-nian
f e ep p C
Factual Non-pre-supposed
Phase Perception Certainty Belief Assertion
+ +/- - - -
Presupp. Manipu-lation
Com-ment
Know-ledge
+ +/- +/-
89
Presupposedness and factuality
Polish f e ep p C
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Question
+/- - - -
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pretence Unreal Wish
+/- - -
90
Presupposedness and factuality
Irish f e ep p C
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Question
+/- +/- +/- -
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pretence Unreal Wish
+ +/- +/-
91
Presupposedness and factuality
Lithua-nian
f e ep p C
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Question
+/- - - -
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pretence Unreal Wish
+ +/- - -
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
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
94
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
95
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
96
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
97
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
98
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
99
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
100
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
101
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
102
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
103
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
104
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
105
The layering hierarchy – factual presupposed
eManipulation
epComment
CKnowledge
Chechen + + +Finnish + +/– +/–Georgian +/– +/– +/–Basque + +/– –Catalan +/– +/– –Ossetic + – –Albanian +/– – –Bulgarian – – –
106
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
107
The layering hierarchy – non-factual non-presupposed
eWanting
epPossibility
pDoubt
CQuestion
Turkish + + + +Finnish + +/– +/– –English +/– – +/– –Georgian +/– +/– +/– –Basque +/– – – –Maltese – – – –
108
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
109
The layering hierarchy – non factual presupposed
eImpediment
epPretence
CUnreal Wish
Turkish + + +Armenian + +/– +/–Spanish +/– +/– +/–Lithuanian + +/– –Latvian + – –Polish +/– – –Kurmanji – – –
110
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
111
The factuality hierarchy - presupposed
e – presupposedManipulation
e – presupposedImpediment
Latvian + +
Basque + +/–
Danish +/– +/–
Georgian +/– –
Maltese – –
112
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
113
The factuality hierarchy - presupposed
e – presupposedComment
e – presupposedPretence
Chuvash + +
Latin + +/–
German +/– +/–
Catalan +/– –
Ossetic – –
114
Interaction
f e ep p CFactual Non-pre-
supposedPhase Percep-
tionCer-
taintyBelief Asser-
tionPresupp. Manipu-
lationCom-ment
Know-ledge
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting Possi-bility
Doubt Ques-tion
Presupp. Impedi-ment
Pre-tence
Unreal Wish
115
The factuality hierarchy - presupposed
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
Factual Non-pre-supposed
Phase
–
Percep-tion
–
Cer-tainty
–
Belief
–
Asser-tion
–
Presupp. Manipu-lation
–
Com-ment
–
Know-ledge
–
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting
–
Possi-bility
–
Doubt
–
Ques-tion
–
Presupp. Impedi-ment
–
Pre-tence
–
Unreal Wish
–
118
Type 2: balancing > eOssetic f e ep p C
Factual Non-pre-supposed
Phase
+
Percep-tion+/–
Cer-tainty
–
Belief
–
Asser-tion
–
Presupp. Manipu-lation
+
Com-ment
–
Know-ledge
–
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting
+/–
Possi-bility
–
Doubt
–
Ques-tion
–
Presupp. Impedi-ment
+
Pre-tence
–
Unreal Wish
–
119
Type 3: balancing > ep Basque f e ep p C
Factual Non-pre-supposed
Phase
+
Percep-tion
+
Cer-tainty
–
Belief
–
Asser-tion
–
Presupp. Manipu-lation
+
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
Factual Non-pre-supposed
Phase
+
Percep-tion+/–
Cer-tainty
–
Belief
–
Asser-tion
–
Presupp. Manipu-lation
+
Com-ment+/–
Know-ledge+/–
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting
+/–
Possi-bility
–
Doubt
–
Ques-tion
–
Presupp. Impedi-ment
+
Pre-tence+/–
Unreal Wish+/–
121
Type 5: deranking CFinnish f e ep p C
Factual Non-pre-supposed
Phase
+
Percep-tion
+
Cer-tainty
+/–
Belief
+/–
Asser-tion+/–
Presupp. Manipu-lation
+
Com-ment+/–
Know-ledge+/–
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting
+
Possi-bility+/–
Doubt
+/–
Ques-tion
–
Presupp. Impedi-ment
+
Pre-tence+/–
Unreal Wish+/–
122
Type 6: strictly derankingTurkish f e ep p C
Factual Non-pre-supposed
Phase
+
Percep-tion
+
Cer-tainty
+
Belief
+
Asser-tion
+
Presupp. Manipu-lation
+
Com-ment
+
Know-ledge
+
Non-factual
Non-pre-supposed
Wanting
+
Possi-bility
+
Doubt
+
Ques-tion
+
Presupp. Impedi-ment
+
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