'Insubordination' in the light of the Uniformitarian Principle. (7th July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: TRAUGOTT, ELIZABETH CLOSS
• Editors: Bergs, Alexander; Hoffmann, Thomas
• Is Part Of: English language and linguistics. Volume 21:Number 2(2017)
• Page Start: 289
• Page End: 310
• Publication Date: 2017-07-07
• Subjects: English language -- Grammar -- Periodicals; Linguistics -- Periodicals; Linguistic change -- Periodicals; 420.5
• DOI: 10.1017/S1360674317000144
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1360-6743

Abstract

Abstract : Assuming that the Uniformitarian Principle refers to processes of production and perception, I argue that it remains invaluable for work on language in the last five thousand years or so, the period of linguistic historical record. In this article I show that some proposals about the development of 'insubordination' (Evans2007 ), particularly those that link it to degrammaticalization (e.g. Higashiizumi2006 on because -monoclauses; Brinton2014 on as if clauses), are artifacts of theory (Kaiser & Struckmeier2015 ), and do not conform to processes that can be projected from a Uniformitarian Process Principle that pays attention to interactional practices. I investigate evidence in the history of English for the development of finite independent monoclauses that are introduced by subordinators, for example, Because you don't understand, If we could see that picture again, As if you are not gorgeous . I conclude that, at least in English, such monoclauses are chunks that are used incrementally in on-line interaction, just like independent NPs and prepositional and adverbial phrases (Ford et al .2002 ; Couper-Kuhlen2011 ; see also Lindström & Londen2008 on Swedish monoclauses with subordinators; Gras & Sansineña2015 on Spanish monoclausal que -constructions). In such cases degrammaticalization is not relevant. The Uniformitarian Processes Principle can serve as an important corrective on artifacts of theory.