Article published In: Constructional Approach(es) to Discourse-Level Phenomena: Theoretical challenges and empirical advances
Edited by Renata Enghels and María Sol Sansiñena
[Constructions and Frames 13:1] 2021
► pp. 126–159
Funny you should say that
On the use of semi-insubordination in English
Published online: 2 August 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00049.kal
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00049.kal
Abstract
This paper investigates the formal and functional properties of so-called semi-insubordination (SIS), i.e. complex
sentences with an ‘incomplete’ matrix clause (e.g. Funny that you should say that), on the basis of corpus data. It is
shown that SIS differs in its function from the structurally related constructions it-extraposition and exclamatives,
exhibiting its own functional profile: viz. expressing a subjectivizing speaker evaluation which is non-exclamative, deictically anchored,
and relates to a non-presupposed proposition. Given these functional idiosyncrasies it is argued that SIS is best analysed as a construction
in its own right (in terms of Construction Grammar) rather than simply an incomplete elliptical structure.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Delimiting the class
- 3.Corpus data
- 4.Formal properties
- 4.1Attested syntactic patterns
- 4.2Structural overlaps with related constructions
- 5.Functional properties
- 5.1Subjective speaker evaluation
- A.Non-generic interpretation
- B.Deictic anchoring
- C.Informative rather than expressive
- 5.2Erosion of presupposition structure
- A.‘Flattening’ of the hierarchical structure of an it-extraposition
- B.Absence of the ‘presupposed open proposition’ structure of an exclamative
- 5.3Conspectus: The discourse functions of SIS
- 5.1Subjective speaker evaluation
- 6.Grammatical modelling
- 6.1Ellipsis account
- 6.2A constructional account
- 7.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (67)
Aelbrecht, L. (2006). IP-ellipsis in Dutch dialects: X + that-clause. In J. Van de Weijer & B. Los (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006 (pp. 1–14). Benjamins.
Beijering, K. (2017). Semi-insubordinate dat-constructions in Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 22(3), 333–357.
Beijering, K. & Norde, M. (2019). Adverbial semi-insubordination constructions in Swedish: Synchrony and diachrony. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. S. Sansiñena (Eds.), Insubordination: Theoretical and empirical issues (pp. 79–106). De Gruyter Mouton.
Beyssade, C. & Marandin, J.-M. (2006). The speech act assignment problem revisited: disentangling speaker’s commitment from speaker’s call on addressee. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, 61, 37–68. [URL]
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
Boogaart, R. & Verheij, K. (2013). Als dát geen insubordinatie is! De pragmatiek van zelfstandige conditionele zinnen. In T. Janssen & J. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Honderd jaar taalewetenschap. Artikelen aangeboden aan Saskia Daalder bij haar afscheid van de Vrije Universiteit (pp. 13–28). Nodus Publikationen.
Bos, G. (1963). Een verwaarloosd zinstype, In A. W. De Groot & H. Schulting (Eds.), Studies op het gebied van het hedendaagse Nederlands (pp. 174–194). The Hague: Mouton.
Cappelle, B. (2017). What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 115–151). Springer.
Collins, P. (1994). Extraposition in English. Functions of Language, 1(1), 7–24.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.
D’Hertefelt, S. (2018). Insubordination in Germanic: A Typology of Complement and Conditional Constructions. De Gruyter.
D’Hertefelt, S. & Verstraete, J.-C. (2014). Independent complement constructions in Swedish and Danish: Insubordination or dependency shift? Journal of Pragmatics, 601, 89–102.
Davies, M. (2004–). British National Corpus (from Oxford University Press). Available online at [URL]
(2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One billion words, 1990–2019. Available online at [URL]
(2011–). Corpus of American Soap Operas: 100 million words. Available online at [URL]
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network. How language structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press.
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness. Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–431). Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C. (1982). Toward a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 31–59). J. Wiley and Sons.
Finkbeiner, R. (2019). Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 11(2) (Special issue: On the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar), 171–192.
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: a thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Benjamins.
Garrett, E. J. (2001). Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Unpublished Phd dissertation University of California, Los Angeles. (available at [URL])
Ginzburg, J. & Kolliakou, D. (2009). The emergence of fragments in child language. Journal of Linguistics, 45(3), 541–673.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. & Perek, F. (2019). Ellipsis in Construction Grammar. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmer Timmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis (pp. 188–204). Oxford University Press.
Hall, A. (2019). Fragments. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmer Timmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis. Oxford University Press, 605–623.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press.
Kaltenböck, G. (2003). On the syntactic and semantic status of anticipatory it. English Language and Linguistics, 7(2), 235–255.
(2005). “It-extraposition in English: a functional view.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 119–159.
(2016). Semi-insubordination im Englischen und Deutschen: zur Verwendung einer kommentierenden Konstruktion. Paper given at Symposium ‘Die kommentative Funktion’, Université de Lille, 4–5 November 2016.
(2019). Delimiting the class: A typology of English insubordination. In K. Beijering, G. Kaltenböck & M. S. Sansin͂ena (Eds.), Insubordination: theoretical and empirical issues (pp. 167–168): De Gruyter.
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In M. Bierwisch & K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in Linguistics: A collection of Papers (pp. 143–173). The Hague: Mouton.
König, E. & Siemund, P. (2007). Speech act distinctions in grammar. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1. Clause structure (pp. 276–324). Cambridge University Press.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (2006). Deixis. In L. R. Horn & G. L. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 87–120). Blackwell.
Merchant, J. (2019). Ellipsis. A survey of analytical approaches. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmer Timmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis (pp. 19–45). Oxford University Press.
Michaelis, L. A. (2001). Exclamative constructions. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals 21. (pp. 1038–1050). Walter De Gruyter.
Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K. (1996a). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 73(2), 215–247.
(1996b). The exclamative sentence type in English. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 375–390). CSLI.
Mithun, M. (2016). How fascinating! Insubordinate exclamations. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination (pp. 367–392). John Benjamins.
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H. & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 1221, 280–91.
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223–255). Academic Press.
Progovac, L., Paesani, K., Casielles, E. & Barton, E. (Eds.), (2006). The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives. John Benjamins.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
Ramat, P., & Ricca, D. (1998). Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In J. van der Auwera & D. P. Ó Baoill (Eds.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe (pp. 187–273). Mouton de Gruyter.
Riddle, E. (1975). Some pragmatic conditions on complementizer choice. Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting. April 18–20, 1975. Linguistic Society, 467–474.
Sadock, J. & Zwicky, A. (1985). Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1. Clause structure (pp. 155–196) Cambridge University Press.
Sansiñena, M. S. (2015). The multiple functional load of que. An interactional approach to insubordinate complement clauses in Spanish. University of Leuven dissertation.
Siemund, P. (2015). Exclamative clauses in English and their relevance for theories of clause type. Studies in Language, 39(3), 697–727.
Traugott, E. C. (forthc.). The development of metatextual connectors in English. A historical constructionalist perspective on pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2010). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In E. C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 19–44). Benjamins.
Van linden, A. & Van de Velde, F. (2014). (Semi-)autonomous subordination in Dutch: Structures and semantic-pragmatic values. Journal of Pragmatics, 601, 226–250.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Lorenz, David
2023.
Could be, might be, maybe
. In Different Slants on Grammaticalization [Studies in Language Companion Series, 232], ► pp. 124 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
