Article published In: Lexical Issues in the Architecture of the Language Faculty
Edited by Andrea Padovan
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 2:1] 2020
► pp. 30–55
Where do complementizers come from and how did they come about?
A re-evaluation of the parataxis-to-hypotaxis hypothesis
Published online: 6 November 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00014.wei
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00014.wei
Abstract
It is an old and widespread assumption in historical linguistics that hypotactic structures evolved out from
paratactic structures. In more recent times, the parataxis-to-hypotaxis hypothesis was associated with the assumption that
syntactic structures are discourse-based. This means that hypotactic structures evolved via syntacticization, i.e., via “a process
by which flat, paratactic discourse-pragmatic structures transform over time into tight, hierarchic syntactic structures” (Givón, T. (1979). From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givón (Ed.), Discourse and Syntax, (pp. 81–112). New York: Academic Press. : 82f.). One special aspect of this assumption is that complementizers are held
to have grammaticalized from nouns, verbs, prepositions, or pronouns in bi-sentential, paratactic source structures. In this
paper, I will re-evaluate the existing evidence for the parataxis-to-hypotaxis hypothesis with special focus on the emergence of
complementizers. The result of the re-evaluation is that in all cases, where we have enough historical data to reconstruct the
development in detail, we have to assume a source structure that already displays subordination. In most cases, the subordinate
clause is a relative clause suggesting that relativization is probably the oldest form of subordination. The over-all result of
the re-evaluation is that there is no reliable evidence at all for the parataxis-to-hypotaxis hypothesis in its current form.
Article outline
- Introduction
- 1.The parataxis-to-hypotaxis hypothesis
- 2.The external pathway
- 3.The internal pathway
- 4.General discussion
- 5.Conclusions
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
References
References (59)
Amaral, L., Maia, M., Nevins, A., & Roeper, T. (Eds.). (2018). Recursion across Domains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asher, N., & Vieu, L. (2005). Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua, 1151, 591–610.
Axel-Tober, K. (2012). (Nicht-)Kanonische Nebensätze im Deutschen. Synchrone und Diachrone Aspekte. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Guyter.
Comrie, B., & Horie, K. (1995). Complement clauses vs. relative clauses: some Khmer evidence. In W. Abraham et al. (Eds.), Discourse grammar and typology, (pp. 65–75). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
DeLancy, S. (2011). Grammaticalization and syntax: A Functional view. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, (pp. 365–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Delbrück, B. (1909). Zu den germanischen Relativsätzen. Abhandlungen der phil.-hist. Klasse der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 271, 675–697.
Deutscher, G. (2009). Nominalization and the origin of subordination. In T. Givón & M. Shibatani (Eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, (pp. 199–214). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Diessel, H. (2019). Preposed adverbial clauses: Functional adaptation and diachronic inheritance. In K. Schmidtke-Bode et al. (Eds.), Explanations in Linguistic Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, (pp. 191–226). Leipzig: Language Science Press.
Everett, D. L. (2005). Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã. Another Look at the Design Features of Human Language. Current Anthropology, 46(4), 621–646.
Ferraresi, G. & Weiß, H. (2011). >Al die wîle und ich lebe<. Und nicht nur koordinierend. In E. Breindl, G. Ferraresi & A. Volodina (Eds.), Satzverknüpfung mehrdimensional. Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, (pp. 79–106). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Franco, L. (2012). On Case and Clauses: Subordination and the Spell-Out of nonterminals. In B. Surányi & D. Varga (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Central European Conference in Linguistics for postgraduate Students, (pp. 82–103). Budapest: Pázmány Péter Catholic University
Fritz, M. (2002). IV. Zur Syntax des Urindogermanischen. In M. Meier-Brügger (Ed.), Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 8., völlig neubearbeitete Auflage der früheren Darstellung von Hans Krahe. Unter Mitarbeit von Matthias Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer, (pp. 241–280). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
Futrell, R., Stearns, L., Everett, D. L., Piantadosi, S. T. & Gibson, E. (2016). A Corpus Investigation of Syntactic Embedding in Piraha. Edited by Mark Aronoff. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0145289.
Givón, T. (1979). From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givón (Ed.), Discourse and Syntax, (pp. 81–112). New York: Academic Press.
Güldemann, T. (2006). Structural isoglosses between Khoekhoe and Tuu: the Cape as a linguistic area. In Matras, Y., McMahon, A. & Vincent, N. (Eds.), Linguistic areas: convergence in historical and typological perspective, (pp. 99–134). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Haider, H., & Zwanziger, R. (1984). Relatively attributive – The ‘ezafe’-construction from Old Iranian to Modern Persian. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical Syntax, (pp. 137–172). Berlin: Mouton.
Harris, A. & Campbell, L. (1995). Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Haspelmath, M. (1998). Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language, 22(2), 49–85.
(2010). Grammatikalisierung: von der Performanz zur Kompetenz ohne angeborene Grammatik. In L. Hoffmann (Ed.), Sprachwissenschaft. Ein Reader, (pp. 751–773). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
Heine, B., & König, C. (2015). The !Xun Language. A Dialect Grammar of Northern Khoisan. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jäger, A. (2018). Vergleichskonstruktionen im Deutschen. Diachroner Wandel und synchrone Variation. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Kayne, R. (2010). Why isn’t This a complementizer?. In R. Kayne (Ed.), Comparison and Contrasts, (pp. 190–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(ms. NYU). On Complementizers and Relative Pronouns in Germanic vs. Romance.
Kiparsky, P. (1995). Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In A. Battye & I. Roberts (Eds.), Clause structure and language change, (pp. 140–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kratzer, A. (2006). Decomposing attitude verbs. Talk presented at the workshop in honor of Anita Mittwoch. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. July 4, 2006.
(2016). Evidential Moods and the Semantics of Attitude and Speech Reports. Talk given at the University of Pennsylvania (May 5, 2016), the 1st Syncart Workshop (Siena, July 13, 2016), and the University of Connecticut (September 9, 2016).
Kühnert, H., & Wagner, E. -M. (2004). Konnektive in der diachronen Entwicklung des Jiddischen. In M. Kozianka, R. Lühr & S. Zeilfelder (Eds.), Indogermanistik – Germanistik – Linguistik. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Jena 18.-20.09.2002, (pp. 261–299). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.
Lehmann, C. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, (pp. 181–225). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2015). Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edition. Berlin: Language Science Press (Classics in Linguistics, 1).
Luján, E. R. (2009). On the grammaticalization of *kwi-/kwo relative clauses in Proto-Indo-European. In V. Bubenik, J. Hewson & S. Rose (Eds.), Grammatical change in Indo-European languages: papers presented at the workshop on Indo-European linguistics at the XVIIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 2007, (pp. 221–234). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lühr, R. (2000). Der Nebensatz und seine Konkurrenten in der Indogermania: Der altindische Relativsatz. Historische Sprachforschung / Historical Linguistics, 1131, 71–87.
Moulton, K. (2009). Natural selection and the syntax of clausal complementation. Doctoral dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Narrog, H., & Heine, B. (2011). Introduction. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ohori, T. (2011). The Grammaticalization of subordination. In: B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, (pp. 636–645). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oppermann, S. (t.a.). ‘Non-coordinating und’ in Middle and Early New High German. Journal of Historical Linguistics.
Poletto, C., & Sanfelici, E. (2018). Demonstratives as relative pronouns: new insight from Italian varieties. In M. Coniglio et al. (Eds.), Atypical demonstratives. Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics, (pp. 95–126). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Portele, Y., & Bader, M. (2016). Accessibility and referential choice: Personal pronouns and d-pronouns in written German. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique, 181, 1–41.
Reich, I., Reis, M., Ehrich, V., & Fortmann, C. (2009). Einführung. In V. Ehrich et al. (Eds.), Koordination und Subordination im Deutschen, (pp. 5–20). Hamburg: Buske.
Reis, M. (1997). Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In C. Dürscheid, K. -H. Ramers & M. Schwarz (Eds.), Sprache im Fokus: Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, (pp. 121–44). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Rosenplüt, H. (1996). Der fünfmal getötete Pfarrer. In K. Grubmüller (Ed.), Novellistik des Mittelalters. Märendichtung, (pp. 898–914). Frankfurt/Main: Dt. Klassiker Verlag.
Runenprojekt Kiel: [URL]
Schreiber, N. (2011). The diachronic development of complementisers in the Germanic languages. PhD Dissertation. Frankfurt/Main: Goethe-University of Frankfurt am Main.
Shi, Y., & Li, C. N. (2002). The establishment of the classifier system and the grammaticalization of the morphosyntactic particle de in Chinese. Language Sciences, 241, 1–15.
van Gelderen, E. (2004). Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Walde, A., & Hofmann, J. B. (1938). Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Erster Band A – L. 31. neubearbeitete Auflage. Heidelberg: Winter.
Weiß, H. (2013). Satztyp und Dialekt. In J. Meibauer, M. Steinbach & H. Altmann (Eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen, (pp. 763–784). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
(2016).
So welih wíb so wari. Zur Genese freier w-Relativsätze im Deutschen. In S. Neri, R. Schuhmann & S. Zeilfelder (Eds.), “Dat ih dir it nu bi huldi gibu”. Linguistische, germanistische und indogermanistische Studien Rosemarie Lühr gewidmet, (pp. 505–516). Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.
(2019). Rebracketing (Gliederungsverschiebung) and the Early Merge Prinicple. Diachronica, 36(4), 509–545.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Kitazaki, Yuho
2025. Pathways to de(inter)subjectification in Japanese. In Semantic-Pragmatic Change from Intersubjective to Textual Meanings [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 353], ► pp. 153 ff.
Walkden, George
2024. Parataxis and hypotaxis in the history of English. In Keys to the History of English [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 363], ► pp. 10 ff.
Eberhardt, Ira & Katrin Axel-Tober
2023. On the divergent developments of two German causal subjunctions. In Micro- and Macro-variation of Causal Clauses [Studies in Language Companion Series, 231], ► pp. 269 ff.
Jędrzejowski, Łukasz & Constanze Fleczoreck
2023. Outline of the volume. In Micro- and Macro-variation of Causal Clauses [Studies in Language Companion Series, 231], ► pp. 1 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 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.