Cover not available

Article published In: Functions of Language
Vol. 21:3 (2014) ► pp.297–332

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

On the relationship between clause combination, grammatical hierarchy and discourse-pragmatic coherence

 | University of Melbourne
Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.3.02gre
The aim of this study is to explore the relationship between the forms of clause combination and their systematic patterns of explicit inter-clausal coherence. The study is conducted within the theoretical framework of the Adaptive Approach. The Adaptive Approach conceives of combined clauses as a hierarchy of conventionalized units for discourse coherence management. The grammatical properties of the different combined clauses determine their position on the hierarchy, and these properties are claimed to correlate with whether the construction is more, or less, of a cohesive unit for packaging multiple propositions. The study pursues the hypothesis that clauses higher on the hierarchy, being the more cohesive grammatical constructions, should tend to manage coherence between the propositions they combine (i.e. the clausal constituents) through fewer explicit discourse-pragmatic ties than the clauses considered less cohesive grammatical constructions. An analysis of cohesive ties in 450 combined clauses, representing 9 different English clause types, bears out these expectations. This is a significant result indicating that an inverse relationship exists between the level of grammatical integration and the frequency of inter-clausal cohesive ties. It is argued to be a quantifiable consequence of grammatical hierarchy, reflecting a continuum of coherence management from discourse to grammar.
References (51)
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert. 2008. Aspect and aspectuality. In Bas Arts & April MacMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 244–269. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2005. The syntax and semantics of Binding Theory. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1984. How people use adverbial clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society 101. 437–449. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa lectures. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christiansen, Thomas. 2011. Cohesion: A discourse perspective. Berlin: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2001. Grammaticalization and the life cycles of constructions. RASK Internationalt tidsskrift for sprog og kommunikation 141. 91–134.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2008. Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 121. 55–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. English -ing clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48(6). 1153–1193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43(3). 449–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Disterheft, Dorothy. 1981. Remarks on the history of the Indo-European infinitive. Folia Linguistica Historica 2(1). 3–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. 2005. A semantic approach to English grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Downing, Angela & Philip Locke. 2006. English grammar: A university course. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2003. Argument structure. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 11–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick. 2006. The English gerund-participle: A comparison with infinitives. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga & Wim van der Wurff. 2006. Syntax. In Richard Hogg & David Denison (eds.), A history of the English language, 109–199. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, Vol. 11. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Grammar as an adaptive evolutionary product. In Christopher S. Butler, Raquel Downing & Julia Lavid (eds.), Functional perspectives on grammar and discourse: In honour of Angela Downing, 1–32. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012a. The adaptive approach to grammar. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), 27–51.
. 2012b. Toward a diachronic typology of relative clauses. In Bernard Comrie & Zarina Fernández (eds.), Relative clauses in languages of the Americas: A typological overview, 3–27. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive: A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10(2). 287–310Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, 17–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Framework-free grammatical theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), 341–367.
Heine, Bernd & Heiko Narrog (eds.). 2012. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum (eds.). 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huettner, Alison, Marie Vaughan & David D. McDonald. 1987. Constraints on the generation of adjunct clauses. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics , 207–214.
Knoch, Ute. 2009. Diagnostic writing assessment: The development and validation of a rating scale. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 181–225. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2002. Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multi-faceted view. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 235–319. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 2003. Diachronic English linguistics: An introduction. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morris, Jane & Grahame Hirst. 1991. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Computational Linguistics 17(1). 21–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean & Sandra Thompson. 2008. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Cross-linguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 179–204. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, T.E. 2011. Understanding English grammar: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peters, Pam. 1988. Australian corpus of English. Sydney: Macquarie University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds.). 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, John (ed.). 1991. Collins Cobuild English grammar. London: Collins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the International Conference on Historical Linguistics 12 , Manchester.
Van Valin Jr., Robert. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, Eugene. 1977. A clause relational approach to English texts: A study of some predicative lexical items in written discourse. International Science 61. 1–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Tallman, Adam James Ross
2025. Interclausal integration and (anti-)finiteness in Chácobo (Pano) speech. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos 67 ► pp. 025009 ff. DOI logo
Asp, Elissa
2019. In praise of text analysis. Functions of Language 26:1 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Taboada, Maite
2019. The space of coherence relations and their signalling in discourse. Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum 1:2 ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Green, Clarence
2017. Discourse Coherence and Clause Combination. In Patterns and Development in the English Clause System, ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Trnavac, Radoslava & Maite Taboada
2016. Cataphora, backgrounding and accessibility in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 93 ► pp. 68 ff. DOI logo
Ortega, Lourdes
2015. Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing 29 ► pp. 82 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 november 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue