In:Insubordination
Edited by Nicholas Evans and Honoré Watanabe
[Typological Studies in Language 115] 2016
► pp. 65–88
Chapter 3. Running in the family
Patterns of complement insubordination in Germanic
Published online: 18 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.03ver
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.03ver
This chapter provides a survey of insubordination patterns (as defined by Evans 2007) in five Germanic languages, Dutch, German, English, Swedish and Danish. The analysis focuses on a type of insubordination that is productive in many Germanic languages, viz. insubordinate complement clauses, introduced by dat (Dutch), dass (German), that (English), att (Swedish) and at (Danish). From a descriptive perspective, we try to identify the full constructional range of complement insubordination in each language, and we compare this range across the five languages. From a theoretical perspective, we use these data to assess the constructional status of insubordinate clauses, their development, and the boundaries of the concept, particularly with respect to ‘discourse-structuring’ or ‘elaborative’ uses. We round off by providing an overall functional characterization of insubordination that draws on functional work on subordination.
References (30)
Christensen, Tanya Karoli &Heltoft, Lars. 2010. Mood in Danish. In Mood in the Languages of Europe [Studies in Language Companion Series 120], Björn Rothstein & Rolf Thieroff (eds), 85-102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
D’Hertefelt, Sarah & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe . 2014. Independent complement constructions in Swedish and Danish: Insubordination or dependency shift? Journal of Pragmatics 60: 89–102.
Evans, Nicholas. 1993. Code, inference, placedness and ellipsis. In The Role of Theory in Linguistic Description, William A. Foley (ed.), 243–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 366–431. Oxford: OUP.
Ford, Cecilia, Fox, Barbara & Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In The Language of Turn and Sequence, Cecilia Ford, Barbara Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 14–38. Oxford: OUP.
Grosz, Patrick. 2012. On the Grammar of Optative Constructions [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 193]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Günthner, Susanne. 1996. From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive constructions. Pragmatics 6: 323–356.
Hansen, Erik & Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Word order change as grammaticalization. Paradigm structure and change in Scandinavian. Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 65: 171–235.
Hengeveld, Kees. 1998. Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johan Van der Auwera (ed.), 335–419. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2012. Satztyp und Typologie. In Satztypen des Deutschen, Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds), 846–873. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lindström, Jan & Londen, Anne-Marie. 2008. Constructing reasoning. The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In Constructional Reorganization [Constructional Approaches to Language 5], Jaakko Leino (ed.), 105–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Maekelberghe, Charlotte. 2011. Geïnsubordineerde complementconstructies. Een vergelijking tussen Duits en Nederlands vanuit typologisch perspectief. MA thesis, University of Leuven.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda. 2011. Emotion and desire in independent complement clauses. A case study from German. In Cognitive Linguistics. Convergence and Expansion [Human Cognitive Processing 32], Mario Brdar, Stefan Thomas Gries & Zic Fuchs (eds), 87–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Petersson, David. 2011. Swedish exclamatives are subordinate. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 88: 169–237.
Rosengren, Inger. 1992. Zur Grammatik und Pragmatik der Exklamation. Satz und Illokution, Vol. 1, Inger Rosengren (ed.), 263–306. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Steensig, Jakob. 1998. Om fordi i forskellige sætningstyper i dansk talesprog. In Selskab for Nordisk Filologi København. Årsberetning 1996–1997, Kjeld Kristensen (ed.), 179–192. Copenhagen: Selskab for Nordisk Filologi.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP.
Thompson, Sandra. 1985. Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs. final purpose clauses in English. Text 5: 55–84.
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality: Problems in the deontic domain. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1401–1418.
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, D’Hertefelt, Sarah & Van linden, An. 2012. A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language 36(1): 123–153.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Visapää, Laura
la Roi, Ezra
Cappelle, Bert, Ilse Depraetere & Mégane Lesuisse
2019. The necessity modalshave to,must,need to, andshould. Constructions and Frames 11:2 ► pp. 220 ff.
D’Hertefelt, Sarah
2017. Directive conditional and complement insubordination in Germanic languages. In Imperatives and Directive Strategies [Studies in Language Companion Series, 184], ► pp. 209 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 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.
