Funcional, inglés. Discursivo- Gramática conjunciones, lexicalización, Gramaticalización, clave: Palabras Discursivo-Funcional. Gramática la para análisis este de implicación la cuenta en tendrá se Finalmente, lexicalización. de proceso un como descrita que será inglés, conjunciones del complejas algunas de formación la de análisis el mediante ilustra posición se Esta gramaticalización. de ‘menor’ proceso un implica tradicionalmente clase una hacia cambio que cualquier considerar de sesgada práctica la pretende evitar se manera esta De gramaticalización. de casos como amenudo analizados lingüístico cambio de casos algunos para análisis de tipo que otro no ser), debiera considera posible ofrecer sería porsentada se (como diera se no habla del partes las de tradicional que clasificación si la sostiene se artículo este En habla. del partes las de tradicional clasificación la en general por lo basado han se sobre gramaticalización estudios los determinada, categoría una pertenece aqué ‘mayores’. clase ‘menores’ clases en habla determinar origen su Para tienen del partes las todas cual el según categorialidad de continuum un postula se cionalidad, unidirec el principiode fundamental conceptocomo Defendiendo prolífico. más tema el constituido ha gramaticalización la lingüístico, sobre cambio estudios los de contexto el En Resumen English. mar, Gram Discourse Functional conjunctions, lexicalization, Grammaticalization, words: Key considered. finally are Grammar Discourse Functional for analysis this of implications The of lexicalization. aprocess as described be will which conjunctions, complex of some English formation the by analyzing illustrated is position This of grammaticalization. aprocess implies ‘minor’ class atraditionally towards change any that of considering practice biased the atavoiding so, Iaim doing In of grammaticalization. cases as with dealt often change linguistic of cases forsome given be could account different shouldn’tit claimed be), is it granted (as for a taken were not speech of parts of classification traditional the if that argued is paper it this In speech. of parts of classification traditional the abasis as taken commonly have on grammaticalization to, studies belongs category linguistic acertain to which class the order to In determine ‘major’ in classes. origin their have would of speech ‘minor’ parts all to which according put forward been has categoriality of cline a the unidirectionality, principle tenet of main the as topic.Having flourishing most the constituted has grammaticalization studies, change of language context the Within Abstract Revista CanariadeEstudiosIngleses,67;November 2013, pp. 97-121;ISSN:0211-5913 THE FUNCTIONAL DISCOURSE GRAMMAR VIEW GRAMMAR DISCOURSE FUNCTIONAL THE GRAMMATICALIZATION VS. LEXICALIZATION: VS. GRAMMATICALIZATION María Jesús PérezMaría Quintero Universidad de La Laguna La de Universidad

- -

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 97 REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 98 sions arrived at are presented at (Section are 6).sions arrived FDG). (henceforth, conclu Finally, main the Grammar Discourse for Functional analysis of implications this (Section 4). main 5presents the Section lexicalization of aprocess as described better is change tion 3), alinguistic such that it claimed is the approaches different formation to the complexof conjunctions discussing (Sec ‘complex’item term under the subsumed (Section 2). conjunction English in After linguistic of type the exemplifying and delimiting first, proceed, formation. Iwill involved of their process in type the and origin of their perspective fromtions the 2.3. The status of conjunctions as members of a lexical or a grammatical class. grammatical or a conjunctionsas of members of a 2.3. Thestatus lexical class. of the homogeneity Lack within 2.2. of speech. 2.1. conjunctions other parts and between Overlap aspects: main conjunction’ three some concerning delimitation requires involved units is. of linguistic the grammatical) vs. (lexical status on the what opposing views one concerns in or other direction the analysis the justifying reason main the that suggests lexicalization) and grammaticalization (i.e. different processes undergoing as phenomenon analyzed be linguistic can same the that fact The analyses. different have received change of language some processes of reverse grammaticalization. the considered often as been has (1) major in classes. origins their would have minor classes all that implies that of grammaticality acline put forward (Hopper Traugott and documented” well 16). and widespread is forms authors These lexical in origin to have seen their are forms whereby grammatical change, reverse the whereas move to do become lexical, forms not general ‘uphill’ in “grammatical that implies one of tenets grammaticalization, tionality, of basic the constituting Unidirec process. a unidirectional as understood concept of grammaticalization, Any study of the part of speech traditionally known as ‘(subordinating) as known traditionally of speech of part study the Any conjunc ‘complex’English subordinating analyze is to paper this aim of The given to grammaticalization, overshadowed importance by the Although of lexicalization categoriality, cline to attributed the Given importance the (> >minor category Major category) intermediate category (Hopper Traugott and of 107) Categoriality Cline the by dominated mainly been has change literature linguistic The on 2. ENGLISH ‘COMPLEX’ (SUBORDINATING) ‘COMPLEX’ ENGLISH 2. 1. INTRODUCTION CONJUNCTIONS

- - - - because, although before, since, until thesame items as, Thus, (e.g. after, function. or connecting arelating share tions (659-660) mention Svartvik prepositions and conjunc that and Greenbaum, Leech of prepositions. class Quirk, to the belonging conjunctions those and subordinating of class to items the the belonging of overlap degree between of a certain existence the emphasize Svartvik) and Greenbaum, Leech Quirk, Huddleston Pullum; and egan; I remember the accident / I remember you promised to help to promised you /Iremember (e.g. accident the speech Iremember remember as such predicate averbal assigning not justify complementof type the in does difference the way as same the In of speech. parts different complementsas different them treat to constitutenot sound a does reason take categories traditional these that thefact that conjunctions. authorsclaim These subordinating adverbs and certain category this one, within including traditional the Huddleston adefinition and of (599-600) putprepositions forward than broader complement, Similarly, conjunctions Pullum do whereas not noun introduce phrases. as clauses finite of Prepositions take complement cannot take. on type the they lying of speech parts other and conjunctions between Overlap 2.1. morphologically) complex.” morphologically) is (that internally are subordinators simple more of the since orthographic, part in is subordinators Svartvik and Leech English English conjunctions. subordinating adverbial include to as so extended and adopted was adpositions and predicates adverbial conflates that Ad, category, wide that that optional. be can second element the formed form, by often asingle as that conjunctions very are traditional the‘complex’ many of since artificial, somewhat is adistinction such one word (that) (e.g. /providing provided in case, Lack of homogeneity within the class the within of homogeneity 2.2. Lack to apply said be other. to the can classes separate within a single part of speech. part a single within conjunctions adpositions subsumed be and (subordinating) could that it claimed is present the paper, in conjunction term the used is clauses, to items governing stricted that that hwile > that’ time ‘that Þe hwile Þa Descriptive grammars of English (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Fin and (Biber, Conrad of English Leech, Johansson, grammars Descriptive The position adopted here as regards those subordinating conjunctions is those subordinating Theposition adopted as regards here simple to simple be said traditionally be adpositions, conjunctionsLike can 2 1 Thus, although for the sake of clarity and since the analysis be would re analysis the and since clarity of thesake for although Thus,

is not part of conjunction the notis but part element the complement the introducing Although historically they are derived from the combination of two elements (e.g. Old elements of two combination the from derived are they historically Although a (“Adverbs”) distinguish to proposal (“Adpositions”), Mackenzie’s Quintero Pérez In ,...), of one word, consisting ) can be used both as prepositions and conjunctions, the difference prepositions conjunctions, as difference and both the used be ) can (998) argue that “The distinction in form between the simple and complex complex and simple the between form in distinction “The that (998) argue 1 Thus, studies concerning one of these traditionally traditionally onethese concerning of studies Thus, ‘while’ – Hopper and Traugott). Quirk, Greenbaum, Greenbaum, Traugott). and Quirk, –Hopper ‘while’ 2 or complex or ). It should noted, be however, that , consisting of more than of more than , consisting to two different parts of parts different to two ). (e.g. - - -

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 99 REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 100 to do it way my do to (e.g. coordination in repeated be can position, Huddleston (“Content” that that is 1013) feature important an that claims complex units different and that two (e.g. in order –Huddleston, baby for their food save “Content” 1014), to recognize without having to / in food order have to baby for their / in food order have baby their that in order athat some conjunctionsthat take (ii) and of fact deletion the rules kind to any to resort without omitted, be having is more that consistentthat with: (i)thefact analysis follows. This that clause linguistic items. Applying these criteria to the classification of different linguistic linguistic different of criteria classification to the these items. Applying linguistic of status lexical-grammatical applied the to determine systematically be could that ofcriteria of aset different providing importance the who stresses grammatical”), (“Lexical- by Keizer addressed been representation underlying FDG has in dience to the way in which items will be represented in our analysis” (9). represented be analysis” our in items will which way in to the integral is that adistinction grammatical, the and lexical the between distinction asharp “FDG postulates however, perspective, from asynchronic argue, that they perspective, from a diachronic especially a role grammar, to has play within gradience that acknowledge Mackenzie Hengeveld and although FDG, Within egorization. cat strict by postulating FDG) characterized have (henceforth, been Grammar Roman tradition. Greek and the in its origin has of which speech, of parts theory topic general the in dichotomy grammatical / Lexical 2.3. dichotomy. /grammatical lexical some to the require delimitation: said aspect third the us to leads distinction This class. or agrammatical either to alexical belonging as items linguistic these of classification the concerns aheterogeneousconstitute class silization. (ii) (i) considered: thus, be, conjunctions here. concern will The following main the constitute two last of single-word The multi-word forms. forms, consisting deverbal and forms class

The lexical-grammatical dichotomygra of therepresenting possibility and The lexical-grammatical Functional FG) Discourse (henceforth, and Grammar Functional Both is a recurrent categories grammatical and lexical between distinction The conjunctions that claimed it relation to in often which is aspect Another As will be seen later, seen be conjunctionsof fos show these degrees will different As supposing, providing supposing, — participle forms: from –ing Deverbal 623) Pullum (Huddleston and minds. two in order, in for / fear, in on condition case, all, / for effect the to Multi-word (prep forms grounds, on the + noun): basis, on the event, in the conceivedas a heterogeneous conjunctionsbetter of thus of is class The ]). ; from past participle — participle ; from past -complement or an infinitival complement -complement infinitival or an (e.g. provided [ that you pay me and that I’m allowed allowed I’m that and pay me you that considering, notwithstanding, seeing, in order to in order provided, granted provided, ). When defending this this ). defending When . can can - - -

element of the minor category (preposition, conjunction, auxiliary verb, (preposition, pronoun,element of minor category the conjunction, auxiliary 107gott (>intermediate –major an >minor category), category namely category) (Hopper Trau and element of end categoriality of cline an left the at situated the to characterize said changes the fact in are element grammaticalization undergoing an to characterize said without it, of changes questioning speech the tion of parts the classifica traditional Heine; the Hopper apoint Traugott) and of as departure take (See Traugott most and of cases in the fusion). on grammaticalization studies Since ‘phonological and criteria’ i.e. reduced; of loss (phonetically meaning) or bleaching, frequency), increased ‘semantic criteria’ assignment, of Focus ity (desemanticization criteria’ ‘pragmatic of loss possibil the of function, (loss ascriptive mainly calization, of grammati process the item during undergone by alinguistic changes the describe grouped under ‘morphosyntactic those criteria’), (mainly properties others whereas behavioral / somedistributional concern nature: different criteria of are acertain there proposed to that it attention the criteria, If paid seems is distinction. grammatical lexical- to the respect items with linguistic phonological order criteria in to classify and morphosyntactic semantic, who of presents a set pragmatic, grammatical”), category. (lexical/grammatical) to aspecific belonging as item linguistic particular a howclassify to criteria for determining well-defined items English, in see Brinton and Traugott (11-18). Traugott and Brinton see grammatical.” and of lexical view agradience adopt to scholars led have word classes closed and or open (functional) minor and major between and categories grammatical and lexical between distinction binary clear establishing (18) in Traugott problems that “We out: seen point have specific.” language are grammatical), vs. (lexical categories main the between boundary the particular in and or grammatical], lexical as elements linguistic functional-typological tradition. functional-typological the in as structures, generative work, in conceptual or to cognitive, case the is as nouns). modify Moredefinitions, and recent either approaches to resort syntactic (e.g. properties designate functions and adjectives or acombination of meaning (e.g.aspect,...) objects), for designate nouns tense, (e.g. inflected be formal verbs can ent way, on the basis of well-defined criteria, and for each language individually.” entlanguage and way, foreach criteria, of well-defined on basis the to done be needs aprinciple in consist this and aline; to need draw we nevertheless be to non-discrete, grammatical and lexical between difference the we know though “al 52) that sense the in FDG, position, standard consistent with grammatical” Keizer’s share we Thus, them. (“Lexical- between aboundary to need draw the is elements. grammatical primary and grammatical secondary lexical, secondary lexical, primary tinguished: Within FDG, the main contribution has been outlined by Keizer (“Lexical- by Keizer contribution outlined been main has the FDG, Within 5 4 3 have either been of notional speech parts of definitions Most traditional Independently of the number of distinctions posited, what becomes evident posited, becomes what Independently of number of the distinctions

For a brief account of the main positions concerning the lexical/grammatical dichotomy dichotomy lexical/grammatical the concerning positions main of the account For abrief and Brinton as conclusion, opposite the at just arrived authors some however,Note, that [of in question classification “the that acknowledges 37) (“Lexical-grammatical” Keizer 3 she establishes a classification in which four majordis four aregroups which in aclassification she establishes 5 However, of aset approaches lack most of these 4 ------

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 101 REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 102 meaning but grammatical relations. but grammatical meaning lexical doexpress not class this that members of words’.suggests classification This /grammatical /structure ‘function as known members also of minor, classes, closed (i.e. minor conjunctions) class of grammaticalization. a traditional aprocess implies towards change any of that considering practice ‘biased’ at avoiding the Iaim ing, do so In described. be will units formation the of these yielding changes later the andMackenzie 131) (Hengeveld andlanguage” in a allowed are that configurations morphosyntactic based “criteria is, havesemantically to do that with criteria, that distributional basis of the on mainly units or‘grammatical’ ‘lexical’ as classified first be conjunctions a movetherefore, implying will Thus, one in or direction. another and, features involvingcertain a as of loss/gain be described can changes different then,and, the(ii) grammatical or as either lexical items should classified be linguistic the formationconjunctions: complex of more(i)(subordinating) specifically First, categories. traditional apriori two the criteria to distinguish without clear providing unit, grammatical atraditional becomes unit lexical atraditional by which process as a grammaticalization and describing of speech parts of classification traditional the assuming doing is are other they words, In what unit. opposed to agrammatical as unit of behavior alexical the to distinguish apriori criteriadescribing used the item order in to become a‘minor undergone by alinguistic class’,changes without the are describing demonstrative).and grammaticalization on waystudies in a Thus, matical words in each of the word classes.” of the each in words matical - gram and lexical are “there that of them”, asserting of each thus subclasses two yields and classes (i) distinction:this to justify for claimed adpositions. are behavior Two syntactic to related their features (“Places,”“English”, one by to the Mackenzie put “Adverbs”) forward parallel tions, lexical between a distinction Wanders establish of predicates. category the conjunctions, adpositions adverbs, alongside within and (Péreztions Quintero, “Adpositions”) to include adverbial as so made have been elements. former However, model, some this only sugges lexical contained within which structure, clause underlying specified fully to the of set expression rules ing were provided which expressions application by the of correspond the of linguistic elements conjunctions were categories, considered grammatical grammatical and Conjunctions have been traditionally analyzed, together with adpositions, as adpositions, as with together analyzed, Conjunctions traditionally have been change, Theposition adoptedin orderthat to approachis here language 6 214): Wanders and (Hengeveld examples lowing the fol with illustrate they as means, lexical additional by modified be can 3), (examples in 2), (examples in conjunctions but notLexical grammatical Hengeveld FDG, and of conjunctions adverbial within analysis their In lexical between distinction a sharp by establishing FG, characterized Within

Lehmann argues that “the criterion of lexical vs. grammatical is independent of the word of the independent is grammatical vs. of lexical criterion “the that argues Lehmann 6 and and grammatical adverbial conjunc adverbial - - - - - not to any of its component elements” (43). elements” component of its not any to whole, as a construction the to applied be therefore will ‘not criterion modifiable’ “the that concludes she Thus, enough. is not cases those in intuition using that and modifier of the scope the establish to difficult it is sometimes out that points 42) (“Lexical-grammatical” Keizer English, in positions adpositions as either lexical or grammatical is rarely justified by linguistic evidence.” linguistic by justified rarely is or grammatical lexical either as adpositions of classification the “Unfortunately, that She argues of adpositions. status lexical/grammatical the to until before conjunctions as such shortly,..., to more modify are hours, likely three conjunctions, as such expressions concessive,... temporal of conjunction Among causative, as such other types than Temporal matters. modified conjunctions more are easily on grammatical than of of (/lack aconjunction readiness) depends moreness tosemantic modified on be stay home, that could be paraphrased as ‘only then/in those circumstances’), in this this in ‘only circumstances’), as those then/in paraphrased be home, could stay that conjunction of phrase conjunctional the or part and have not the to scope whole theover seems fication over clause just adverbial (5) in as (5): of modifiers, other type conjunction authors, allows by these grammatical (ii) conjunctions. grammatical and of lexical distinction the binability, justify do not to plainly seem

, which indicates a point in time. Note, apoint time. however, in indicates , which until that (2) (3) b. (4)

8 7 Whereas in some cases, as argued by Wanders, Hengeveld and modi the argued as some in cases, Whereas that.’ [BNC-CB8] after immediately we married insisted I and through my came divorce until just to him move with ‘I in agreed order excluded. opposite combined, the be being conjunctions can lexical and Grammatical It could be claimed, however, that these two criteria, modification and comand modification criteria, however, two these It claimed, be that could

When defining the criteria used for determining the lexical-grammatical status of ad of status the lexical-grammatical determining for used criteria the defining When 217) prepositions” relation in (“English Keizer by forward put been has claim same The a. a. a. b. b. 7 As far as modification is concerned, it can be argued that the readi that argued be concerned, can is it modification as far As

she left. (simple lexical conjunc lexical (simple left. she before hours three him She called the meeting began. (simple began. meeting the until hours *She home stayed three She stayed she gets thirsty. (complex thirsty. she gets case some unlikely water in him bring *I’ll that smallpox were introduced into Australia, were into introduced smallpox Australia, that event unlikely In the he arrived. (grammatical (grammatical he arrived. moment She didn’t very the leave until it would controlled. rapidly be (complex conjunction) lexical tion) grammatical conjunction) grammatical conjunction) + complex lexical conjunction) lexical conjunction) or after or he left. (grammatical + simple (grammatical he left. after hours three until , which indicate relations between events, than than events, between relations indicate , which 8 (e.g. it rains will I will it rains case in Only , that is considered is a , that - - - - -

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 103 REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 104 cal adpositions. cal grammati and of lexical distinction the not justify does meaning amore basic express adpositions some that fact the that and content a semantic have adpositions all that prepositions”) “English paraphrased as ‘just then/at that moment’ but as ‘just until then/that moment’. then/that moment’ then/at until that ‘just ‘just but as as paraphrased thesentence is widerhave notsince to scope, said be cannot modifier the example meaning of terminal point implied by ‘exactly until then/that moment’. then/that until by‘exactly implied point of terminal meaning doesn’t the convey that moment’, that expression then/at ‘exactly as paraphrase they that began, ing (i) elements, that: on grounds positions, the should considered be lexical ad conjunctions, like conjunctions. subordinating Thus, grammatical and lexical status. grammatical-lexical their for determining criteria before, it preferable is not formation criteria to related the of to use conjunctions as mentionedwas other.as Thus, than awhole more as is grammatical aphrase that deduced be it cannot of or idiomaticity fossilization, degree ahigher exhibit tions complex construc certain that other fact words, In from the of English. grammar the (morein of these constructions or status less) fixed lexical/grammatical to the complex the constitute elements conjunction the that than between cohesiveness (47). to of more be seems degree to related the However, distinction established the grammatical” as others and lexical as some to regarded be are that extent to the case in than (e.g. others more as lexical that event than in the more lexical (e.g. elements lexeme” grammatical (48) asingle have come to as behave secondary and elements (e.g. that lexical event in the of secondary groups, namely, two group the within by her fall conjunctions analyzed two the conjunctions. temporal to reasons pointed out as since, by Wanders, Hengeveld due and to semantic it restricted is (ii)

in case in primitive or basic meaning, can be said to have semantic content. to have semantic said be can or meaning, primitive basic asomewhat expressing sometimes adpositions,Conjunctions, although like between to distinguish no sound reasons are there here that It claimed is 10 9 (“Lexical-grammatical”), Keizer by put forward fourfold classification the In criterion the limited of combinability, very is regards its applicability As lexical heads: lexical as regarded are they that fact the justify features morphosyntactic Several in FDG). heads’ ‘configurational (so are they argument an take prepositions) adverbs and (such adjectives, verbs, nouns, heads can as that are they introduce.” sense, they this of construction In distribution the and function the content major determining the in factor clearly this is and content, havenot evident semantic of subordination: they mere markers (“Content”dleston 1012) conjunctions “are subordinating contends that

exactly until exactly around walking He continued example their to applies same The In the case of adpositions, it has been claimed (Pérez Quintero, “Adpositions”; Quintero, (Pérez Keizer, claimed been it has of adpositions, case the In ). She concludes that “it seems justified to regard some conjunctionsas to ).regard justified She seems “it concludes that ), “combinations of that lexemes the meet 10 ), even Hud 9 - - - - - though certain grammatical uses are distinguished (e.g. by distinguished are uses grammatical certain though al elements, lexical considered are adpositions all that sense the in prepositions”) “English Keizer gott (4): gott their origin has been treated as an instance of grammaticalization. instance an as treated been has origin their consequently, and, members of adpositions, minor classes as with together lyzed, given to account for formationgiven to account the of complex conjunctions. explanations and analyses of type condition the of speech parts of classification the of subordination, not heads of the constructions in which they figure”. they which in of subordination, of not constructions the heads whether namely, complementizer the CONJUNCTIONS: GRAMMATICALIZATION VS. LEXICALIZATION VS. GRAMMATICALIZATION CONJUNCTIONS: 3. APPROACHES TO THE FORMATION OF ENGLISH ‘COMPLEX’ ‘COMPLEX’ OF ENGLISH FORMATION 3. TO THE APPROACHES ). As suggested by Pullum and Huddleston and (600), “markers by items Pullum are these ). suggested As (6) a. (7) b. (8) This widely extended tradition is clearly put forward by and Hopper putclearly is forward tradition widelyextended Trau This 11 (preposition), other each to of nominals relationships indicate to serve They words. this of, The words qualities. and actions, things, or describe to report used are words Such items. of lexical examples are adjectives) (i.e., and verbs, nouns, words). example The words “grammatical” tion” called (also words items,” or “contentives”), “func and “lexical “content” called (also words between languages all in made be can of distinctions some kind that accepted it usually is pointed been ana out has before, conjunctions traditionally haveAs been as dichotomy as well Theposition the adoptedlexical-grammatical towards However, three traditional subordinating conjunctions should excluded, be subordinating However, traditional three

This claim is parallel to the one posited for adpositions (Pérez Quintero Quintero (Pérez “Adpositions”; adpositions for posited the one to parallel is claim This Some conjunctions, mainly those indicating spatial or temporal relations, relations, or temporal spatial indicating those Some conjunctions, mainly Although conjunctions for do not word basis Although form the formation, as , that is, prepositions, connectives, pronouns, and demonstratives, are function function are demonstratives, and pronouns, connectives, prepositions, is, , that I supposed he was right about atouch right of not mornI supposed the he concentrating: was The man, who said his name was Dave, told detectives aboutDave,friend told a was detectives name his who said man, The ‘NO BUTS, MAYBES, IFS OR BECAUSES,’‘NO MAYBES, BUTS, shouted Headmas the can be modified by lexical elements, just as other lexical heads. as elements, other lexical just by lexical modified be can can be found. be can of items conversion do, some to minor cases nouns other lexical before shortly for Carol looking who’d been ing afters. [BNC-ADY] afters. ing [BNC-AMB] ter. that , whether and if and ). (in its meaning equivalent to equivalent (in its meaning she died. [BNC-K1L] died. she , accept 11

and, or, it, it, or, and, , and green , and ------

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 105 REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 106 lexicalization have generally been carried out following the latter model of language change” (9). change” of language model latter the out following carried been generally have lexicalization and of grammaticalization Studies factors. social and bylinguistic shaped is and gradually, proceeds variation, upon depends change which in other the and another), to of speakers one(from generation innovation with equated be may and internal language and complete, abrupt, is change “one which in gradually, abruptly, place take not does which but change, a member This of amajor class. it as would identify that features morphosyntactic the looses grammaticalization form undergoing the to imply that assumed generally been has that process, telic asyntacto Moreno as what describes Cabrera grammar, to the lexicon from the change implies (Hopper a Traugottfunctions” and 1).grammaticalization Thus, items develop grammatical new or how grammatical functions grammatical to serve contexts linguistic come certain in constructions items and how lexical as questions and demonstratives), would have their origins in major classes (noun verb). and demonstratives), majorand in classes origins would have their verbs, pronouns, with prepositions, (together auxiliary classified traditionally been (9) here (Hopperrepeated Traugott for states and convenience, that 107): form (participial) verbs and (locative, manner,...) nouns, respectively (Hopper and Traugott 106). Traugott and (Hopper respectively manner,...) nouns, (locative, and verbs (participial) form given, dynamic patterns of language use at a moment in time” (22). time” amoment at in use of language patterns dynamic of fluid, of view point the from studied phenomenon, be to pragmatic discourse a morphosyntactic, is primarily grammaticalization perspective, synchronic “Fromthat a claim authors These perspective. that are found in language” (7). language” in found are that and meaning forms of dimensions different many on the “based change, language of conceptualizing way as a therefore, proposed, been have clines (6). orders” Different similar in of relationships, sets similar or have of changes kinds same the undergo to tend forms linguistically cross that servation ob empirical the for metaphor isa term“cline” “The that point out authors These change. gradual specific a conforms that stages of series the illustrate to in order edition 2003 second the in modified tive 13 covers “that part of the study of language change that is concerned with such such concerned with is that change of of study language the covers “that part 12 it becomes evident that this concept, understood from a historical perspec from ahistorical concept, understood this it evident that becomes According to this position, all minor classes, among which conjunctions which among have minor classes, position, to all this According (> >minor category major category) intermediate class 16 15 14 13 12 beenthat have grammaticalization From of definitions different many the connective). (a ‘while’ temporal >hwile that’ time Þe ‘that hwile Þa Old English for example word as that includes that content construction word entire but an not is asingle grammaticalized is what often Quite “grammaticalized”. to be said is form word, the of afunction characteristics grammatical the content word assumes a content When in words. origins their have words function that shown be it can (demonstratives). or Frequentlyhearer speaker to the close are they show whether and to articles), or andnot (pronoun identified already are adiscourse in pants partici and entities whether (connectives), to indicate of adiscourse parts to link

14 Adjectives and adverbs are considered an intermediate category, that often derives directly directly derives often that category, intermediate an considered are adverbs and Adjectives The concept of cline was introduced by Hopper and Traugott in 1993 and slightly in slightly and and 1993 by Hopper Traugott introduced was cline of concept The Brinton and Traugott mention two opposing approaches to language change, namely namely change, language to approaches opposing two mention Traugott and Brinton See Brinton and Traugott for a consideration of grammaticalization from a synchronic asynchronic from of grammaticalization aconsideration for Traugott and Brinton See See Norde for a survey of the main definitions of this concept. this of definitions main of the Norde asurvey for See has been formalized as a‘cline as formalized been has 15 of categoriality’, represented of (1) categoriality’, in and 16 - - - - that underlines language change, thus, leaving some room for counterdirectionality. for room some leaving thus, change, language underlines that tendency a preferred but as principle, absolute an not as conceived, is unidirectionality interpretation, weak this to According possible. also is concept of the interpretation aweaker (Norde) that argued also it is versa, but not vice grammatical become can items lexical that entailing principle strong this and 131). to (Hopper thetopic Traugott of contraposition in conceptions Thus, different discussed of linguistic change in general. He claims that: He claims general. in change of linguistic but of grammaticalization, issue an not only is directionality that He argues irreversible. as process this characterize to more adequate considers who byMoreno Cabrera, questioned been has theory, (10) of grammaticalization: cline the in Hopper Traugott that and (16) achange to more have formalized grammatical, cal grammati from less a change entailing always unidirectional, is grammaticalization to grammar strongly implies unidirectionality. implies strongly to grammar and König’s analysis of deverbal prepositions, state: of they deverbal König’sand analysis a preposition is result the orthat on a conjunction. commenting Kortmann When fact from the apart prepositions ofcipial grammaticalization, conjunctions and acase However,the development forconsidering no is justification there of present parti sitions including conjunctions and (e.g. considering, development the and prepo into present participial of lexicalization acase adjective Brinton Traugott and (111-122) consider development the into apresent participial These authors argue that: argue authors These >more grammatical grammatical less One of the basic tenets of grammaticalization is that this change from lexicon from lexicon change this that is One of tenets grammaticalization of basic the 18 17 the was outcome cases both in but ways, different syntactically in were reanalyzed absolutes and adjuncts free in (1992) König and participals that propose Kortmann of evolution the of morpheme, OE analysis present their In -ende participial Traugott 16) (Hopper and documented. well and widespread is forms lexical in origins their to have seen are forms cal whereby grammati change, reverse the whereas lexical, to become move “uphill” do not general in forms grammatical that conclusion to the lead that observations about change, on observations based is that hypothesis astrong is Unidirectionality language evolution. (224) evolution. language in observe we results balanced the produce can processes two of the interaction the Only or lexicalization. of grammaticalization aprocess not exclusively is evolution language that means This syntax. and morphology their losing and lexicon their increasing gradually languages Nor observe we do syntax. and morphology their enriching and lexicon their losing gradually languages We not do observe around. way other the and syntax the to lexicon the movement from aconstant is there change language In lexicalization. and tion grammaticaliza both comprises and bidirectional contrary, on the is, evolution Language

The concept of unidirectionality, as one of the major axioms of grammaticalization grammaticalization of axioms major the as one of unidirectionality, of concept The Nevertheless, they admit that this strong hypothesis can be subject to question and and question to subject be can hypothesis strong this that admit they Nevertheless, 18 17 Thus, it is generally claimed that that claimed Thus, generally is it ) a case of grammaticalization. of grammaticalization. ) acase - - - - - ,

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 107 REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 108 and conjunctions: and complexas of development such the prepositions of somephrases, analysis fixed however, of lexicalization. formations imply those acase not neat’”. Lehmann), For Svartvik; and other authors (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech is units grammatical and lexical between ‘the boundary that conceding examples, at work these in lexicalization and grammaticalization “both sees Ramat tion that object been to other interpretations. Brinton has Traugottcrowd’) and (65) men representational level, they contend: level,representational they of behavior conjunctions the on the operating conjunctions. Summarizing of lexical it doesn’t for existence to distinguished, account seem the conjunctionsthey that development the consistent be with could of group the of grammatical analysis conjunctions, refer toof aprocess subordinating of grammaticalization explain: explicitly and reanalysis term the use they since not case the is that of grammaticalization, prepositions instance of an deverbal implies analysis “inserts”, or discourse markers ( markers or discourse “inserts”, tors ( tors Brinton and Traugott (64) give the following explanation concerning the the Brinton concerning Traugott and explanation following (64) the give think about verbs and(e.g., out, prepositional point are phrasal interpretations to differing subject of freezing types important the Among of grammaticalization. examples to be seem time same atthe may they functional), (closed class, “grammatical” are involve that items also However, they since of lexicalization. examples facie prima to constitute seem would they forms, complex if frozen, in result they Since The development complexof prepositions (e.g. among [emphasis added] (Hengeveld and Wanders 220-221) and (Hengeveld added] [emphasis agrammatical through directly established is clauses between relation semantic the and reduced is construction of the complexity internal the which in grammaticalization discussed cases all In clauses. between relation asemantic express order to indirectly in language the of categories lexical exploit existing conjunctions lexical complex conjunctions, of class to a lexical belonging as identified to be have therefore and conjoining in specialized are that items of lexical number limited to a next that we find Wanders Hengeveld FDG, and Within development when the considering term grammaticalization thewhyterm we avoided The reason König’s and Kortmann that quotation to suggest seems this Although Traugott 118) and (Brinton added] of grammaticalization instance an was change the a preposition and to more grammatical elements. (König and Kortmann 112) Kortmann and (König elements. to more grammatical grammatical less or from formatives to grammatical lexemes from achange as seen be can or development verbs nouns from of the prepositions that view the reject therefore would syntacticians theory. Many X-bar in adjectives and verbs nouns, ), complex subordinators ( ), subordinators complex either...or both...and, reanalysis ), ( prepositions complex is that prepositions are regarded as major lexical categories like like categories major lexical as regarded are prepositions that is you know, Imean know, you except for, depending on depending for, except of the construction leads to a situation to asituation leads construction of the ) as soon as, in order that in order as, soon as and use the more neutral more neutral the use and ), correlative coordina ), correlative

Norde (112) explains this opposition quoting Douglas Lightfoot (2005: 586): (2005: Lightfoot Douglas quoting opposition Norde (112) this explains Brinton and Traugott (18) offer a summary of the main studies of lexicalization from a of lexicalization studies main the of (18) Traugott and Brinton summary a offer ) operating on the representational level, it is necessary to account to account level, on representational it the necessary ) operating is toward “the lexical” as lexicalization. as lexical” “the toward and grammaticalization, as grammatical” “the toward cline the movement along interpret readily other, one could the at grammatical” “the one at and end cal” lexi “the has which exists continuum single if a logical: seems reasoning The 20 lexicalization implies “‘adoption implies into lexicon’ the lexicalization or ‘falling 19 - - - -

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 109 REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 110 directly (that), immediately (that), now (that), the moment (that) (that), (that), now moment (that), the immediately directly ing” (105). ing” mean grammatical abstract and more general to it leads of grammaticalization case the in whereas and idiosyncracy, contentfulness, specificity, semantic in increase to lead to tends compositionality of loss of lexicalization case the “In that claim they lexicalization and grammaticalization between parallels strong the on commenting [...],when [...]” more specific Although abstract (97). sometimes more sometimes idiosyncratic, highly often are meanings new “The that argue They positionality. (v) (iv) (iii) (ii) (i) features: following by the characterized but of lexicalization, grammaticalization, of acase as elements, should not analyzed be to lexical constitute claimed are they 4.1. be considered will here: of conjunctionstypes The developmentdifferent two of grammar. the in astructure constitutes what and of lexicon the part consideration about of general constitutes what the terms in distinguished better (vii) (vi)

4. ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH ‘COMPLEX’ (SUBORDINATING) ‘COMPLEX’ ENGLISH OF ANALYSIS 4. 22 21 compositionality, in a loss entails Lexicalization (Moreno 218) Cabrera syntax” the bleeds and theis a unit. lexical/contentlexicon “It feeds The output of lexicalization word (Morenodetermined or phrase” Cabrera), not asimple unit. complex a is a construction, “syntactically- inputThe of lexicalization process grammaticalization. that characterizes opposed to asyntactotelic as process a lexicotelic Morenowhat calls Cabrera the is lexicon. It to syntax/grammar from proceeds Thus, lexicalization tory,” pointed out as by Brinton Traugott and (96). of adoption elementsprocess into inven or the incorporation of unchanged units”. items out of syntactic lexical “It“a creating not is process simply a Moreno in Cabrera’s change, ahistorical implies (214)Lexicalization terms The developmentcomplexconjunctions, if English of (subordinating) (Huddleston and Pullum 623) Pullum (Huddleston and minds. two in order, in for / fear, in on condition case, all, / for effect the to Multi-word (prep forms grounds, on the + noun): basis, on the event, in the are lexicalization and grammaticalization conclusion,In that it claimed is sequences). phonological (reduction of coalescence sometimes involves and fusion Lexicalization process. agradual is Lexicalization (Lehmann) arenunciation to aunit, analysis” of its internal access

- com of semantic or loss idiomatization demotivation, about talk Traugott and Brinton Other multi-word forms are mentioned byBiber, mentioned are forms multi-word Other CONJUNCTIONS 22 Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan: Finegan: and Conrad Leech, Johansson, . 21 so it so involves “a holistic

- - (342). ( Pérez Quintero words item–someof of first the construction” productive into lexical fusion asingle –the ‘lexicalisation’ the through historically of complex prepositions arising think as ‘preposition of type the +noun +preposition’. structures and He points out: “we may dleston ( dleston conjunction.criterion adoptedis This asubordinating by as Hud functions which construction of afixed part thus is and features plex conjunction lost its nominal has tion followed by anoun (sometimes by the preceded (i) complex multi-word prepositionsto identify conjunctions. for identifying ( Huddleston combinations. syntactic complex free conjunctions and between distinguish to difficult sometimes itbelow, is of fossilization, complex degree conjunctions not same the all exhibit conjunctions Mutli-word 4.1. 4.2. (ii) (iii) (iv)

associated with a noun phrase, such as subject or as complement. such a noun phrase, with If associated typically functions syntactic the A complex realize conjunction cannot comof a part the nominal whether Thecriterion is to determine used be to Multi-word of apreposi conjunctions consisting complex constitute units — participle notwithstanding, supposing, seeing, granting, given, providing — participle forms: from –ing Deverbal time (that), such time as, the very first time (that), time first very the as, time such as every such of modifiers, variety agreater allowing time same at the while the time construction nominal the sense). –temporal (e.g. cases of inmeaning a different most the The of head of fied by most be quanti can value. conditional It its preserving while of modifiers variety conjunction The does. case of in head anoun phrase the as of determiners Complex variety conjunctions same do the not allow (e.g.is four ready be to can time o’clock The subject but as latter the function cannot former the structure that seen be (complex conjunction) with compared is number. number. complexof a in conjunction part allowvariation not does The nominal maintained. is of construction the ing throughout the time (that),time time the first throughout very the from time, the before time, last since the time, the by time, such until time, every elements of show introductory (e.g. diversity agreater constructions free ation (e.g. complexThe a introduces prepositionconjunction that doesn’tallowvari the day Introduction Introduction since the days (when). days since the as such expressions, plural alternative has In case In in case, on condition, on case, in ), when establishing a distinction between complex prepositions between a distinction ), when establishing provided, granted provided, , in which case a nominal construction is obtained which has has which obtained is construction anominal case which , in cannot be substituted by cases substituted be in cannot Adverbial ) and by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik in order in Svartvik and Greenbaum, by Leech Quirk, ) and 20-21) presented by tests proposes the to adapt . but not not but most of the time ofin most the as quantified be can the time (that) time the . In all these cases the basic mean basic the cases these all . In *on case, *in condition *in case, *on ). assuming, considering, excepting, excepting, considering, assuming, or a or ). ). Since, as will be shown be ). will as Since, , while the noun phrase phrase noun the while , does not allow a great agreat not does allow (noun phrase), it can can it phrase), (noun ; from past ; from past ). However, in case in ------,

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 111 REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 112 (i) ones: following the are of ambiguity cases most typical multi-word conjunction combinations resemble of The free them. words that and (v) (ii) from at

syntactic combinations (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik 1002). Svartvik and combinations (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech syntactic (additions, free replacements) with manipulation and omissions, associated syntactic or variations structural of therange allow expressions free These that. days since the as, time (that), time such until every when, period the during (that), moment the of E.g. anoun (expressing time)sisting clause. +relative conexpressions to temporal complex similar conjunctionsThese are very between distinguish us to allow that properties arebehavioral there Thus, (e.g. of time anoun phrase last frequently the part (e.g. term nominal the case good *in A complex conjunctionof incorporation of the modifiers not does allow will fact that with expressions Huddleston and (623)between Pullum different mention main the that 1002): Svartvik and Greenbaum, Leech ation, (Quirk, of preposition the both of noun of head phrase the the and vari structural allows construction of free type this condition.and Again the in ending phrases tional (1002) Svartvik and of preposi mention Greenbaum, Leech Quirk, case the noun. of atemporal argument the as analyzed late), case this in fairly was (e.g.arrived that he its argument time as The clause subordinate a noun takes the one which in from asimilar construction this distinguish 261). andMackenzie (Hengeveldlexeme fiers of a Time-designating They modi as analyzed are clauses +relative of expressions time these FDG In    (just) the (just) is that in the latter case the argument is not licensed not is licensed argument the case latter the in that is ]) event in the and regardless of the fact that that fact the of spite in that fact the of (the)in light that fact the of account on that fact the to due that fact the of because      very precise last next first (e.g.         

fact that fact time minute instant moment This follows [from the fact that they contested the the contested they that the fact follows This [from        and that express relationships of reason relationships of reason express that and ), while the presence of a modifier is ), of presence amodifier the while     [‘although’] [‘because’]    when that    ). I saw him, I recognized him Irecognized him, I saw - - - - the fact that. fact the in ending those to similar are that, sense the in that, grounds the on (i) expressions: of types different three (ii) (iii) (12) (14) (13) (16) (15) to the effect the to and ground, on the basis, on the event in the sense, noun but head by the this sequence. by In the 23 grounds (e.g. event, contain they nouns basis, the although followed byare clauses, effect the to grounds, on the (e.g. basis, Expressions on the event, in the multi-word HuddlestonAmong and (623) conjunctions, Pullum distinguish condition (e.g.Expressions for fear, on condition for all, noun. dependent of preceding the it syntactically shows is that some evidence by substituted be ademonstrative could clause the that fact the Although Huddkeston (623). and lum (624) Huddleston and from Pullum taken Examples arguments. their as clauses without preposition the don’t do not and accept meaning same have the (e.g.Expressions head. the as its analysis supports tion of condi on case the in for and ademonstrative substitution of clause the argument. the complex taking heads as ter analyzed

in the event that, that, event the in with (1003) constructions Svartvik and Leech Greenbaum, For Quirk,

, Pullum and Huddleston (624) argue that the absence of a determiner of absence adeterminer Huddleston the and (624) that , Pullum argue b. a. I can’t [on she declined basis]. believe that b. a. b. a. b. a.

) do not normally take those arguments. Examples taken from Pul taken Examples arguments. those take ) do not normally [In the event that something happens to me] give them this letter. to me] happens this something them give event the that [In She declined, [on the basis that she was too tired]. she was [onShe that declined, basis the You’d better take an umbrella [in case it [in rains] umbrella You’d case an take better She didn’t reply, [forhim]. offend she might fear *[The event that something happens to me]event*[Thesomething that shockwould family.my *[The basis that she was too tired] was unsatisfactory. was tired] too she was that *[The basis *Consider the case it rains... case *Consider the *I didn’t either. reply fear for that ) that can take arguments on their own, but nevertheless are bet are own, on but their nevertheless arguments take can ) that in case, in order, in two minds in two in order, in case, , are idiomatic. are , ) that contain nouns (e.g. nouns contain ) that fear, ) containing nouns which which nouns ) containing For fear 23 doesn’t allow , as well as as well , as ) that ) that - - -

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 113 REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 114 has been ‘reanalyzed’ as apreposition/conjunction: as ‘reanalyzed’ been has averb that point indicate which out somelarly, features Kortmann and König König (686),König who state: and Kortmann by analyzed area some as ones, additional as well features, These criteria. morphological and phonological and relations grammatical of change characterized by their expressing a specific semantic value. semantic aspecific expressing bytheir characterized converbs specialized of and view, point semantic the from forms or polysemic vague being committing ourselves to the view that they are a garden variety of prepositions.” variety agarden are they that view the to ourselves committing without discussion our into conjunctions deverbal “include will they conjunctions, from prepositions few people care about its merits its about care people few that Provided the filmentertains, while clause, of main the that subjectthe with –ed in ending participle past the abjectly apologized they confusion, with in Covered forexample, Thus, Svartvik). and Leech Greenbaum,clause (Quirk, the subjectthemain with of identification do not explicit subject, they require do an not they contain although that fact the by seen be can as features, verbal have lost their into they conjunctionsize that is (i) provewhich this: parameters mentions and two ofconjunctions lexicalization, degree show same the function. adverbial an with used often or very always are which forms conjunctions Deverbal 4.2. category. of nominal the typical properties noun loses the extent, (16) 25 24 the indefinite pronoun speaker. with an or with implicit an identification established the of Firstly, subjectis some in cases as used are which participles not points out all that Kortmann Nevertheless, aspect. and for tense marked to be ability of the aloss asubject, with agreement gender,and for a loss number case, for to inflect ability of the aloss substance, cal morphologi and phonological, of semantic, loss properties: of certain aloss as seen be can prepositions of as verbs to arecategorization leading changes of the Many lexical that forms verbal the characterizes that features One of main the developed from converbs, non-finite conjunctionsverb typically Deverbal multi-word or to these a greater lesser that formations is characterizes What

Kortmann and König (673) state that since sometimes it is difficult to distinguish distinguish to difficult it is sometimes since (673) König that and state Kortmann contextual converbs contextual between distinguishes Nedjalkov

...as if I couldn’t figure out for myself that things had better be just so, be just better had things that myself for out ...as if Icouldn’t figure considering who’s coming. considering , identification , identification of a subjectis Simi not necessary. is a verbal form which requires identification identification of requires form which averbal is (Kortmann 51) (Kortmann 25 , which are characterized by their bytheir characterized are , which change in the word the in order, change 24 , verb forms forms , verb - - - , distinguishing simple and complex units. In their analysis, Hengeveld and Wanders Hengeveld and analysis, simple their In complex and units. distinguishing conjunctions, categories both grammatical and lexical between tion established is (ii) does does counterevidence some Nevertheless, present. at limited quite appears of counterexamples number the yet of change, pathways semantic exceptionless) (i.e. universal no exist there that show unequivocally examples above “The concludes She claims. absolute as than tendencies more as understood be should pathways that She considers (in German). temporal to causal from but also or conditional, causal either to temporal from only not ashift illustrates change of semantic domain the in of conjunctions development the out that others do not allow such expansion: do such others not allow some of (e.g.that them supposing, assuming (1002-1003) Svartvik and Greenbaum, of verbs. Leech Quirk, acteristic point out char properties of certain preservation the concerning of gradience degree certain a clear and explicit way. and a clear complex to in relations express of user the on aneed part the as explained be thus to ‘expressive’ ‘meaning’ to ‘textual’ follow from ‘propositional’ much thus path more and the clearly functions turing discourse-struc communicative, more specialized conjunctions, “serve primarily added deverbal be could andprepositions, deverbal that preposition.argue They central any no is or there for hardly which domains semantic those in oped mainly conjuctions) to prepositions deverbal extended be (what deverbal devel that can state identification. subject don’t require they that and thefromparticiples different have developed ameaning they that is (17) (18)

As was mentioned before, within FDG (Hengeveld and Wanders), and mentioned (Hengeveld FDG was before, within As adistinc a verbal form. a verbal as functions it which still in contexts in appear Secondly, can participle the 26 As in the case of multi-word case conjunctions the in conjunctions, show deverbal a As Concerning the pathways of semantic developments, Kortmann and König König and developments, of semantic pathways Kortmann the Concerning conjunctions these characterizing feature main the However, that claim they

Norde (2009) questions the existence of ‘allegedly irreversible changes’ by pointing bypointing changes’ irreversible of ‘allegedly existence the questions Norde (2009)

The new airship...could keep station above the fleet wherever the US chose to chose the US wherever fleet the above airship...could station new keep The a. b. supposing/ assuming for the sake of argument/ as a result of your aresult as of argument/ for sake the assuming supposing/ *seeing/*provided for the sake of the argument/as a result of your aresult of argument/as the *seeing/*provided for sake the (Kortmann 52) (Kortmann attack. missile or of aircraft warning early go, providing advice that advice advice that advice 26 5. IMPLICATIONS FOR FDG 5. IMPLICATIONS exit, but attempts have been made to dismiss even this” (71). this” even dismiss to made been have but attempts exit, ” (692). The formation could of lexemes new ) can be expanded by adverbials, whereas whereas by adverbials, expanded be ) can - - - -

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 115 REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 116 function Allative) assigned to the unit designated by the adverbial clause. adverbial by the designated unit to the assigned Allative) function (e.g.conjunctions of represented afunction are by means until Grammatical modifiers. as therefore, analyzed are, and clause adpositions to amain into the underlying representation, in which the nominal part ( part representation, nominal the into underlying which the in in relation to the temporal region designated by left she region relation designated temporal toin the he arrived was fairly late fairly was arrived he late fairly was arrived he which at time The (e.g. modifier + noun type the of constructions between difference (261) of the account Mackenzie an for and moment that claimed even It is phrase. a noun within modifiers as functioning clauses but of embedded subordination of adverbial cases constitute do not they since here, considered notare constructions These clause.” arelative to similar moment head the specifies, further i.e. modifies, raining started it London in arrived he (that) moment The type of the tions f before 5.1. Representational5.1. level 5.1, Section in for 5.2, interpersonal. level, for the representational and the level. interpersonal and representational the at both conjunctions function conjunctions operate only grammatical on level, representational whereas lexical the to them, conjunction. of that According by layer related means of unit the archical hier the is, operate, that they on level which hierarchical the and / grammatical) of conjunction (lexical type the relation between of asystematic posit existence the (20b), where the adverbial clause is said to designate a temporal region(20b), (t atemporal to designate said is clause where adverbial the the onein sentence A like (20a) as be would represented (Ref). defined is property holder the (ø) of property tion the between the relation to in which entity the and , indicating that it has the status of a lexical element designating a two-place rela atwo-place element designating of alexical status the it has that , indicating ), this conjunction is provided in underlying representation with the variable conjunction), variable representation the provided is underlying with this in (19) (20) a.

When the adverbial clause is introduced by introduced a is clause adverbial the When representational level representational the At are offered distinguished types The representationsthe proposed forofeach 27 Similarly, Similarly,

Among complex lexical conjunctions Hengeveld and Wanders (219) Wanders and Hengeveld construc include conjunctions lexical complex Among a. b. b. (e (e She stayed home until home stayed She She called him before called She (t (e i i i complex lexical complex j ))) (e ))) : [she home] stayed (e : [she called him] (e: [she called ) (t ) ). j )) i )) Ref ) (e ) i )) is not treated as a conjunction but as a noun. Cf. Hengeveld Hengeveld Cf. anoun. but as aconjunction as not treated is conjunctions , adverbial clauses constitute optional lexical lexical optional constitute clauses , adverbial she left she the meeting began meeting the i ): (t ): i ): (t ): in terms of an event taking place. It is therefore therefore It is place. taking event of an terms in i : (f : i : (t : . i : 27 The time that that time (e.g. The +argument noun ) and j : (e : before (e.g. event in the j : [the meeting began] (e: [the began] meeting simple lexical lexical simple Conj (t . j (f ). i )) (t )) , in which “the that “the which , in is represented is by the event i )ø (t )ø conjunctions (e.g. (e.g. conjunctions ) are introduced introduced are ) j ) functions as as ) functions : (e : j : [she left] i ), defined j ): (t ): -clause -clause j )) All - - -

Wanders 220). grammatical. therefore, is, considered and interpreted be metaphorically will example this in which the head ( head the argument of conjunction the butargument amodifier. (ii) (i) shown: just analysis the (iii) description (e (21) a. (22)

as its argument. Example (20b) Example (22): would in represented be its argument. as as functions that theclause in event the and described modifies clause adverbial the that clause main the in event the described relation between a temporal before as she such left clause adverbial an In Reference. function semantic the with argument a single taking one-place predicates, as conjunctionshere should that analyzed be (19b)? in as predicate by the region designated temporal to the It claimed is function a Then,assigning why itself? predicate the of property the bearer But isn’t (Ref). stated is the property the relation to in which entity the and (ø) of property the bearer the arelation between establish which predicates, by Wanders Hengeveld and two-place as conjunctions analyzed are Lexical adpositionsand adverbs.with (“Adverbs”) Ad, together category conflating Mackenzie’s conjunctions within subordinating including allow will analysis This heads. conjunctions should representedlexical be all as grammatical, and lexical between adistinction to establish no sound arguments are there conjunctions content have that semantic that and claimed been it has As to attributed be could of present the light study, the In weaknesses several 28 246) in considering that the exact metaphorical interpretation is triggered interpretation triggered is metaphorical exact the that considering in 246) Prepositions” (“English Keizer with Iagree function. of asemantic terms in interpretation, therefore, analyzed of and, its metaphorical because matical, The considered head. preposition gram the was as conjunction inserted was complex this of andoffered part by theHengeveld nominal only Wanders, conjunctions representation the In as such of complex lexical

f in in use, locative basic its in Note that ) of an event) of description an (e (e k 28 b. ). The preposition in Note that in this case, the event the description (e case, this Note in that i (e : [she called him] (e: [she called that it were intro it were that event be rapidlySmallpox would the controlled in (e (e duced into Australia. into duced i j i : [smallpox would controlled] rapidly be (e ): (e ): )) k : [smallpox are introduced into Australia] (e into introduced : [smallpox Australia] are is represented by the Locative semantic function, function, semantic represented is Locative by the , the conjunction is a lexical unit that designates designates that unit conjunction, the a lexical is i ): (t ): j ) and is further specified by another eventanother by specified further is ) and i : (f : is considered a lexical preposition (Hengeveld and and (Hengeveld preposition alexical considered is i : before Conj (f i )) (t )) k i ) (e ) ) is not) is considered an i ): (e ): j : [she left] (e j : (f : k )) (e )) i : in the event event in the event j )) Loc (e N j )) (f i ) Ref i )) )) - ) -

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 117 REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 118 tion as the head of a clause within which they can be modified. In underlying In modified. be can they which within of head a clause the tion as func and lexical verbs remain the which in chaining, argumentative an constitute forms participial these that argue considered complex they conjunctions. Instead not are surprisingly modified, be cannot they since grammatical are level at this conjunctions Wanders’ Hengeveld that and to would contradict seem what claim level,theinterpersonal at function they although modification do admit which level Interpersonal 5.2. (iv) by deverbal forms (e.g. forms by deverbal functions. possiblehow the semantic by relations to different represent all (ii) and (i) function? conjunction right arise: the general from How the to trigger different two problems Thus, functions. different express conjunction same the can conjunctionsand by different expressed be can function same the since not case, the is obviously them,this when realizing units theand functions different the between tions”; relationship Prepositions”), Keizer, unequivocal “English would imply an this of adpositions (Cf.pointed out relation analysis Pérez to in the Quintero, “Adposi (i.e. Motivation, Concession, Orientation, Correction). and However, been has as function of arhetorical by means structure should represented be underlying in Acts Discourse (53) dependence between Mackenzie Hengeveld that and claim conception FDG level. consistent of with dependence interpersonal at relations the position is This level. on interpersonal conjunctions of the adverbial operating status for grammatical the accounts feature Wanders, to Hengeveld and this According modification. of semantic therefore, do type not and, any admit units representational 29 element. alexical preposition as of complex conjunctions would analyzed be Therefore,the function. asemantic not and context by by the assigning interpersonal level interpersonal the At conjunction. lexical new the of argument the becomes of noun what the it argument since the is type, of latter the are lexicalize that Constructions head. the with frame rational enterwhich into configu a arguments, and by clauses) (relative modifiers followed be by can nouns many posited by Mackenzie, Hengeveldas and as a modifier. However, conjunctionthe analyzed is following clause The Special attention should be paid to the analysis of constructions introduced introduced of constructions attention analysis to the should paid be Special

Keizer (“English Prepositions” 247) supports this position in the following terms: following the in position this 247) supports Prepositions” (“English Keizer these relations represented by different semantic functions. semantic by different represented relations these all have to cumbersome) (and difficult be it will relations, more abstract express prepositions the where that clear be it will time same the At preposition. of the sense primary the to linked direct is denoted relation the often quite elements; not meaningless are they that seen have we of all, First more plausible. far is cates predi as prepositions of these analysis however, an Semantically, scarce. is cates predi as constructions these in prepositions the analyzing for evidence Syntactic considering (that), assuming (that) , adverbial clauses modify interpersonal rather than than rather interpersonal modify clauses , adverbial ). Expressions of this type, type, ). of this Expressions 29 - - - - -

(vii) (vi) (v) (iv) (iii) (ii) (i) conjunctions functioning at the interpersonal level. interpersonal at the conjunctions functioning become complex grammatical they which through of grammaticalization process a form undergoes solution intermediate participial the an slot until as locutionary Il the in modification; form(ii) admit a verbal they Avoid that inserting fact the of it a present/past possible: participle, is (i) lexicalization Tofrom the for account level. interpersonal the at conjunctions functioning become complex grammatical they which tion through forms, however,grammaticaliza be subject of to a can process participial These in FDG.verbs do performatives as slot, illocutionary an fill representation they

dination (Pérez Quintero, Adverbial Quintero, (Pérez dination to play a role said have representation been the in that of subor adverbial presupposition and /non-presupposition /non-factuality factuality as such on parameters depending arise interpretations will metaphorical recognized, is of Condition category or no for other relations semantic case which the In recognized. categories semantic different the express they lexemes As (Ref). argument complex FDG, In conjunctions an should with lexemes represented be as elements. theisolated of thefrom meaning different of expression is the meaning the cases all in though even be observed, can of Differentlexicalization degrees converbs. and prepositional phrases mainly als, adverbias functioning units’ implies ‘syntactic of lexicalization process This of lexicalization. from aprocess conjunctionsNew arise 600). dleston Hud and (Pullum heads therefore, as do notsubordination and, function pointed be whether, out, namely if,can that cases some grammatical although class, Conjunctions belong to alexical uses. for to account all necessary be will entry thethe a single load since lexicon, on solution simplify category. This will adpositions with Conjunctionsin a single together should conflated be As Lehmann points out, it can be concluded points be out, that: it can Lehmann As However, complex expressions conjunctions these by considering resulting lexical change. lexical of simply products but are processes, grammaticalization incomplete indicate do not and come constantly which conjunctions and prepositions complex ous Those numer neologisms. by other replaced and abandoned are others the All grammaticalized. is a fraction only conjunctions, and prepositions new the all From among change. grammatical however, much more is than ephemerous change, Lexical grammaticalized. be then may they into come existence, have they Once but by lexicalization. not about come by grammaticalization, conjunctions 6. CONCLUSIONS 6. ). , that are simple markers of simple are markers , that ------

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 119 REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 120 Moreno —— “Places and Things.” Layered Structure and Things.” Reference and in a Functional—— “Places Perspective Mackenzie —— “English Spatial Prepositions in Functional Grammar.” Working Grammar.” Papers in Functional Gram Functional in Prepositions Spatial —— “English Kortmann Lehmann Kortmann Grammar.” Discourse in Functional Dichotomy Lexical-Grammatical —— “The König Huddleston Hopper Keizer Huddleston English of Grammar the to —— Introduction Hengeveld Brinton Hengeveld Biber Finegan. Edward and Conrad, Susan Leech, Geoffrey Johansson, Stig , Douglas, , Ekkehard, and Bernd Kortmann Bernd and , Ekkehard, , Evelien. “English Prepositions in Functional Discourse Grammar”. Grammar”. Discourse Functional in Prepositions “English , Evelien. , Paul J., and Elisabeth Closs Traugott Closs Elisabeth J.,, Paul and

, Laurel J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott Closs Elizabeth J., and , Laurel Cabrera John Benjamins, 1998. 211-227. Benjamins, John The Limits ofGrammaticalization 253-276.1992. Benjamins, John Amsterdam: Kristoffersen. Lars and Peter Harder tescue, mar tions.” Linguistics tions.” Benjamins, 2002. tions on Grammaticalization. 42 (Abril 2001): (Abril 119-135.42 of Revista Canaria de issue Estudios Ingleses Spec. Quintero. Pérez Jesús María mar.” Ed. London: Routledge, 1991. Routledge, London: 15.2 (2008): 216-256. 15.2 (2008): to Prepositions to Lingüística 51.2 35-56. (2007): 2003. 2007. 211-227. Benjamins, John Amsterdam: Steen. Gerard and Hannay Mike Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Cambridge Cambridge: 947-1030. UP,bridge 2002. English Language mar.” mar.” Structure Language of Theory man Grammar of Spoken and Written English Cambridge UP, 2005. Cambridge New Reflec New Lexicalization.” and on Grammaticalization Reflections “New , Christian. , Bernd, and Ekkehard König Ekkehard and , Bernd, Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English: Problems of Control and Interpretation and Control of Problems English: in Absolutes and Adjuncts Free , Bernd. - Gram of Functional Categories Cinderella The Adpositions: “Adverbs and , J. Lachlan. , Kees, and J. Lachlan Mackenzie J. Lachlan and , Kees, , Kees, and Gerry Wanders Gerry and , Kees, 46 (1992). 46 The Cambridge Grammar of the the of Grammar Cambridge The Speech.” Reported and “Content Clauses , Rodney. . K. Pullum Geoffrey and , Rodney, Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar: In Honor of Lachlan Mackenzie Lachlan of In Honor Grammar: English in Studies Structural-Functional , Juan C. “On the Relationships Between Grammaticalization and Lexicalization.” Lexicalization.” and Grammaticalization Between Relationships “On the C. , Juan . Ed. Gisa Rauh. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1991. Verlag, Narr Gunter Tübingen: 109-125. Rauh. Gisa . Ed. - Cam Cambridge: Pullum. K. Geoffrey and Huddleston Rodney . Ed. 30.4 (1992): 671-697. 30.4 WORKS . Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Oxford . Oxford: Ed. Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald. Amsterdam: John John Amsterdam: Diewald. Gabriele and Wischer Ilse Ed. - Gram Discourse Functional in Conjunctions . “Adverbial Approaches Approaches of Verbs Prepositions.” as Reanalysis . “On the . “Categorial Reanalysis: the Case of Deverbal Preposi of Deverbal Case the Reanalysis: . “Categorial . Ed. Anna G.Ramat and Paul J. Hopper. Amsterdam: J. Hopper. Paul Amsterdam: and G.Ramat Anna . Ed. . Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. Cambridge . Cambridge: . Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based . Grammaticalization CITED . The CambridgeThe Grammar ofthe EnglishLanguage Lexicalization andLexicalization Change Language . London: Longman, 1999. Longman, London: . . Cambridge: Cambridge UP, Cambridge . Cambridge: Functions of Language Language of Functions . Ed. Michael For Michael . Ed. Alfa: Revista de de Revista Alfa: . Cambridge: . Cambridge: Long - - - - - . . .

Quirk Norde Pullum Approach AFunctional English: in Subordination —— Adverbial Pérez Nedjalkov Traugott

Quintero Greenbaum, Greenbaum, Sidney Randolph, , , Muriel. Degrammaticalization , Muriel. , Geoffrey K., and Rodney Huddleston Rodney and K., , Geoffrey Pullum. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. 597-661. UP, 2002. Cambridge Cambridge: Pullum. Cambridge Grammar of the English Language Europe of John Benjamins, 1991. Benjamins, John 153-168. Vrije 2004. Universiteit, of Arts, Faculty Amsterdam: Lyall. Rod Mackenzie Lachlan J. for Festschrift A Places: Their in Grammar of the English Language , Elizabeth Closs, and Bernd Heine Bernd and Closs, , Elizabeth Adverbial Constructions in the Languages Languages the in Constructions of Europe.” Adverbial V. Languages , Igor the in “Converbs , María Jesús. “Adpositions in FG: Has Cinderella Been Invited to the Ball?” Ball?” the to Invited Been Cinderella Has FG: “Adpositionsin Jesús. , María . Ed. Johan van der Auwera,. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1998. Mouton 421-455. Gruyter, de Berlin: Auwera,. der van Johan . Ed. . Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Oxford . Oxford: . London: Longman, 1985. Longman, London: . Geoffrey . Approaches to Grammaticalization and Jan Svartvik Jan and Leech, The The Phrases.” Preposition and . “Prepositions . Ed. Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Geoffrey and Huddleston Rodney . Ed. . Ed. Henk Aertsen, Mike Hannay and and Hannay Mike Aertsen, Henk . Ed. . Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2002. Rodopi, . Amsterdam: . 2 vols. Amsterdam: Amsterdam: . 2vols. . A Comprehensive A Comprehensive Words Words

REVISTA CANARIA DE ESTUDIOS INGLESES, 67; 2013, PP. 97-121 121