Manual to the Corpus of Scottish Correspondence

3.3.8 Connectives

As mentioned in Section 3.2 Principles of tagging, the first core property in the grammel provides information about the source of an item rather than pinpointing a later development reflecting processes such as grammaticalization. This principle is particularly important for tagging connectives, irrespective of whether these represent the single-unit or the multi-unit type. The core property string may thus consist of the primary word-class – that of the source – followed by the property defined by the immediate structural context and that defined by the discourse function:

$by/pr-cj_BE+

$cause/n{rc}-av-pr>pr-cj_+CAUSE

$of/pr-cj<n-av-pr_OF

$/T_THE

$slow/n{rc}-av>pr_SLO+NES $-ness/xs-n{rc}-av>pr_+NES

$of/pr<n-av_OF

{\}

$/P02G_YOUR

$lordship/nG{ho}_LO $/Gn{ho}_0

$letter/npl_LETTR+ES $/pln_+ES

In this example, the prepositional phrase because of is tagged using /n to indicate the word-class of the source, -av to indicate that the noun occurs in a prepositional phrase functioning as an adverbial, and -pr to signify that the whole phrase functions as a multi-unit preposition; both the nominal head of the prepositional phrase and its complement are nominalizations (indicated using the comment {rc}), which is reflected in the tagging of the prepositions by and of with the grammel /pr-cj. Thus, all connective phrases – subordinating conjunctions and prepositional phrases – which incorporate nouns have grammels which provide information about these nouns in a systematic way:

$by/pr_BY

$reason/n-pr>pr-cj_*RESONE

$of/pr-cj<n-pr_OF

$/P11G+V_MY

$attendance/n{rc}-av>pr_ATENDENCE

$upon/pr<n-av_WPONE

$/P13GM_HIS

$majesty/n{ho}_*MATIE

$to/im+C_TO

$do/vi_DOE

$some/pn-aj>n-pn_SOME+

$thing/n-pn<pn-aj_+THING

$in/pr-cj_IN

$order/n{rc}-av-pr>pr-cj_ORDER

$to/pr+V-cj<n-av-pr_TO

$/A+C_A

$settle/n{rc}>pr_SETTLE+MENT $-ment/xs-n{rc}>pr_+MENT

$of/pr<n_OF

{\}

$/Dat_THAT

$affair/n_AFFAIRE

$/P23N_THEY

$say/vps23<P+_SAY $/vps23<P+_0

{zero that}

$/T_THE

$victual/n{coll}_VICTUALL

$be{n}/vps03<n{coll}+_IS

$some/pn-aj>n-av_SOME+

$thing/n-av<pn-aj_+THING

$spoil/vpp-aj_SPOIL+ED $/vpp-aj_+ED

{\}

$in/pr-cj_IN

$regard/n{rc}-av-pr>pr-cj_REGARD

$of/pr-cj<n-av-pr_OF

$/T_THE

$long/aj_LONG

$lie{place}/vn{rc}-av>pr>pr_LY+ING $/vn{rc}-av>pr>pr_+ING

$of/pr<vn-av_OF

$/P03OI_IT

$in/pr<vn-av_IN

$/T_THE

$bark/n_BARK

$in/pr_IN

$case/n-pr>pr-cj_CASE

$of/pr-cj<n-pr_OF

{\}

$failyie/n{rc}-av_FAILIE

$to/pr+C-cj_TO

$/T_YE

$effect/n{rc}-av-cj{c-post}_EFFECT

{\}

$that/cj<_YT

The variational pattern of connective phrases such as upon condition (that) also includes variants containing deictic elements:

$/P11N_j

$think/vpt_THOCHT

{zero formal O}

$meet/aj_MEITT

$to/im+C_TO

$return/vi<O>av_RETURNE

$/P13OM_HIM

$back/av<vi_BAK

$upon/pr-cj_VPON"

$/Dis_YIS

$condition/n{rc}-av-cj{c-emb-post}_ConDITIOUN"

$that/cj<_THAT

{\}

$/P13NM_HE

$get/vsjps13<P+{cond}_GETT $/vsjps13<P+{cond}_0

$/T_THE

$sight/n{rc}>pr_SICHT

$of/pr<n_OF

$friend/npl_FREIND+is $/pln_+is

$country/n_CUNTREY^T

In connective phrases which incorporate nominals, the degree of complexity varies considerably. However, the present system uses a tagging language which should allow these phrases to be grouped together, while at the same time indicating features which may be typologically relevant. The following example contains a connective phrase in the semantic role of purpose; the infinitive clauses are tagged as /vi-av:

$/P11N_j

$have/vps11<P+_HAWE

$send/vpp{psp}_SENT

$/Dis_THIS

$bear/n_BER+AR $-er/xs-n_+AR

{appositive}

$/P11G+C_*MY

$servant/n{app}_SERWANTT

{\}

{appositive}

'_jOHN^MA^KCAREYE $/n{app}_jOHN^MA^KCAREYE

$of/pr-cj>n-av-cj_OF

$purpose/n{rc}-av-cj>vi-av&vi-av_PURPOIS

$to/im+C_TO

$see/vi-av<n-av-cj_SIE

$/P02O_YOU

$both/aj<_BOTHE

$&/cj_AND

$to/im+C_TO

{\}

$bring/vi-av<n-av-cj_BRINGE

$/P11O_ME

$word/n_WOORD

{appositive}

$how/RX-n{app}_HOWE

$/T_THE

$true/aj_TREWE

$estate/n>pr_ESTAITT

$of/pr<n_OF

$/T_THE

$wood/npl>pr_WOOD+S $/pln>pr_+S

{\}

$of/pr<npl_OF

;_ABERNETHYE

$stand/vps13<cnp+_STAND+S $/vps13<cnp+_+S

A few connectives incorporating nouns have a focusing function (indicated using the comment {foc}) comparable to as regards, as to and as for:

$in/pr-cj_IN

$relation/n{rc}-av-pr{foc}>pr_RELATION

{\}

$to/pr+C<n-av-pr_TO

$/P02X_YOR-SELF $-self/xs-P_-SELF

As illustrated by a number of examples above, a preposition introducing a nominalization always has the string pr-cj (in the case of the preposition to, the first element of this string also contains information about whether the initial character in the following word is a consonant, a vowel or an h):

$so/av{ts}_*SO

$to{until}/pr+C-cj_TO

$meet/vn{rc}-av_MEET+ING $/vn{rc}-av_+ING

$/P11N_j

$remain/vps11<P+_REMAINE $/vps11<P+_0

{\}

$/P02G_*ZOUR

$very/av_VERIE

$assure/vpp-aj_ASSUR+ED $/vpp-aj_+ED

$friend/n_FRIND

There is one example of inconsistency in the indication of primary word-class. Instead of tagging connective phrases with a prepositional function, such as conform to, with the grammel /v-aj-pr>pr/pr-cj, only aj-pr>pr/pr-cj has been used.

$conform/aj-pr>pr-cj_CONFORM

$to/pr+H-cj<aj-pr_TO

$/P13GM_HIS

$promise/n{rc}-av_PROMEIS

However, participles have been indicated as a source for items such as conformand/conforming to, according to, etc.

$accord/vpsp-pr>pr-cj_ACCORD+ING $/vpsp-pr>pr-cj_+ING

$to/pr+C-cj<vpsp-pr_TO

$/P11G+V_MY

$intromission/n{rc}-av_INTROMISSION

Connectives with verb forms as their source, such as considering, have been tagged as conjunctions or prepositions according to the following criteria: categorization as conjunction is straightforward in cases with the complementizer that, as well as in cases in which there is an immediately following subject:

$consider/vpsp-cj{-c-d-tf-post}_CONSIDER+INGE $/vpsp-cj{-c-d-tf-post}_+INGE

$/P13NM_HE

$lie{place}/vps13<P+>pr_LY+ES $/vps13<P+>pr_+ES

$upon/pr<v_VPON

$/T_Y^E

$shore/n-av>pr_SHORE

$towards/pr<n-av_TOWARDis

$/Dis_THIS

$king/n_KING+DOME $-dom/xs-n_+DOME

In cases with the zero-complementizer, uses where considering introduces a structural realisation viewed as representing a high degree of nouniness have been analysed as prepositions:

$consider/vpsp-pr_CONSIDER+ING $/vpsp-pr_+ING

$how/RX-n_HOWE

$evil/aj_EWELL

$pay/npl_PAY\+ER+S $-er/xs-npl_+ER+S $/pln_+S

$/P23N_THEY

$be{n}/vps23<P+_AR

This analysis is based on the fact that considering introduces a nominal relative clause (cf. considering (that) they were evil payers: $consider/vpsp-cj).

Elements in multi-word connectives are always tagged separately, as illustrated by as soon as in the following example:

{zero pre}

$so/av>cj_SO

$soon/av-cj_SUNE

$as{time}/cj{pre}<av_AS

$/P02N_YEE

$can/vm_CAN

$dispatch/vi_DISPACH

{\}

$/P02G_YOUR

$a/pr>vi-npl_A+

$do/vi-npl_+DO+IS $/vi-pln_+IS

{.}

{zero post}

$haste/v-imp>pr_HEST

$/P02X_YOU

{zero xs-P}

$to/pr+C<v_TO

$/P11O-av_ME

$which/RN{sent}_QUHILK

$shall/vm_SALL

$be{n}/vi_BE

$as/av>cj_ALS

$soon/av-cj_SCHEUN

{zero cj{emb-post}<av}

$/P11N_j

$possible/av_POSS+ABLE $-able/xs-aj_+ABLE $-ly/xs-av_0

{\}

$can/vm_CAN

{zero vi}

The semantic role of polysemous items is specified by a comment in the lexel (see also $as{time}/ in the example above):

…

$without/cj{-c-emb-post}_VY^T-OUT

{zero that<}

$/P23N_THA

$get/vsjps23<P+{circ}_GEIT $/vsjps23<P+{circ}_0

$payment/n{rc}_PAY+MENT $-ment/xs-n{rc}_+MENT

{\}

$as{manner}/cj{d-emb-post}_AS

$/P02G_zOur

$grace/n{ho}_GRACE

$may/vm_MA

$well/av_WELL

$consider/vi_conSEDer

In clauses of result and purpose, the semantic comment is positioned in the lexel of that:

$/P21G_Our

$country/n_*COUNTRYE

$be{n}/vps13<n+>pr-cj_IS

$in/pr-cj<v_IN

$such/aj>cj_SUCH

$/A+V_AN

{\}

$extreme/aj_*EXTREAME

$want/n{rc}-av>pr_WANT

$of/pr<n-av_OF

$victual/npl_VICTUAL+LS $/pln_+LS

$that{result}/cj{non-ad}{post}<aj_THAT

$/P21N_WEE

$can/vm_CAN+

$not/neg<v_+NOT

{\}

$possible/av_POSSIB+LY $-ly/xs-av_+LY

$march/vi_MARCHE

$abroad/av_ABROAD

The lexel of as also has a semantic comment in infinitive clauses introduced by as to:

$if/cj{-c-pre}_IF

{zero that<}

$/P02G_YOUR

$lord/n{ho}_LO+P $-ship/xs-n{ho}_+P

{:}

$would/vm_WOULD

$be{n}/vi_BE

$so/av>cj_SO

$kind/aj_KINDE

$as{result}/cj{emb-post}<av>im_AS

$to/im+H<cj_TO

{\}

$honour/vi>pr-cj_HONOUR

$/P11O_ME

$with/pr-cj<vi_W^T

{.}

$/P02G_Y^R

{.}

$advice/n{rc}-av_ADVICE

In accordance with variationist principles, the pair that … as to has been tagged in the same way as so/such … that:

{zero pre}

$/P11G+C_MY

$lord/n{tl}>pr>vn_LORD

$of/pr<n_OF

;_*MUNTEIHE

{n&nG>vn}

$have/vn{rc}<n_HAU+EINGE $/vn{rc}<n_+EINGE

$do/vpp{psp}_DOWINE

$/P11O_ME

$/Dat>cj_YAT

{\}

$honour/n{rc}>vi&vi_HONO^R

$as/cj<Dat>im_AS

$to/im+C<cj_TO

$come/vi<n_CUM

$&/cj_AND

{zero im<cj}

$visit/vi<n_WISEITT

$/T_THE

$lodge/n_LOGE

$in/pr-cj_IN

$/P13GM_HIS

$go/vn{rc}-av_GO+INGE $/vn{rc}-av_+INGE

{\}

$home/n-av_HOME

$have/vps13<vncl+_HES

$make{cause}{lat}/vpp{psp}_MAIDE

$/P11O_ME

{zero im}

$write/vi{-im}-av>pr_WRYTT

$/Dis_THIS

$letter/n_LETTER

$unto/pr<vi-av_WNTO

{\}

$/P02G_YOUR

$lordship/n{ho}_LO

The absence of one of the units in two-unit conjunctions such as so that is also indicated:

$/P11N_j

$entreat{cause}{lat}/vps11<P+_INTREATE $/vps11<P+_0

{zero that/Oinf}

$/P02O_YOU

$cause{cause}/vsjps02<P+{nom}_CAUSE $/vsjps02<P+{nom}_0

{zero im}

$dispatch/vi{-im}-av>pr_DISPATCH

{\}

'_*PAULE

$to/pr+C<vi-av_TO

$/P11O_ME

$with/pr_WITH

'_jHON-*ROSSE+0 $/Gn_+0

$receipt/n-av_RECEIT

{,}

{zero av>cj}

$that{purpose}/cj{emb-post}<av_THAT

{\}

$/P11N_j

$be/vsjps11<P+{purpose}_BE $/vsjps11<P+{purpose}_0

$/neg<v_NOT

$keep/vpp{pass}_KEEP+ED $/vpp{pass}_+ED

$here/av_HERE

$to{purpose}/pr+C-cj_TO

$/neg-pn-aj+C_NO

$purpose/n{rc}-av_PUPOSE

A semantic analysis may sometimes result in two alternative readings; these are given in the lexel, separated by an et sign (&):

$so/av>cj_SO

$long/av-cj_LONG

$as{time&cond}/cj{post}<av_AS

$/P13NM_HE

$have{n}/vps13<P+_HES

$no/neg-pn-aj+V_NO

{-}

{\}

$employ/n{rc}_IMPLOY+MENT $-ment/xs-n{rc}_+MENT

$so/av>cj_SO

$long/av-cj_LONG

$as{time}/cj<av{emb-post}_AS

$/P11N_j

$live/vps11<P+{time}_LIUE

A semantic comment is also added to the grammel of the verb phrase to permit the retrieval of relevant data for the study of the subjunctive (see also the predicate verb in a clause of time in the previous example):

$although/cj{-c-pre}>av_ALTHOUGHT

{zero that<}

$duty/n_DEUTIE

$&/cj_AND

$obligation/n{rc}_OBLIGATION

{\}

$do/vsjpt{neg}{conc}>vi_DID

$/neg<v_NOT

$engage/vi<v_INGADGE

$/P11O_ME

$yet{conc}/av<cj_YETT

$gratitude/n{rc}_GRATITUDE

$oblige{cause}{lat}/vps13<n+_OBLIDG+ES $/vps13<n+_+ES

$/P11O_ME

$to/im+C_TO

$lay/vi-av>pr_LAY

{\}

$hold/n{rc}_HOLD

$on/pr<vi-av_ON

$every/pn-aj_EUERIE

$occasion/n_OCASION

…

$upon/pr-cj_VPON"

$/Dis_YIS

$condition/n{rc}-av-cj{c-post}_ConDITIOUN"

$that/cj<_THAT

{\}

$/P13NM_HE

$get/vsjps13<P+{cond}_GETT $/vsjps13<P+{cond}_0

$/T_THE

$sight/n{rc}>pr_SICHT

$of/pr<n_OF

$friend/npl_FREIND+is $/pln_+is

In cases in which the mood remains ambiguous, a comment is also added to the verb phrase in adverbial clauses of time. The user is reminded of the fact that the future aspect is not elaborated on in the present tagging system.

$before/cj{-c-emb-med}_BEFORE

{zero that<}

$/T_THE

$supply/npl_SUPPLY+Eis $/pln_+Eis

{\}

$come/vps23<npl+{time}_COME

In adverbial clauses of proportion the comment is positioned in the grammel of the predicate verb, and interrelatedness between the pair the … the is indicated by >T-cj and <T-cj:

$/T-cj>aj-cpv-av>T-cj_THE

$long/aj-cpv-av<T-cj_LONG+ER $-er/xs-aj-cpv-av<T-cj_+ER

$/P02G_YOUR

$lordship/n{ho}_*LO

{/}

$stay/vps13<n+{prop}>pr_STAY+ES $/vps13<n+{prop}>pr_+ES

$from/pr<v_FROM

$/P21O_VS

{,}

$/T-cj>av<T-cj_THE

$more/av<T-cj_MORE

{\}

$earnest/aj-cpv_EARNEST

{inversion>}

$be{n}/vps13>n+_IS

$/T_THE

$desire/n{rc}_DESYRE

…

$/T-cj>av-cpv>T-cj_THE

$long/av-cpv<T-cj_LONG+ER $-er/xs-av-cpv<T-cj_+ER

$/P13NI_IT

$be{n}/vps13<P+{prop}_BE+IS $/vps13<P+{prop}_+IS

$pay/vpp{pass}-aj_ON\-PAY+ED $un-/xp-vpp{pass}-aj_ON\- $/vpp{pass}-aj_+ED

$/P13NI_IT

$will/vm_WILL

$be{n}/vi_BE

$/T-cj>aj-cpv<T-cj_THE

$worse/aj-cpv<T-cj>_WORS

{zero S}

{zero v}

$for/pr<aj-cpv_FOR

{cancellation}

$/P21O_WS

Comments added to the grammel of a connective contain information about the presence or absence of a complementizer (c/-c); whether the grammatical function of the clause can be categorized as adjunct (defined as default and therefore untagged) or disjunct (d in the grammel) (cf. Quirk & al. 1985: §8.24); whether the clause is embedded (emb); whether it has topic-forming potential ({tf}); and what its position is with reference to the main clause (pre, med or post in a string of properties within curly brackets):

$&/cj{ts}_&

$see/vpsp-cj{-c-d-tf-pre}_SE+ING $/vpsp-cj{-c-d-tf-pre}_+ING

{zero that<}

$/T_THE

$chamberlain/n_CHALMERLAND

$take/vps13<n+{circ}_TAK+is $/vps13<n+{circ}_+is

$/P13GM_HIS

$maintenance/n{rc}_MANTEINNANS

As this example illustrates, following information about source (/vpsp) and discourse function (-cj), the properties in the comment are ordered in the following way:

presence/absence of a complementizer	c/-c
introducing a syntactically integrated/peripheral clause	untagged default/d
topic-forming/new information	tf/untagged default
position in a complex sentence	pre/med/post
zero complementizer	a tag-external comment

This system therefore provides information about zero complementizers both in the grammel and in a tag-external comment. The presence of a pleonastic that is signalled both in comments attached to conjunctions or the head of a connective phrase and by an arrow pointing backward:

$in/pr-cj_IN

$respect/n{rc}-av-cj{c-tf-pre}_RESPEKE

$that/cj<_THAT

Syntactically peripheral disjunct clauses are frequently introduced with the subordinator as:

$as{manner}/cj{d-post}_*AS

$/P02N_YOU

$will/vm_WILL

$perceive/vi_PERCEAUE

Topic-forming subordinate clauses, with {tf} attached to a comment in the grammel of the subordinator, usually refer to knowledge shared by the writer and the addressee, or refer to the writer's own personal circumstances, which can be seen as background information relevant for interpreting the point of his or her message:

$see/vpsp-cj{-c-d-tf-pre}_SE+ING $/vpsp-cj{-c-d-tf-pre}_+ING

{zero that<}

$/T_THE

$chamberlain/n_CHALMERLAND

$take/vps13<n+_TAK+is $/vps13<n+_+is

$/P13GM_HIS

$maintenance/n{rc}_MANTEINNANS

$for/cj{ts}{tf}_FOR

{\}

$/S_THERE

$be{n}/vps03<S+_IS

$/neg-aj+C_NO

$neighbour/n<S_NEIGHBOR

$or/cj_OR

$gentle/aj>n-k_GENTLE+

$man/n-k<aj<S_+MAN

$to/pr+C>R>v_TO

$who/RO{+h1}<pr>v_WHOM

$/P11N_j

$have{n}/vps11<P+<R<pr_HAUE

$/A+C_*A

{\}

$great/aj-cpv>cj_GREAT+ER $-er/aj-cpv>cj_+ER

$respect/n{rc}_RESPECT

$than/cj{emb-post}<aj-cpv_THEN

{zero S}

{zero v}

{zero pr}

$/P02X_YOUR-SELF $-self/xs-P_-SELF

$since{cause}/cj{-c-d-tf-post}_SINCE

$/P11N_j

$have{n}/vps11<P+_HAUE

$but/av_BUT

$half/aj_HALF

$/T_THE

$apprize/vn{rc}_*APPRIS+ING $/vn{rc}_+ING

Embeddedness is illustrated in the following example:

$for/cj{ts}_FOR

$/P11N_j

$think/vps11<P+_THINK $/vps11<P+_0

{zero that}

$/S_THER

$will/vm_WILL

$be{n}/vi_BE

$above/av_ABOUE

$12/qc_TUELF

$1000/qc_THOWSAND

$mark/nqpl_MERK+S $/plnq_+S

{\}

$rest/vpsp{prog}_REST+ING $/vpsp{prog}_+ING

$/P13OM_HIM

$if/cj{-c-emb-post}_IF

{zero that<}

$/S_THER

$be{n}/vsjps13<S+{cond}_BE $/vsjps13<S+{cond}_0

$/neg<v_NOT

$more/nq_MORE

As elsewhere in the tagging system, relations between items in multi-unit connectives are indicated, even though one of these may be a zero-realisation:

$which/RN{sent}_QUHILK

$shall/vm_SALL

$be{n}/vi_BE

$as/av>cj_ALS

$soon/av-cj_SCHEUN

{zero cj{emb}<av}

$/P11N_j

$possible/av_POSS+ABLE $-able/xs-aj_+ABLE $-ly/xs-aj-av_0

{\}

$can/vm_CAN

{zero vi}

$as{manner}/cj{d-emb-post}_AS

$/P02G_YOUR

{.}

$lordship/n{ho}_LO

{:}

$command/vpt_*COMMAND+IT $/vpt_+IT

$/P11O_ME

In this example, as soon is part of the variational pattern as/so soon as, and the absence of a complementizer and the correlative pair as … as are indicated by the tag-external comment {zero cj{emb}<av}.

Connectives containing nouns such as time, while, moment, etc. have been tagged as adverbial subordinators; however, their tags also permit them to be retrieved as data for the investigation of relative structures (see Brinton 2007).

$unto{until}/pr+C_VNTO

$/T_THE

$time/n-av-cj{-c-post}_TYME

{zero that<}

{cj&R{time}}

$/P21N_WE

$receive/vps21<P+{time}_RECIUE $/vps21<P+{time}_0

$/P02G_zOUR

{/}

$lordship/nG{ho}_LO $/Gn{ho}_0

{/}

$answer/n{rc}>pr_ANSUR

$to/pr+C<n_TO

$/Dis_THIS

$letter/n_LETTER

The tag-external comment {cj&R{time}} allows the user to find all these instances (cf. the discussion of relative pronouns in Section 3.3.6).

Inversion may indicate subordination, especially in conditional clauses. The retrieval of these is made possible by the tag-external comment {inversion indicating subordination>}, which is positioned at the beginning of the subordinate clause:

{inversion indicating subordination>}

$be{n}/vsjpt13>S-{cond}_WAR

{zero formal S}

$/neg<v_NOCHT

{zero that<S}

$/P11G+C_MY

$lady/n{tl}_LADY

{\}

$/P11G+C_MY

{cancellation}

$mother/n_MOTHER

$be{n}/vpt13<n+_WAS

$so/av>cj_SO

$set/vpp{pass}-aj>pr_SETT

$against/pr<vpp-aj_AGAINST

$/P11O_ME

{,}

$that{result}/cj{emb-post}<av_THAT

$/P13GF_HIR

{\}

$ladyship/n{ho}_LL

…

The data shows that adverbs and conjunctions may be categorially fuzzy in certain contexts. For example, only can be replaced by the conjunctions except (that) and but. This use of only has been tagged as /av-cj:

$/P11N_J

$bless/vps11<P+_BLISSE $/vps11<P+_0

$/T_THE

$lord/n{ecc}_LORD

{zero that}

$/P13NF_SHEE

{\}

$&/cj_AND

$/P13GF_HIR

$child/npl_CHILDREEN

$be{n}/vps23<P&npl+>pr-cj_IS

$now/av_NOW

$in/pr-cj<v_IN

$health/n{rc}-av_HEALTH

$only/av-cj{-c-emb-post}_ONLIE

{zero that<}

$/P13GF_HIR

$young/aj_YONGE

$daughter/n_DOUCH\TER

{ins}

$be{n}/vps13<cnp+_IS

{ins}

$still/av_STILL

$weak/aj_WEAKE

Co-occurring conjunction + adverb collocates can be retrieved using the pairs of arrows between the units:

$as/cj>av_AS

$likeways/av<cj_LYKWAYIS

$or/cj>av_OR

$else/av<cj_ELS

$as{manner}/cj>av_AS

$also/av<cj_ALSO

$before/cj>av_BEFORE

$ever/av<cj_EVER

Concessive elements in attributive position are indicated by /aj-cj:

$/P23N_THEY

$be{n}/vpt23<P+_WER

$convince/vpp-aj>cj_COnVINC+ED $/vpp-aj>cj_+ED

$that/cj<vpp-aj_THAT

{\}

$whatsoever{conc}/aj-cj{emb-pre}>av_WHAT-SOEUER

$course/n_COURSE

$be/vsjpt13<n+{conc}_WER

$take/venpp{pass}_TAK+EN $/venpp{pass}_+EN

$yet{conc}/av<aj-cj_YET

{fronted S{emb}>}

$/A+C_A

$trial/n_TRYAL

{zero formal S}

$be{n}/vps13<S-_IS

$necessary/aj_NECESSAIR

$to/im+C_TO

{\}

$proceed/vi<S_PRO?CEEDE

In the following examples, since the complementizer in the nominal that-clause complementation of the participial adjective contented is interpreted as having been repeated (indicated by >cj and <cj in the grammels of the instances of that), the comment {emb-post} has been inserted, which – as with the preceding one – contains an attributive concessive element:

$&/cj_AND

$/P23N_THEY

$will/vm_VIL+

$be{n}/vi_+BE

{ins}

$ever/av_EUER

$content/vpp-aj>cj_CONTENT+ED $/vpp-aj>cj_+ED

{,}

$that/cj<vpp-aj>cj_THAT

$whatsoever{conc}/aj-cj{emb-pre}_QUHAT+SUM\+EUER

$question/npl{rc}_QUESTION+S $/pln{rc}_+S

$may/vm_MAY

$or/cj_OR

$can/vm_CAN

$arise/vi_ARYSS

$amongst/pr_AMOnGST

{\}

$/P21O-av_VS

{,}

$that/cj{non-ad}<vpp-aj<cj_THAT

{zero emb-post}

$friend/npl_FREIND+S $/pln_+S

$shall/vm_SHALL

{character cancelled}

$be{n}/vi_BE

$judge/npl>pr_jUDG+EIS $/pln>pr_+EIS

{\}

{ins}

$to/pr+C<npl_TO

$/P23O_THAEM

As illustrated elsewhere in this section, frequently co-occurring combinations of adverbs and conjunctions have been viewed as correlative pairs, and arrows attached to their grammels indicate the relationships between them.

$/P11N_j

$entreat{cause}{lat}/vps11<P+_INTREATE $/vps11<P+_0

$/P02G_YOUR

$lord/n{ho}_LO+P $-ship/xs-n{ho}_+P

{:}

$/neg>av>cj_NOT

{\}

$only/av>av_ONLIE

$to/im+C_TO

$persuade/vi-av>pr_PERSWADE

$/P02X<_YOUR-SELF $-self/xs-P_-SELF

$of/pr<vi-av_OF

$/T_THE

$contrary/aj-n_CONTRARIE

{,}

$but/cj<neg_*BUT

$also/av<av_ALSO

$/T_THE

$general/n_*GENNERALL

(The negation associated with the conjunction but in the preceding example is also found in other contexts.)

$so/av-cj_SO

$that{result}/cj{post}<av_THAT

$when/cj{-c-emb-pre}>Dat-av_Q^N

{zero that<}

{\}

$/P23N_THEY

$have/vps23<P+_HAUE

$conclude/vpp{psp}_CONCLUD+IT $/vpp{psp}_+IT

{,}

$thereafter/Dat-av<cj>pr_THER+EFTER $after/pr<Dat-av<cj_+EFTER

$/T_THE

$2/qc_TOO

$house/npl{coll}>pr_HOUS+ES $/pln{coll}>pr_+ES

$of/pr<npl_OF

$parliament/n_*PARLIAMENT

$will/vm_WILL

$all/pn-av_ALL

$meet/vi_MEIT

{\}

$together/av_TOGOTHER

$although/cj{-c-pre}>av_ALTHOUGHT

{zero that<}

$duty/n_DEUTIE

$&/cj_AND

$obligation/n{rc}_OBLIGATION

{\}

$do/vsjpt{neg}{conc}>vi_DID

$/neg<v_NOT

$engage/vi<v_INGADGE

$/P11O_ME

$yet{conc}/av<cj_YETT

$gratitude/n{rc}_GRATITUDE

$oblige{cause}{lat}/vps13<n+_OBLIDG+ES $/vps13<n+_+ES

$/P11O_ME

$to/im+C_TO

$lay/vi-av>pr_LAY

{\}

$hold/n{rc}_HOLD

$on/pr<vi-av_ON

$every/pn-aj_EUERIE

$occasion/n_OCASION

$but/cj{ts}_*BOT

$/P11N_j

$hope/vps11<P+_HOPE $/vps11<P+_0

{zero that}

$as{cause}/cj{emb-pre}>av_AS

$/P13NM_HE

{\}

$be{n}/vpt13<P+_WAS

$ever/av_EUER

$ready/aj>vi_READIE

$to/im+V_TO

$extend/vi<aj>pr-cj_EXTENDE

$all/pn_ALL

{,}

{inversion indicating subordination>}

$be{n}/vsjpt13>P+{conc}_WERE

$/P13NI_IT

$to/pr+C-cj_TO

$/T_THE

$sacrifice/vn{rc}>pr>pr-cj_SACRIFFIC+INGE $/vn{rc}>pr>pr-cj_+INGE

$of/pr<vn_OF

$/P13GM_HIS

$life/n{rc}_LIFE

$in/pr-cj<vn_IN

{\}

$/P13GM_HIS

$prince/nG{ho}_*PRINC+IS $/Gn{ho}_+IS

$service/n{rc}_SARVICE

{;}

$so/av<cj_*SOE

$/S_IT

$will/vm_WILL

$please/vi_PLEASS

$/P13GM_HIS

$majesty/n{ho}_*MA^T^I^E

{:}

$to/im+C_TO

$cast/vi<S>pr_CAST

$/A+C_A

$gracious/aj_GRAT+IOUS $-ous/xs-aj_+IOUS

$&/cj_AND

{\}

$favour/aj_FAUOR+ABLE $-able/xs-aj_+ABLE

$aspect/n_ASPECT

$upon/pr<vi_VPON

$/P13GM_HIS

$posterity/n_POSTERITIE

In correlative pairs, the system follows the principle that the variational pattern can be identified irrespective of which units in it are explicitly realised and which remain implicit. As explained elsewhere, the concept of zero-realisation is used to provide information about a range of elaborated and reduced realisations which are recorded in the data. Thus, 'zero' does not suggest that a unit has been omitted, nor that the elaborated realisations can be viewed as 'full variants'. The tag-external comment {zero cj<cj} in the following example categorizes the correlative pair as part of the inventory of either – or (else):

$for/cj{ts}_FOR

$/P11N_j

$shall/vm_SHALL

$either/cj>cj_EITHER

$make{cause}{lat}/vi_MAK

$/O_IT

{\}

{zero im}

$appear/vi{-im}-av_APPEARE

{,}

{(}

$to/pr+C-cj_TO

$/P11G+C_MY

$grief/n{rc}-av>pr-cj_GREIF

$for/pr-cj<n-av_FOR

$/P11G+C_MY

$cousin/nG_*COUSIN+ES $/Gn_+ES

$carriage/n{rc}_MIS+CARIAGE $mis-/xp-n{rc}_MIS+

{)}

$that/cj<O_THAT

$/P13NM_HE

$have/vps13<P+_HATH

{\}

$extreme/av_EXTREAM+LIE $-ly/xs-av_+LIE

$wrong/vpp{psp}_WRONG+ED $/vpp{psp}_+ED

$/P11O_ME

{,}

$&/cj_AND

$neglect/vpp{psp}_NEGLECT+ED $/vpp{psp}_+ED

$/P13GM_HIS

$own/aj_OWNE

$duty/n_DUETY

{,}

{zero cj<cj>av}

$else/av<cj_ELSE

$let{allow}{lat}/vi_LET

$/neg<v_NOT

{\}

$/P11G+C_MY

$name/n_NAME

{zero im}

$be/vi{-im}_BE

$inscribe/vpp{pass}>pr_INSCRYB+ED $/vpp{pass}>pr_+ED

$amongst/pr<v_AMONGST

$/Des-n-av>pr_THESE

$of/pr<Des-n-av_OF

$cavalier/npl_*CAVILEIR+IS $/pln_+IS

$yet{conc}/av{ts}_zIT

$if/cj{-c-pre}_IFF

{zero that<}

$/P11N_j

$get/vsjps11<P+{cond}_GET $/vsjps11<P+{cond}_0

{\}

$/P02G_zOur

$will/n{rc}_WILL

{zero post}

$/P11N_j

$hope/vps11<P+_HOIP $/vps11<P+_0

$to/im+C_TO

$give/vi_GIWE

$/P13GF_HIR

{/}

$ladyship/n{ho}_LL

{/}

$content/n{rc}>pr_COnTENT+MEnT $-ment/xs-n{rc}>pr_+MEnT

$in/pr<n_IN

$conscience/n_COnSCIENS

TEXT-STRUCTURING CONNECTIVES

Another important feature of the tagging system is that text-structuring connectives are distinguished from clause-level ones. By far the most common text-structuring connective is the conjunction and, or its variant &. Moreover, the user is reminded of the general principle of indicating zero-realisation using tag-external comments in the case of the text-structuring connectives and, but, for and so. The comment {zero pre} is positioned at the beginning of a sentence, while {zero post} precedes those main clauses in sentence-final position that are not introduced by a logical connector (e.g. so, yet, then, therefore, etc.). A zero-realisation may also occur in an embedded clause ({zero emb-pre}{zero emb-post}).

$but/cj{ts}_*BOT

$when/cj{-c-pre}_QN

{zero that<}

$/P02N_zE

$travel/vps02<P+_*TRAVEL $/vps02<P+_0

{zero post}

$/P11N_j

{\}

$will/vm_WILL

$desire{cause}{lat}/vi_DESYRE

$/P02O_YOW

$earnest/av_EARNEST+LYE $-ly/xs-av_+LYE

$to/im+C_TO

$travel/vi-av_TRAVELL

$but/av_BOT

$by/pr_BY

$easy/aj_EAS+IE $-y/xs-aj_+IE

$journey/npl-av_JORNAY+S $/pln-av_+S

{zero pre}

{fronted O>}

$all/pn-aj_ALL

$other/pn-aj_WDer

$novel/npl_NOVEL+LIS $/pln_+LIS

$/P11N_j

{\}

$refer/vps11<P+>pr-cj_REFAR $/vps11<P+>pr-cj_0

$to{until}/pr+V-cj<v_TO

$/P21G_W^R

$meet/vn{rc}-av_MET+YNG $/vn{rc}-av_+YNG

$&/cj{ts}_AND

$/P11N_j

{zero do}

$doubt/vps11<P+_DOUBT $/vps11<P+_0

$/neg<v>cj_NOT

$but/cj<neg_BUT

$when/cj{-c-emb-pre}_WHEN

{zero that<}

$/T_THE

$bargain/n{rc}_BARGANE

$be/vps13<n+{time}_IS

$end/vpp{pass}_END+ED $/vpp{pass}_+ED

{\}

{zero emb-post}

$/P02N_YOU

$will/vm_WILL

$of/pr>P_OF

$/P02X<<pr_YOUR-SELF $-self/xs-P_-SELF

$give/vi_GIUE

$more/nq>cj_MORE

$nor{comp}/cj{emb-post}<nq_NOR

$/P11N_j

$can/vm_CAN

$expect/vi>pr_EXPECT

$from/pr<vi_FROM

{\}

$any/pn-aj_ANY

$friend/npl_FRIND+S $/pln_+S

$&/cj{ts}_AND

$in/pr-cj_IN

$respect/n{rc}-av-cj{c-tf-pre}>av_RESPEKE

$that/cj<_THAT

$/P02G_zOUR

$lordship/n{ho}_LO

{/}

$have/vps13<n+_HES

$/neg<v_NOT

$receive/vpp{psp}_RECEV+IT $/vpp{psp}_+IT

$/Dai_THOSE

{\}

$letter/npl_LETTER+S $/pln_+S

{,}

$therefore/Dat-av>pr<n-av-cj_THER-FORE $for/pr<Dat-av<n-av-cj_-FORE

$/P11N_j

$will/vm_WILL

$write/vi_WREAT

$what/pn-aj_QUHAT

$course/n_*COURS

$/P21N_WE

$desire/vps21<P+_DESYRE $/vps21<P+_0

The marking of zero-realisations is in accordance with the general principle that these are considered full members of variational paradigms recorded in the data.

$&/cj{ts}_AND

$/P11N_j

{zero do}

$doubt/vps11<P+_DOUBT $/vps11<P+_0

$/neg<v>cj_NOT

$but{except}/cj{-c-post}<neg_BUT

$when/cj{-c-emb-pre}_WHEN

{zero that<}

$/T_THE

$bargain/n{rc}_BARGANE

$be/vps13<n+{time}_IS

$end/vpp{pass}_END+ED $/vpp{pass}_+ED

{\}

{zero emb-post}

$/P02N_YOU

$will/vm_WILL

$of/pr>P_OF

$/P02X<<pr_YOUR-SELF $-self/xs-P_-SELF

$give/vi_GIUE

$more/nq>cj_MORE

$nor{comp}/cj<nq{emb-post}_NOR

$/P11N_j

$can/vm_CAN

$expect/vi>pr_EXPECT

$from/pr<vi_FROM

{\}

$any/pn-aj_ANY

$friend/npl_FRIND+S $/pln_+S

Neither occurs as a text-structuring connective representing the fuzzy category /av-cj in the data:

$neither/neg-av-cj{ts}>neg-cj_NATHER

{inversion>}

$do/vps11>P+{neg}>vi_DOE $/vps11>P+{neg}>vi_0

$/P11N_j

$value/vi<v_VALEW

$/P11G+V_MY

{\}

$imprison/n{rc}_IMPRISO+MENT $-ment/xs-n{rc}_+MENT

$nor/neg-cj<neg-av-cj_NOR

$any/pn-aj>n-pn>R_ANY

$thing/n-pn<pn-aj_THING

$that/RO{y0}<pn-aj_THAT

$malice/n{rc}_MALICE

$can/vm_CAN

$do/vi>pr_DOE

$to/pr+C<vi_TO

{\}

$/P11O_ME

The most frequent adverbs categorized as having a text-structuring function in the CSC data are: so, otherwise, likewise, always, yet, therefore and now.

$otherways/av{ts}_WTHERVAYIS

{\}

$/T>qc-pn_THE

$one/qc-pn<T>pn_ANE

$may/vm_MEY

$prejudice/vi_PREIUDICE

$/T>pn_THE

$other/pn<T<qc-pn_WTHER

{/}

$as{manner}/cj{d-post}_AS

{zero formal S}

$be{n}/vpt13<S-_WAS

{zero pr}

$fern/aj>n-av_FERN+

$year/n-av<aj_+zIER

MINOR TYPES

The tagging system permits the retrieval of linking devices which do not fall into the main categories of conjunctions and adverbs by the addition of the element cj to features of the following kind:

$/P11N_j

$be{n}/vps11<P+_AM

$afraid/aj>cj_AFFRAYED

{zero that<aj}

$/P13NM_HE

$be{n}/vsjps13<P+{nom}_BE $/vsjps13<P+{nom}_0

$/neg-pn-aj+C_NO

$scholar/n_SCHOLLER

{,}

$/neg-cj{c-post}_NOT

{\}

$that/cj<_THAT

$/P13NM_HE

$lack/vsjps13<P+{conc}_LAICKE $/vsjps13<P+{conc}_0

$ingeny/n{rc}_jNGEINE

The subordinate clause has been interpreted as concessive.

As with infinitive clauses following nominal heads, the semantic properties of adjectives are taken into account in tagging adjective complementation. Thus, infinitives following modal adjectives such as able and ready are tagged as /vi-av to suggest adverbhood:

$have/vpsp{co}_*HAV+EING $/vpsp{co}_+EING

$at/pr>n-av_AT

$least/n-av<pr_LEAST

{cancellation}

!_2500

$horse/n{coll}_HORSE

$&/cj_AND

$foot/n{coll}_FOOTE

{~}

{\}

$ready/aj-av>vi-av_READY

$to/im+V_TO

$enter/vi-av<aj-av>pr_ENTER

$into/pr<vi_INTO

;_*LECALL

This practice permits full coverage of the variational pattern, including such constructions as they are ready for entering, ready to enter and ready so that they can enter.

In absolute clauses, the tagging practice reflects the variation between those with an explicit subordinator, mostly with or without, and those with a zero-subordinator:

{zero cj}

$/P11G+C_*MY

$lord/n{tl}_*LORD

$/P11G+C_MY

$father/n_*FATHER

{,}

$have/vpsp-av{abs}_HAV+ING $/vpsp-av{abs}_+ING

$take/vpp{psp}_TANE

$occasion/n>vi-av_OCCASION

{,}

$to/im+C_TO

$direct/vi-av<n>pr_DERECT

{\}

$/Dis_THIS

$bear/n_BEAR+ER $-er/xs-n_+ER

$to/pr+C<vi_TO

$court/n-av_*COWRT

It should be mentioned that letter-closing formulae consisting of a participle clause expressing a wish followed by I rest and the signature are analysed as coordinate clauses in the present system ('I hope that … and rest'):

$hope/vpsp{co}_HOP+EING $/vpsp{co}_+EING

$that/cj_THAT

$/P02N_YOU

$will/vm_WILL

$take/vi_TAKE

$/T_THE

$pain/npl_PAYN+ES $/pln_+ES

$as/{purpose}/cj{emb-post}>im_AS

$to/im+C<cj_TO

$go/vi-av_GO

$/Dat_THAT

{\}

$length/n-av_LENGTH

$to/im+C_TO

$see{lat}/vi-av_SIE

$/P13OI_IT

$sell/vpp{pass}-av_SOLD

{zero post}

$/P11N_j

$rest/vps11<P+_REST $/vps11<P+_0

The tagging of connectives reflects the continua of clause linkage presented in Lehmann (1988), and therefore close attention has been paid to compressed realisations in the variational patterns of adverbial clauses. The following example shows that constructions in which a finite verb (entreat below) is followed by a pronoun which can be analysed either as nominative or oblique (you below) and an uninflected verb form (cause below) remain ambiguous; the alternative readings are 'entreat you [to] cause' and 'entreat that you cause':

$/P11N_j

$entreat{cause}{lat}/vps11<P+_INTREATE $/vps11<P+_0

{zero that/Oinf}

$/P02O_YOU

$cause{cause}/vsjps02<P+{nom}_CAUSE $/vsjps02<P+{nom}_0

{zero im}

$dispatch/vi{-im}-av>pr_DISPATCH

{\}

'_*PAULE

$to/pr+C<vi-av_TO

$/P11O_ME

$with/pr_WITH

'_jHON-*ROSSE+0 $/Gn_+0

$receipt/n-av_RECEIT

Here, the tagging reflects the interpretation of this construction as a nominal that-clause (with that-deletion) in which the predicate verb is in the subjunctive. The comment {zero that/Oinf} permits the retrieval of all these ambiguous cases.

For further information on the tagging of connectives, see Meurman-Solin (2004a, 2004b, 2007).

References

Brinton, Laurel J. 2007. 'Rise of the adverbial conjunctions {any, each, every} time'. In: Connectives in the History of English, ed. Ursula Lenker and Anneli Meurman-Solin. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 283). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 77-96.

Lehmann, Christian 1988. 'Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage'. In: Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, ed. John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson. (Typological Studies in Language, 18). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 181-225.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli 2004a. 'From Inventory to Typology in English Historical Dialectology'. In: New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics, Volume I: Syntax and Morphology, ed. Christian Kay, Simon Horobin and Jeremy Smith. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 125-151.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli 2004b. 'Towards a Variationist Typology of Clausal Connectives. Methodological Considerations Based on the Corpus of Scottish Correspondence'. In: Methods and Data in English Historical Dialectology, ed. Marina Dossena and Roger Lass. (Linguistic Insights. Studies in Language and Communication, 16). Bern: Peter Lang, 171-197.

Meurman-Solin, Anneli 2007. 'Annotating variational space over time'. In: Annotating variation and change, ed. Anneli Meurman-Solin and Arja Nurmi. eVARIENG Series, Vol. 1. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/index.html