John Benjamins Publishing Company
This is a contribution from Insubordination.
Edited by Nicholas Evans and Honoré Watanabe.
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
This electronic file may not be altered in any way.
The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to
be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible
to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post
this PDF on the open internet.
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
chapter 15
Routes to insubordination
A cross-linguistic perspective
Sonia Cristofaro
University of Pavia
Cross-linguistic data suggest that we still know relatively little on the possible
origins of insubordination, that is, what source constructions give rise to
particular types of insubordinate clauses, through what mechanisms, and why.
Insubordinate clauses can develop through a wider range of mechanisms than
assumed so far, and many clause types are actually compatible with different
developmental mechanisms and source constructions. Also, the various
mechanisms are quite different in nature, and do not exclusively apply to
subordinate clauses. This suggests that insubordination might actually be a result
of several different processes pertaining to clause combining in general, rather
than a unified process specifically pertaining to subordination.
1. Introduction
The notion of insubordination is usually used in the literature in order to refer both to
a synchronic pattern whereby an independent clause is structurally similar to a subordinate one, and a diachronic process that assumedly gives rise to this pattern, one
whereby a former subordinate clause comes to be used independently. While several
instances of the synchronic pattern have now been described for different languages,
the diachronic process has received comparatively less attention. Evans (2007) and
Mithun (2008) propose two general mechanisms leading to a former subordinate
clause being used independently, the ellipsis of the main clause in a complex sentence
and the extension of the subordinate clause from certain types of complex sentences to
other contexts where it has similar pragmatic properties, but is used with no accompanying main clause. These proposals, however, have not really been tested against
the various types of insubordination patterns that have been reported in the literature, and no comprehensive proposal has been put forward about the possible source
doi 10.1075/tsl.115.15cri
© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
 Sonia Cristofaro
c­ onstructions for these patterns. Also, as will be shown throughout the chapter, in
many cases there are several mechanisms and source constructions that could in principle give rise to a particular pattern, and no attempt has been made to find out which
of these are actually responsible for the process.
The aim of this chapter is to provide a cross-linguistic perspective on the possible
origins of insubordination, with particular focus on what mechanisms and source
constructions could be involved in the development of particular insubordination
patterns, the relationship between insubordination and similar phenomena involving
non-subordinate clauses, and the difference between insubordination and a number of
superficially similar patterns. This enterprise is inevitably affected by the fragmentary
nature of the available evidence, in that insubordination patterns have been reported
only for a limited number of languages, descriptions often pick only some of the patterns that actually exist in the language, and there usually is no investigation of how
particular patterns developed in a language. Data from reference grammars of different languages, however, will be combined with more detailed conversational data from
languages such as English, German, Japanese, and Italian.1
By insubordination will be meant, in a maximally general sense, any pattern
where an independent clause is structurally similar to a subordinate one and can be
assumed to have originated from some uses of the latter (a number of possibly problematic cases will be discussed throughout the chapter where appropriate). While this
definition is similar to previous ones provided in the literature (see Evans 2007, as
well as the early discussion in Couper-Kuhlen 1996), it will be shown that the relevant
patterns can originate through a variety of different mechanisms, including ellipsis,
extension, and a further mechanism to be discussed in §2.3, clausal disengagement.
These mechanisms all lead to a former subordinate clause being used independently,
but they are rather different in nature, and in some cases individual patterns could
be a result of multiple mechanisms, applying to different constructions and responsible for different instances of the pattern. Also, some mechanisms are by no means
restricted to contexts involving a main clause and a subordinate clause, but also apply
to other types of relationships between clauses. All this suggests that, contrary to
what is traditionally assumed, insubordination patterns might not reflect a unified
phenomenon, nor one specifically pertaining to subordinate clauses. Rather, these
patterns are best regarded as a result of a variety of processes pertaining to clause
combining in general.
. The English, German, and Japanese examples are taken from published sources, while the
Italian examples, unless specified otherwise, come from sentences uttered by my partner or
myself over the period 2012–2014.
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
2. Different mechanisms leading to insubordination
So far, two major mechanisms have been proposed that give rise to insubordinate
clauses. One, proposed by Evans (2007), is an ellipsis mechanism through which a main
clause is omitted in a complex sentence, and the subordinate clause takes on the meaning
originally associated with the sentence as a whole. The other mechanism, proposed by
Mithun (2008), is an extension mechanism through which a subordinate clause comes
to be used in contexts involving no main clauses because of some perceived similarity
between these contexts and the original contexts of occurrence of the subordinate clause.
In what follows, these two mechanisms will be reviewed, and yet another mechanism will be proposed, clausal disengagement. Through this mechanism, clauses displaying a number of independent clause-like properties become disengaged from a
co-occurring clause, leading to their being used in isolation.
2.1 E
llipsis
The ellipsis hypothesis provides a natural explanation for a number of cases where an
independent clause is structurally related to a subordinate clause used in a complex
sentence with the same meaning. One well-described such pattern (see Evans 2007 for
examples and discussion) is the expression of various types of modal meanings (such
as wishes, requests, commands, obligation or possibility) by means of independent
clauses structurally identical to subordinate ones used in complex sentences with the
same meanings. This is illustrated by the Lango subjunctive clauses in (1), which are
used as first person dual and plural imperatives as well as complements of ‘let’ verbs.
Lango (Nilo-Saharan)
˛
(1)(a)Òyeŋ
cὲm
1du.look.for.subjfood
‘Let’s (the two of you) look for food’
(Noonan 1992: 144)
(b)
Wɛ̌k
òkélò òcɛ̌m!
2sg.let.impOkelo3sg.eat.subj
‘Let Okelo eat!’
(Noonan 1992: 223)
In such cases, it is plausible that the subordinate clause took on the meaning originally
associated with the complex sentence as a whole as a result of the recurrent ellipsis of
the main clause.
A more complex case is provided by patterns such as the one illustrated in (2)
for Agul. In this language, as described in Kalinina (2011), the same verb forms can
be used for conditional clauses (2a), indirect questions (2b), and indipendent degree
exclamative clauses (2c), that is, clauses conveying the speaker’s surprise at the fact that
some state of affairs is on the extreme of a scale (Michaelis 2001).
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Sonia Cristofaro
Agul (North Caucasian)
(2)(a)Naq’uʁu-naj-či,
yesterdayrain.pfv-res.pres-cond
iǯexa-s-ij.
goodbecome-impfv.inf-cop.past
‘It would have been good if it had rained yesterday.’(Kalinina 2011: 186)
(b)
Ge fi-daħaniǯe ilsane-j-či
thatwhat-ptclgoodmancop-conv-cond
agwa-wawa-s?
see.impfv.pres-q2sg-dat
‘Do you see what a good man he is?’
(Kalinina 2011: 186)
(c)Gi
fišt:ifurs-ar
aq’u-naj-či!
that.erghowarrogance-pldo.pfv-res.pres-cond
‘How arrogant he is!’
(Kalinina 2011: 187)
As degree exclamative clauses do not have any interrogative or conditional meaning, it
is difficult to account for this pattern by postulating a direct relationship between these
clauses and complex sentences involving indirect questions or conditional clauses. A
possible source, however, is provided by a rather specific type of constructions where
indirect questions are introduced by a perception verb. Such constructions can be used
to convey the message that the content of the indirect question is on the extreme of a
scale, that is, sententes such as ‘Do you see if X Verbs?’, ‘See if X Verbs!’, or ‘You will
see if X Verbs’ are used to convey meanings such as ‘X really Verbs’, or ‘X doesn’t Verb
at all’. This is the case in the Agul sentence in (2c) or in English expressions such as
‘See if I care’. As this is also the meaning of degree exclamative clauses, it is possible
that the structural similarity between these clauses and indirect questions is due to the
fact that the former develop from indirect questions introduced by a perception verb
through the ellipsis of the main clause, as also hinted by Kalinina (2011: 186–7) for
Agul. Degree exclamative clauses need not involve any perception meaning, but this is
easily explained by assuming that this meaning is bleached during the process. If the
construction used for indirect questions is the same used for conditional clauses, as is
the case in Agul, English, and other languages, then the resulting exclamative clauses
will be structurally identical to conditional clauses, though the latter are not directly
involved in the process. This might in fact be the explanation for other cases reported
in the literature where degree exclamative clauses have the same form as conditional
clauses, as in Turkana, illustrated in (3) below.2
. As the source (Dimmendaal 1982) only provides limited information on indirect questions
in Turkana, it it is not clear whether this is the case for this language in particular, though.
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
Turkana (Nilo-Saharan)
(3)(a)K-è-per`!
cond-3-sleep
‘What a sleep!’
(Lit. ‘If they sleep!’: Dimmendaal 1982: 189)
(b)
K-ὲ-ra-i`tɔ-ɑɲ-ᴜ̥ŋi-tùrkanà
cond-3-be-asp3-see-vent-pl pl-Turkana
‘If the Turkanas were to get any money’
(Dimmendaal 1982: 397)
2.2 E
xtension
The extension hypothesis has been proposed by Mithun (2008) in order to account for a
pattern whereby an independent clause structurally similar to a subordinate one is used
to provide background or stage setting information with regard to a stretch of adjacent
discourse. This pattern has now been described for several languages across different
families, and is illustrated in examples (4)–(8) below (when the sentence consists of
several clauses, the relevant ones are marked in boldface in the English translation).
In the Navajo clause in (4), for example, the enclitic =go, normally used in adverbial clauses and some types of complement clauses, is used in an independent clause
providing background commentary on the main storyline.
Navajo (Na-Dene)
(4)Nídę́ę
́ éí náshdóí=tsohakǫ́ǫ́ ch’éé-Ø-l-wod=lą́.Éí
then thatwildcat=big thitherout.horizontally-3s-cl-run=mirthat
shį́í ̨
ƚééchą=íshį́í ̨bi-ná-ji-l-zid=go
probablydog=nomlzprobably3-about-4.s-cl-fear.pfv=dep
‘That mountain lion ran. I guess it was afraid of the dogs.’(Mithun 2008: 82)
In Deg Xinag (Hargus (n.d.)), the suffixes -ihn and -di are used in relative clauses,
adverbial clauses, and independent clauses encoding information parenthetical to the
main storyline, as in (5a), or stage setting information, as in (5b), where the pack being
lowered down from the open hole sets the subsequent event in motion.
Deg Xinag (Na-Dene)
(5)(a)Ngiyixicheqatrith neg xiday.
Łeq’ath tl’idz yan’
down toomoccasinsnicesomewherefish.skinblackonly
yeniyagh-inh.
ingrow.up-rel
‘Down there were nice moccasins too. (Meanwhile) she had grown up
in only black fish skin.’(Hargus (n.d.))
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Sonia Cristofaro
(b)
Eyggiyvighal xilegoqul, guq’o yiɬ.Axaxiɬdik,ngidugg
thathis.pack
evid absentarrowtoothen
up
xizronchexaɬxiyetidlts’ok-di
evid
packit.started.to.be.lowered.inside-sub
‘They noticed his packsack and arrows were gone. Then a pack was
being lowered down from that open hole.’(Hargus (n.d.))
In Kuku Yalanji (Patz 2002), the so-called unmarked form of the verb is used in relative
clauses, adverbial clauses, complements of perception verbs, and independent clauses
encoding background events, as in (6), where unmarked verb forms encode a series of
parenthetical remarks set off from the main story.
Kuku Yalanji (Australian)
(6)Ngadikudubal nyanda-nya,minya yaka-ji-nya,
long.agobark.abschop-ummeat.abscut.up-intrans-um
bananyangarri-nyadubal-ba […]
water.abspour-umbark-loc
‘In the old days they chopped bark, meat was cut up into pieces, they
poured water into the bark …’
(Patz 2002: 227)
In Heian Japanese (Iwasaki 2000), the attributive form of the verb is used in various types of subordinate clauses (particularly clauses modifying a head noun) and
independent clauses encoding background information, as in (7) below, where the
sentence is used in order to introduce a following poem.
Heian Japanese (Japanese)
(7) Konomukoganeni
this son.in.lawto
yomi-teokose-tari-keru.
read.advl-pfv.advlsend.advl-ass.advl-retro.attr
‘She sent the suitor (this poem).’
(Iwasaki 2000: 252–253)
In Kham (Watters 2002), nominalized verb forms are used in relative clauses, complement clauses, and independent clauses providing background information or setting
the stage at episodic boundaries, as is the case in (8).
Kham (Sino-Tibetan)
(8) Ahjyauhbyali-kə ge:nahm-ni
ge-hu-zya-o.
late spring-locwelow.country-abl1pl-come-cont-nomlz
‘In late spring we were coming up from the low country.’(Watters 2002: 217)
Mithun (2008: 107) observes that in such cases it is difficult to postulate the ellipsis of
a main clause, because the insubordinate clause is connected to the adjacent discourse
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
as a whole, rather than any missing main clause in particular. These patterns, however,
could be a result of a process whereby the use of particular types of subordinate clauses
is extended to the relevant contexts due to the fact that these clauses are not asserted,
and background or stage setting information is associated with a low degree of assertiveness. The extension process is motivated by the similarity between the old and the
new contexts of occurrence of the subordinate clause, regardless of whether or not
these contexts involve an accompanying main clause.
2.3 C
lausal disengagement
Clauses structurally similar to subordinate ones are also sometimes used in order to
introduce a new discourse topic related to a shared background between speaker and
hearer, or elaborate on a topic introduced earlier in the conversation. This is illustrated
by the Italian clauses in (9a) and (9b), which include, respectively, the causal conjunction perché ‘because’ and the element che ‘who, that’, usually used to introduce relative
and complement clauses.
Italian
(9)(a)No, perché poi questoworkshop sembrainteressante.
no becausethenthis workshoplooks interesting
‘Besides, this workshop looks interesting.’ [Lit. ‘No, because then this
workshop looks interesting’, uttered out of the blue in reference to a
conversation held the night before about a workshop the speaker has
decided to attend despite initial doubts]
(b)
Che poi iocontinuoa pensareal
poverettocostrettoa
thatthenI I.keep tothink to.thepoor.guyforced to
starlì
tuttoil tempo.
staythereall thetime
‘Besides, I keep thinking about the poor guy who had to stay there
all the time.’ [Lit. ‘That then I keep thinking …’, commenting about a
ceremonial lecture that the local police chief had to sit through despite
having no clue about the topic]
Examples (10) and (11) illustrate similar cases reported for ‘because’ clauses in English
(Couper-Kuhlen 1996) and spoken German (Scheutz 2001).
(10)A: ‘Viv gave me fourteen hundred dollars.. and I went to the bank … and …
the dollar was … it was worth sixty-nine pence’. B: ‘‘cos’ we didn’t need to
change the money.’ [A is telling his guests about going to the bank to change
money that he got from a friend while on trip to Australia; his wife, B, uses
the ‘because’ clause to add that she and her husband didn’t need to change
their own money during the trip (because they got enough at the beginning
of the trip, as she explains later).]
(Couper-Kuhlen 1996: 422)
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Sonia Cristofaro
German
(11) ‘du aber[…]mit derfarb, […]weil das sagtdern.n.,da
youbut
withthecolor
becausethatsaysthen.n. ptcl
tun’swas
dazu
zumschnapps’
do somethingin.additionto schnapps
‘say, about the color, N.N. says they add something to the schnapps.’ [Lit.
‘Because N.N. says …’; the ‘because’ clause introduces a new thematic unit.]
(Scheutz 2001: 132)
These clauses, as observed by several researchers (Ford 1993, Couper-Kuhlen 1996,
Scheutz 2001), are completely self-standing units, not only syntactically, but also
semantically, pragmatically, and prosodically, in that they represent separate assertions
with autonomous intonation, which elaborate on a whole stretch of discourse (or some
general discourse topic) rather than on some specific co-occurring clause. Yet, they do
not refer to any state of affairs that could be described by a missing main clause and do
not bear any straightforward meaning relationship to structurally similar subordinate
clauses, so they are not easily accounted for in terms of ellipsis. Also, contrary to the
cases described by Mithun (2008), they do not display any special pragmatic property
(such as a low degree of assertiveness) that would single them apart from standard
main clauses and could be a result of a process of extension of the contexts of use of a
former subordinate clause.
A possible clue to the origin of this pattern is provided by a number of cases where
clauses structurally similar to subordinate ones, while connected with a co-occurring
clause, exhibit considerable independence from the latter, in that they have separate
intonation and are uttered after a pause or a stretch of intervening material, possibly
not by the same speaker. This is illustrated in (12)–(15) for Italian, English, German,
and Japanese.
Italian
(12) (a)A. ‘Ordinounaspesa’.
B. ‘OK.’ A. ‘Perché abbiamo
I.book a
grocery.delivery OK because we.have
propriofinito la pasta.’
really run.outthepasta
A. ‘I am going to book a grocery delivery’. B. ‘OK.’ A. ‘Because we have
really run out of pasta.’
(b)
A.‘L’ elfo,comesi chiama?’B.‘Dobby.’A.‘Sí,quello che
the elf how he.is.called Dobby yes the.one who
si chiudeva
le orecchienel fornoperaver parlato
would.shut.himselftheears
in.theoven forhavingspoken
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
maledelsuopadrone.’B. ‘Chepoi è Malfoy.’
ill
of his master who then is Malfoy
A. ‘The elf, what’s his name?’ B. ‘Dobby.’ A. ‘Yes, the one who would
shut his ears in the oven because he spoke ill of his master.’ B. ‘That
is, Malfoy.’ [Lit. ‘Who then is Malfoy’, talking about the ‘Harry Potter’
series]
(13)
(a)A. ‘ … Esther was asking me – whether she should pack a bikini!’ B. ‘Well
she’d be (-)’ C. ‘ Oh (-)’ B. ‘ (-) silly not to’ C. ‘ (-) sure!’ B. ‘(-) ’ cause the
bikini’s not gonna take up any room.’
(b)A. ‘ I’ve got the apartment to myself, and I’m going to take advantage
of it going to bed early.’ B. ‘ Oh (-).’ A. ‘ N’ they come home, they gonna
talk about it. And I’m gonna go to be::d.(-).’ B. ‘ (-) Before they get there,
yeah.’ (Ford 1993: 126)
German
(14) A.‘(…)bin neugierig.(-)ihoff erwird
was.
(-)’B.
I.amcurious Ihopeit becomessomething
‘kriegst einenrichtigenapfelwein.’ B.‘weil sofrühäpfel des is
you.geta
good apple.wine becausesoearly.applesthisis
ja netdesideale.’
ptclnottheideal
‘A. ‘I am curious. (-) I hope it will be good.’ B. ‘You will get a good apple
wine.’ A. ‘Because early apples, this is not the best.’ [A is talking about getting apples to make apple wine]
(Scheutz 2001: 127)
Japanese
(15) stiibutokakurisutokawa urusaykamoshirenaiangai
(-)
Steveor Chris or topnoisy maybe
unexpectedly
mado-giwa da kara
window-side
copbecause
‘For Steve or Chis it may be more noisy (-) Because they are on the window
side.’ (Mori 1999: 39)
In at least some of these cases, the relevant clauses also provide an elaboration on a
general topic evoked in the context, rather than just a co-occurring clause in itself. In
(12a), for example, the ‘because’ clause provides a motivation both for the action of
booking a grocery delivery, described by the main clause, and for the general situation
evoked in the context, that is, the fact that it is about time to book a delivery. In (13a),
while the ‘because’ clause provides a continuation to a previous utterance by speaker B,
it refers to a state of affairs (the fact that somebody should pack a bikini) that is jointly
evoked by both speaker B and speaker C.
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Sonia Cristofaro
Researchers working within the conversational analysis framework have provided detailed descriptions of the factors triggering the use of these clauses in several
languages (Schiffrin 1987, Ford 1993, Couper-Kuhlen 1996, Mori 1999, Ford, Fox, &
Thompson 2002). Sometimes, speakers use these clauses in order to re-open a previously completed conversational turn and provide further elaboration or qualification
upon a prior utterance, possibly because of the absence of an (expected) uptake by
the hearer. In (12a), (13a), (14) and (15), for example, the ‘because’ clauses are used
in order to emphasize the motivations for the state of affairs described in a previous clause by the same speaker. In other cases, speakers use the relevant clauses in
order to display agreement or collaboration with the previous speaker. In (12b), for
example, the che clause is used to refer to and emphasize the speaker’s and hearer’s
shared knowledge about Harry Potter characters. In (13b), the ‘before’ clause is used
in order to display the speaker’s understanding of the situation previously described
by the hearer. It is plausible that the relative autonomy of these clauses with respect
to the co-occurring clause can lead to their being reinterpreted as self-standing units
elaborating on a general topic, rather than some clause in particular. At this point they
can be used in this same function even in the absence of a specific clause or stretch of
discourse they could refer to, as in examples (9)–(11).3 This process can be regarded as
one of clausal disengagement. Due to highly particularized contextual circumstances,
the linkage between a subordinate main clause and an accompanying main clause is
weakened, until the subordinate clause can be used independently.
Clausal disengagement is akin to extension, as defined in Mithun (2008), in that
it involves an expansion in the contexts of use of particular clauses (rather than the
elimination of parts of the source constructions, as is the case with ellipsis). The expansion just outlined, however, originates from a context-driven disengagement of the
relevant clauses from a co-occurring clause, rather than the fact that speakers establish
a similarity between subordinate clauses in general and some types of independent
clauses (for example because the latter involve a reduced degree of assertiveness).
As will be shown in §3 below, it is possible that many cases of insubordination
that are traditionally explained in terms of ellipsis are actually a result of clausal disengagement. In some cases, this process might not actually count as insubordination. In many definitions, a distinguishing feature of subordinate clauses is that they
are not asserted, and clausal disengagement may involve asserted clauses. This is the
case, for example, with the non-restrictive relative clause in (12b) and the ‘because’
clauses in (12a) and (13a), which can be proven to be asserted under standard assertiveness tests (see Cristofaro 2003 for detailed discussion). If subordination is defined
. See Couper-Kuhlen (1996: 421–423) for a similar analysis and an early use of the notion
of insubordination precisely in regard to this process.
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
in terms of non-assertiveness, then asserted clauses cannot give rise to insubordinate
ones, because they are not subordinate in the first place. Even in this case, however,
clausal disengagement is still relevant to insubordination, in that it should be taken
into account as a possible source of many patterns that look like insubordination on
synchronic grounds.
3. What mechanisms in what cases?
In many cases, there is ambiguous evidence as to what mechanisms actually give rise
to particular types of insubordinate clauses.
For example, some languages provide evidence that the patterns that Mithun
(2008) describes as cases of extension could actually arise through ellipsis. The constructions used to convey background or stage setting information in the Deg Xinag,
Kuku Yalanji, Heian Japanese and Kham examples in (5a), (6), (7), and (8) above
involve verb forms that can also be used in relative clauses. A similar pattern is attested
in Italian, where background or stage setting sentences, such as the ones in (16), can
consist of a noun modified by a relative clause.
Italian
(16) (a)Figurati.(Stiamoparlandodi/È)Unapersonache è andata
imagine we.are speaking of is a
person who went
all’esteroperla primavoltaa ventisette
anni.
abroad forthefirst time attwenty-sevenyears
‘Just imagine. (We are talking about/ This is) Somebody who went
abroad for the first time at twenty-seven.’
(b)
Immaginati la scena. (C’erano) Persone che dovevanoarrivare
imagine
the scene there.were people who had.to
get
adAmsterdam,altri che si rifiutavano di scendere …
to Amsterdamotherswhorefused
toget.off
‘Just imagine the scene. (There were) people who had to get to
­Amsterdam, others who refused to get off …’ [Describing chaos at
London’s St. Pancras International Station following the cancellation
of all Eurostar trains]
The bracketed material in these examples can be inserted in the sentence with no
changes in meaning. This suggests that these sentences could be a result of the
ellipsis of this type of material, which is particularly plausible considering that it is
semantically generic material that is just used in order to present particular referents, and hence is presumably prone to being ellipsed. To the extent that contexts
involving similar material can be postulated for other languages displaying the
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Sonia Cristofaro
r­ elevant insubordination patterns, the latter could be the result of ellipsis, rather
than extension.4
The Deg Xinag example in (5b) points to another possible source for independent
clauses conveying stage setting information and structurally similar to subordinate
clauses. The subordinating morpheme used in this example, -di, is normally used in
‘when’ clauses. In a number of languages, ‘when’ clauses can sometimes have various independent clause-like properties, that is, while still referring to a co-occurring
clause, they encode asserted, rather than presupposed information, and have separate intonation. This type of ‘when’ clauses, as pointed out for English by a number
of researchers (Couper-Kuhlen 1988 and 1989, Declerck 1997), are often paraphrasable with ‘and then’, and do not provide a temporal specification for a state of affairs
described by some other clause. Rather, they are used in order to introduce new, unexpected events which play a relatively important role in the narration, typically in the
sense that they trigger a subsequent chain of events. This is illustrated for Italian and
English in (17) and (18) below.
Italian
(17) E quindistavamo cercandodicapire
cosa fare,quando
andso
we.were.trying ofunderstandwhatdo when
vediamountizioche viene contromano,
we.see a guy whocomeson.the.wrong.side.of.the.road
inbicicletta,nella savana,con unpollo.
inbike
in.thebush witha chicken
‘So we were trying to understand what to do when there comes a guy [Lit.
‘when we see a guy’)] biking on the wrong side of the road, in the bush,
holding a chicken.’ [describing a trip to South Africa]
(18)
So she was considering in her own mind (…), whether the pleasure of making
a daisy-chain would be worth the trouble of getting up and picking the daisies,
when suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her.
(Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, quoted in Couper-Kuhlen 1988: 361)
. The fact that in these examples the relative clause is dependent on a head noun could be
regarded as evidence against treating them as insubordination. The same applies to structurally similar examples, such as example (8) in §2.2 and example (24a) in §4. Such cases,
however, can be assimilated to traditional instances of insubordination insofar as they involve
processes whereby a former subordinate clause comes to be used without an accompanying,
fully-fledged main clause. Similar cases (independent clauses consisting of a noun and a verb
form normally used in relative clauses) have in fact been treated as insubordination in the
literature (see e.g. Evans 2007: 408–409).
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
In (17), while the man on the bike plays no further role in the narration, the speaker
goes on explaining that his arrival made she and her partner realize that they were
heading in the wrong direction, and retrace their steps. In (18), the rabbit’s arrival and
unusual attire and behavior induce Alice to follow it, thus setting the story in motion.
In such cases, the ‘when’ clause creates an expectation that the events being introduced
will be relevant to the subsequent narration, and thus effectively functions as a stage
setting device for this narration. It is then possible that, due to their relative autonomy
vis-a-vis the co-occurring clause to which they refer, this type of ‘when’ clauses are
eventually reinterpreted as self-standing units, and come to be used in stage setting
contexts even when there is no other clause they could refer to. This is an instance
of the mechanism that in §2.3 was described as clausal disengagement, rather than
extension.5
A number of cases which have been accounted for in terms of ellipsis could also
actually be a result of this mechanism. For example, the widespread use of insubordinate ‘if ’ clauses to convey indirect requests, as in the English clause in (19), is usually accounted for in terms of the ellipsis of main clauses such as ‘It would be good’,
‘I would be grateful’ and the like (Evans 2007).
(19) If you could give me a couple of 39c stamps, please.(Evans 2007: 380)
Some of the actual contexts of occurrence of ‘if ’ clauses suggest, however, another path
of development. This is illustrated by the Italian example in (20).
Italian
(20) Prendounapiadinacon mozzarelladibufala (-)Se ce la fate a
I.take a piadinawithmozzarellaofbuffalo if you.can to
farmela
incinqueminuti.
make.it.for.meinfive minutes
‘I would like a piadina with buffalo mozzarella (-) If you can make it for me
in five minutes.’ [piadina is a type of Italian regional flatbread]
In this example, the ‘if ’ clause performs the normal function of these clauses, stating
a condition on the occurrence of the state of affairs described by the main clause (the
speaker is going to have a piadina only if it can be fixed in five minutes). As the realization of this condition is desirable and depends on the hearer, however, the clause
. As was discussed in §2.3, the fact that in such cases the ‘when’ clause is asserted means that,
if one adopts a definition of subordination based on non-assertiveness, this process would
not count as insubordination (the definition of insubordination in Evans 2007, however, says
nothing about assertiveness or otherwise.)
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Sonia Cristofaro
implies a rather obvious request for some course of action on the part of the latter.
Also, as the clause is uttered as an afterthought, and is separated from the main clause
by a relatively long pause, it can be reiterpreted as an independent clause. It is then
possible that the independent use of ‘if ’ clauses to convey requests, as in (19), originates through this process, rather than ellipsis.
A more complex case is represented by the some of the independent uses of
‘­because’ clauses, as illustrated in the Italian example in (21).
Italian
(21) A.‘Chissa se
ci fanno scenderea MileEndanchese
I.wonderwhetherusthey.letget.off atMileEndeven if
abbiamoil bagaglio.B.‘Adessosí.’ A.‘Sí, pare
anche
we.have theluggage now yes yesit.seems.soalso
a me.’
to me
B. ‘Perché una volta mi
hanno chiesto se
avevo
becauseonce
to.methey.asked whetherI.had
il bagaglio.’
theluggage
A. ‘I wonder whether they will let us get off at Mile End even though
we’ve got luggage’. B. ‘Now they do.’ A. ‘Yes, I think so too.’ B. ‘Because
they once asked me whether I had got luggage.’ [Talking about the bus
from Stansted Airport to London Liverpool Street Station]
In this example, the use of the ‘because’ clause could be a result of the ellipis of a main
clause referring to the fact that the speaker is expressing a particular opinion (‘I say/
think that because …’). The clause, however, also provides information in support of
the content of this opinion (‘They once asked me whether I had got luggage, so it must
be possible to get off at Mile End even if one’s got luggage’), and in this respect it could
actually be an instance of the general pattern whereby ‘because’ clauses are used to elaborate on a general discourse topic, as described with regard to examples (9)–(11). This
pattern, it was argued, could be a result of clausal disengagement, rather than ellipsis.
Yet another possibility is that such uses of ‘because’ clauses do actually originate from
the ellipsis of a main clause, and, since the resulting insubordinate clauses elaborate on a
general discourse topic, these clauses provide a model for similar uses, such as the ones
in (9)–(11). In this case, the latter uses should not actually count as a case of insubordination, because they originate from clauses that are already insubordinate.
These facts show that insubordination is a more complex and diversified phenomenon than traditionally assumed. In existing hypotheses about the development of insubordinate clauses, this process takes place in complex sentences where structurally similar
clauses are fully dependent on others, either through the ellipsis of the main clause or
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
through the extension of the dependent clause from one context to another based on
some perceived similarity between these contexts. The available evidence, however, also
points to an alternative scenario, one where, in highly particularized contexts, the connection between some clause and a co-occurring one is weakened, so that the former
disengages from the latter and comes to be used in isolation. In many cases, it is not
actually possible to tell which of these mechanisms is responsible for particular types
of insubordinate clauses, both because these may be compatible with different mechanisms, and because their discourse function may be ambiguous, as illustrated by (21).
It is in fact also possible that different instances of the same insubordination pattern
are produced through different mechanisms, any of which could be responsible for the
conventionalization of the pattern from one language to another. For example, insubordinate ‘if ’ clauses conveying requests, of the type in (19), could result from ellipsis in
some cases, and from clausal disengagement in others, and either of these mechanisms
can in principle lead to the conventionalization of these clauses in individual languages.
4. Source constructions and the motivations for insubordination
Just as they can develop through different mechanisms, particular types of insubordinate clause can also in principle originate from different contexts and source constructions. This creates a number of problems when trying to identify the exact source of
these clauses. In what follows, some such problems will be discussed, with the goal of
showing that they have a bearing on the issue of possible motivations for insubordination phenomena.
A first problem is that the range of possible source constructions for some particular insubordinate clause type may vary considerably depending on which developmental mechanism is postulated. For example, the extension process postulated
by Mithun (2008) is motivated by the fact that the relevant clauses are not asserted.
If the use of insubordinate clauses to convey background or stage setting information (as illustrated by examples (4)–(8) above) is a result of this process, then this use
could in principle originate from just any complex sentence involving a structurally
similar, non-asserted subordinate clause. If this pattern originates from the ellipsis of
a main clause, however, then the range of possible source constructions is likely to be
restricted to complex sentences with a compatible meaning, for example presentative,
cleft, or temporal sentences of the type illustrated in (16), (17), and (18).
Similarly, if the use of insubordinate ‘if ’ clauses to convey requests, illustrated
in (19), originates through ellipsis, then this process is likely to involve a limited
number of sentences conveying questions about the possible realization of the state
of affairs decribed by the ‘if ’ clause, or describing a positive consequence of this
state of affairs (‘I was wondering/ It would be nice/I would be grateful …’ and the
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Sonia Cristofaro
like). If this use originates from clausal disengagement, however, then this process
can in principle take place in a presumably quite wide variety of contexts involving ‘if ’ clauses of the type in (20), that is, ‘if ’ clauses stated as an afterthought and
describing a condition whose realization would be desirable and depends on the
addressee (e.g. ‘I am going to pay now … if you can prepare my bill’, ‘We can go
now … if you can get ready in the next ten minutes’, ‘I can fix it for you … if you
give me five minutes’).
Even when an insubordinate clause can be related to a single developmental
mechanism, it can still have a variety of possible source constructions. For example, in
several languages, illustrated by Kuku Yalanji and Coptic in (22) and (23) below, the
same verb forms (purposive forms in Kuku Yalanji, conjunctive forms in Coptic) can
be used both independently in order to state an intention and as purpose clauses or
complements of ‘want’ verbs. Given the semantic similarities between these contexts,
it is plausible that the independent clause use originates from the purpose or complement clause use through the ellipsis of the main clause. Precisely because of these
similarities, however, both uses could give rise to the pattern.
Kuku Yalanji (Australian)
(22) (a)Ngayumayi waju-ku.Dakuy.
1sg.nomfood.abscook-purpHungry
‘I’d better cook some food. [I am] hungry.’
(Patz 2002: 162)
(b)
Ngayukararr ngara-l,
bunda-nka.
1sg.nomsheet.absspread-nonpastsit-purp
‘I spread a sheet to sit on.’
(Patz 2002: 164)
(d)
Ngayu
wawujana
ngawuya mani-nka.
1sg.nom want3pl.nomturtle.absget-purp
‘I want them to get some turtle.’
(Patz 2002: 166)
C
optic (Afro-Asiatic)
(23) (a)anokho
ta-agonize
I refl.poss.1sg conjv.1sg-fight
mən-ne-ju:dai
ən-ke-kui
with-def.art.pl-Jewsin-other-little
‘I myself (want to) fight with the Jews a little more!’
(Acts of Andrew and Paul 194, 15–16)
(Reintges 2010: 251)
(b)
anokgar e=i-wɔʃ
ənta-pɔt
I ptcl relpres=1sg-want.absl conjv.1sg-depart.absl
ənta-pɔ:həteβol
conjv.1sg-shed.absL ptcl
əm-pa-snof
ət∫əm-pə-ran
prep-def.art.sg.m.poss.1sg-bloodon-def.m.sg-name
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
əm-pa-t∫oeisJɛ:suspe-Khristos
link-def.m.sg.poss.1sg-lordJesus def.m.sg-Christ
‘I want to depart to shed my blood in the name of My Lord Jesus
Christ’ (Mena, Miracle 10a 10–15)
(Reintges 2010: 255)
In Chantyal, insubordinate clauses involving nominalized verb forms are used to convey unexpected information, as illustrated in (24a). Noonan (1997: 381) and Yap and
Matthews (2008: 312) argue that this use originated through the ellipsis of the copula in
periphrastic constructions of the type in (24b), which also involve nominalized forms.
While in contemporary Chantyal such constructions cannot be used to convey unexpected information (Noonan 1997: 81), this use is attested in other Tibeto-Burman
languages, such as Kham, illustrated in (25). Nominalized verb forms, however, can
also be used in Chantyal as complements of perception verbs and in relative clauses, as
shown in (24c) and (24d). In several languages, illustrated by Dutch and Italian in (26)
and (27), forms used in either of these functions can also be used in constructions of
the type ‘What do I hear? X Verbing!’, ‘Look at X Verbing!’ where a perception verb is
used to direct the hearer’s attention towards the state of affairs being described. As this
state of affairs represents unexpected information, such constructions provide a natural
source for insubordinate clauses encoding this type of information, which can develop
through the ellipsis of the perception verb. While this may or may not have been the
case in Chantyal, this is an alternative possibility that should be considered for all the
languages where the relevant functions are encoded through the same construction.
Chantyal (Tibeto-Burman)
(24) (a) bennu-yenal tato-ta-si-wa!
gun-genbarrelhot-become-ant-nomlz
‘The barrel of the gun has become hot!’
(Noonan 1997: 381)
(b)
kadmandu-ri
ɦya-si-wa
ɦin.
Kathmandu-locgo-ant-nomlzbe-nonpast
‘I’ve gone to Kathmandu.’ [Lit. ‘(It) is that I’ve gone to Kathmandu.’]
(Noonan 1997: 371)
(c)na-səbɦuluŋ-səgɦwaralca-wamara-i.
I-ergleopard-erg wild.goateat-nomlzsee-perf
‘I saw the leopard eat the wild goat.’
(Noonan 2011: 198)
(d)
mə-əca-si-wa
gay-yesya
person-ergeat-ant-nomlzcow-genmeat
‘the beef that the person ate’
(Noonan 1997: 378)
Kham (Tibeto-Burman)
(25) kāhbul u-rɨ:h-zya-oo-le-o
blanket3sg-weave-cont-nomlz3sg-be-nomlz
‘She’s weaving a blanket!’
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
(Watters 2002: 290)
 Sonia Cristofaro
Dutch
(26) Wat hoorik?Mariediezingt!
whathearI Mariewhosings
‘What do I hear? Mary who sings!’
(van der Auwera 1985: 223)
Italian
(27) Guardaloscoiattoloche mettevia le noci!
look.impthesquirrel whoputs awaythewalnuts
‘Look at the squirrel putting away its walnuts!’
Identifying what contexts and constructions actually give rise to particular
­insubordinate clause types is crucial to a proper understanding of the motivations
for insubordination, because different contexts and constructions could be associated
with different factors that trigger the development of insubordinate clauses. The fact
that in many cases these contexts and constructions cannot be unambiguously identified, then, means that we may still be missing various such factors.
A plausible motivation for ellipsis, for example, is the fact that the ellipsed material is communicatively peripheral, possibly because it is easily recoverable from the
context.6 It is then possible that, among several contexts that would be semantically
compatible with the resulting insubordinate clauses, the ones where these clauses actually develop are those where the ellipsed material is more easily inferable or communicatively more peripheral, and hence more prone to be left out. Also, as repetition is
generally recognized to play a role in the omission of linguistic material (Bybee 2008,
among others), ellipsis could be favored by the relative frequency of the source construction, as determined for example by the presence of particular main verbs or verb
forms. To verify all this, however, it would be essential to gather evidence about what
source constructions actually give rise to particular types of insubordinate clauses, for
example whether insubordinate clauses stating an intention originate from purpose
clauses or complements of ‘want’ verbs, or whether ones conveying unexpected information originate from the ellipsis of a copula or that of a perception verb. Information
should probably also be collected about more specific properties of the source, for
example what main verbs are involved in the purpose sentence, or what forms of ‘want’
or perception verbs are used.
On a similar note, different clauses may display different degrees of autonomy
with respect to a co-occurring clause, depending for example on whether they also
. Another possible motivation for ellipsis, proposed by Evans (2007), is the speaker’s desire
to remove potentially face-threatening material. This, however, only applies to a quite specific
type of insubordinate clauses, those conveying commands, requests and the like.
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
refer to the context as a whole (rather than just the co-occurring clause), whether or
not they are uttered by the same speaker, the length of an intervening pause, or the
amount of intervening material. It is plausible, then, that the higher the autonomy of
individual clauses, the higher their likelihood of disengaging from the co-occurring
clause and be used in isolation, as described in §2.3. In order to test this hypothesis,
however, we would need an accurate assessment of what contexts actually trigger the
process, as well as a more precise characterization of these contexts in terms of the
relative degree of autonomy of the relevant clause.
Finally, the occurrence of particular processes leading to insubordination could
be favored by the fact that these processes can be triggered by a wider variety of
contexts. For example, it could be the case that insubordinate ‘if ’ clauses conveying requests develop through clausal disengagement, rather than ellipsis, because the
constructions that give rise to the former process (conditional sentences implying
requests, of the type in (20) above) occur in a wider variety of contexts than those
that give rise to the latter process. To verify this, however, one would at least need
evidence about what constructions actually give rise to the relevant types of insubordinate clauses.
5. Insubordination and non-subordinate clauses
The data discussed in the previous sections show that, contrary to traditional assumptions, insubordinate clauses can in principle originate not only from typical instances
of subordinate clauses, but also from structurally similar clauses that display a number
of independent clause-like properties, to the point that some of these would not be
regarded as subordinate under some definitions. Several languages provide evidence
suggesting that the mechanisms leading to the development of insubordinate clauses
also apply to clauses that would not be regarded as subordinate under any standard
criterion, such as ‘and’ clauses and their functional equivalents.
Sometimes, for example, these clauses can be used in isolation to convey various
types of deontic meanings, including wishes, commands, exhortations, and obligations. This is the case with clauses in the subsecutive mood in Turkana. This mood
is normally used in non initial conjuncts in narrative and imperative sequences
(‘X ­Verbed, then Verbed’, ‘Let’s Verb and Verb!’), as illustrated in (28a) and (28b). In
(28c), a clause in the subsecutive mood is used in isolation in order to express a command (forms in the subsecutive mood are marked in boldface in these examples; these
forms are characterized by a special set of verb agreement prefixes, but this is not
indicated in the glosses, as these reproduce the glosses used in the source, which do
not specify this information).
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Sonia Cristofaro
Turkana (Nilo-Saharan)
(28) (a)ὲ-ɑ̀-ɪ̀nɔ̀k- ɑ̀-kɪ̀n-i`
ɑ̀-bὲr-ʊ̀a-kɪ̀mɪ̥, k-ɪ̀tʊ-kʊl-a-`ʊ̥
ŋa-kipì.
3-past-light-e-dat-a womanfire
3-caus-boil-e-venwater
‘The woman lit the fire and boiled water.’
(Dimmendaal 1982: 177)
(b)
Kɑ̀pɛ` tɔ̀ ̀-bʊc-ar`ɪ̥̀!
go you-save-it-v
‘Go and good luck’ (Lit. ‘Go and stay safe!’)
(c)A-to-yew-o-ki-i`
we-sing-e-dat-pl
‘Let us sing!’
(Dimmendaal 1982: 176)
(Dimmendaal 1982: 176)
A likely explanation for the pattern in (28c) is that it is a result of the ellipsis of the
initial conjunct in contexts such as the one in (28b) (‘Let’s go and Verb’). This is particularly plausible considering that, in such contexts, the initial conjunct is semantically generic and is used just in order to to introduce the second conjunct, rather than
in order to describe a state of affairs that is relevant in its own right.
A similar pattern is illustrated by the Italian example in (29a), which is taken
from a popular TV commercial for Crodino bitter aperitif, in which a gorilla walks in
a bar and asks for a Crodino.7 As the terrified bartender asks his wife what to do, she
instructs him by using the imperative ‘and’ clause in (29a). This clause contrasts with
its counterpart without ‘and’, illustrated in (29b), in that it carries an additional meaning, something like ‘Stop the fuss and Verb!’.8 This could be a result of the ellipsis of
a coordinate clause originally conveying the relevant meaning, such as ‘Stop the fuss’,
‘Stop arguing’ and the like.
Italian
(29) (a)‘E dajelo!’
and give.imp.2sg.3sg
‘(Stop the fuss) [Lit. ‘And’] give it to him!’
(b)
Daglielo!
give.imp.2sg.3sg
‘Give it to him!’
(Roman variety of Italian)
(standard Italian)
‘And’ clauses occurring in isolation can also be used in several languages very much in
the same way as the insubordinate clauses in (9)–(11) above, that is, in order to further
contribute to a conversation or introduce a new discourse topic, rather than to refer to
a specific conjoined clause. One case in point is provided, once again, by the Crodino
. The video can be retrieved at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnsZFGZBS0g.
. The difference in the imperative verb forms in (29a) and (29b) is due to the fact that the
commercial is in the Roman variety of Italian, while (29b) is in standard Italian. This is not
relevant to the arguments presented here.
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
commercial. The gorilla, after drinking the Crodino, asks for the bill, and the bartender’s wife suggests to her husband that they should charge 50 Euros (about twenty
times the real price). She does so by using the ‘and’ clause in (30a). As the gorilla pays
the 50 Euros without a problem, the bartender observes that they never had a gorilla
in the bar before, and the gorilla replies with the ‘and’ clause in (30b).
Italian
(30) (a)E di’
50Euro!
andsay.imp.2sg50Euro
‘[Lit. ‘And’] ask for 50 Euros!’
(b)
E cecredo, co ’sti prezzi!
andit I.believewiththeseprices
‘[Lit. ‘And’] I can believe that, with prices like that!’
These two clauses convey exactly the same meaning as their counterparts without ‘and’,
and they are simply being used to further contribute to the dialogue, rather than refer
to a specific co-occurring clause.
The Italian example in (31) illustrates the use of ‘and’ clauses to introduce a new
discourse topic.
Italian
(31) E i tuoi
hannodegliinviti
perNatale?
andtheyour.parentshave any invitationsforChristmas
‘[Lit. ‘And’] do your parents have any invitations for Christmas?’ [uttered
out of the blue to start a new conversation]
In Nishnaabemwin (Valentine 2001: 963–973), clauses introduced by the element mii
‘and, so, then’ are usually used in non-initial conjuncts in narrative sequences, as can
be seen from the second clause in (32a). However, they can also be used in initial conjunct or in isolation in order to introduce a new topic. This is illustrated by the first and
third clause in (32a) and by the sentence in (32b).
Nishnaabenwin (Algonquian)
(32) (a)Mii awkwezens
ntaawgid
mii
andthat.proxyoung.woman.proxgrow.up.conj.3sg.proxand
aw
gimaa pii iwenaad,
that.proxchief.proxtimethatsay.conj.3sg.prox>3obv
‘Mii sa noongojigkinoohmoonaan iw sa
andemphnow teach.conj.1sg>2sgthatemph
geninaadziyanniigaan.
live.so.conj.2sgin.the.future
‘A girl first comes of age and the chief at that time says to her: “Now I
would instruct you about the way you are going to live in the future.”’
(Valentine 2001: 964)
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Sonia Cristofaro
(b)
Mii sawi
ge
sagemno-ya.
and
emphthatandemphevenbe.well.3sg.prox
‘Right away he feels fine.’
(Valentine 2001: 973)
Maasai (Tucker & Mpaayey 1955: 61–62) has a special verbal prefix, called the narrative prefix, which is derived from a conjunction ‘and’ (Heine & Claudi 1986: 118–121),
and is normally used in non-initial conjuncts in narrative sequences (‘X Verbed, and
then Verbed’), as illustrated in (33a). The prefix is also used in clauses occurring in isolation, but referring to a preceding stretch of discourse (‘Then X Verbed’), as in (33b).
Maasai (Nilo-Saharan)
(33) (a)Ki-etuoaŋ
ni-k-irrag
we-come.pasthomenarr-we-lie.down
‘we came home and slept’
(Tucker & Mpaayey 1955: 61)
(b)
Ni-ki-niŋ.
narr-we-hear
‘Then we shall hear/ Then we heard.’
(Tucker & Mpaayey 1955: 62)
Just like their insubordinate counterparts in examples (9)–(11), these clauses are plausibly a result of clausal disengagement. A possible origin for this process is illustrated
by the ‘and’ clauses in the English examples in (34) and (35). (34) contains a narrative
sequence consisting of a string of ‘and’ clauses. Of these, those marked in boldface are
uttered after a relatively long pause and have a distinct intonational contour (Schiffrin
1987: 138). While they refer to the preceding clauses in the sequence, they also mark
turning points in this sequence.
(34)
And then we lived there for five years, and we bought – we bought a triplex
across the street. (iii) And by that time we had two kids, and we moved on
the first floor, and rented out the second. And his brother married then, and
lived on the third. And we still live together down the shore. [Speaker is
describing her previous homes.]
(Schiffrin 1987: 138)
In (35), the ‘and’ clause is naturally connected to the immediately preceding clause,
in that the conjunction indicates that the speaker has more to say in addition to the
remark expressed in this clause. The ‘and’ clause, however, is uttered after a pause,
and it also conveys a general opinion about how to solve the problem defined in the
conversation (addressing one’s in-laws by using kin-based terms). In this respect, the
clause represents a self-standing unit referring to the general conversation topic as a
whole, rather than some specific clause in particular.
(35)A: ‘I don’t think she says anything yet.’ B: ‘Yeh it’s hard I imagine.’
A: ‘I imagine it is. And you have t’start in the beginning.’ [Speaker A is
talking about her daughter-in-law not using kin-based terms to address her
and her husband.]
(Schiffrin 1987: 145)
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
Uses such as these may provide a basis for the reinterpretation of ‘and’ clauses as selfstanding units not directly connected to any accompanying clause, at which point they
can be used in isolation in order to further develop a previously defined topic or introduce a new one, as in examples (31)–(33).
These facts suggest that the processes that give rise to insubordination are by no
means restricted to complex sentences involving subordinate clauses, but can also
take place in contexts involving other types of structural and conceptual relationships
between clauses. Thus, while these processes have mainly been investigated in relation
to subordinate clauses, they are best regarded as specific instances of a broader phenomenon pertaining to clause combining in general.
6. Insubordination vs. superficially similar patterns
In the previous section, it was suggested that the scope of the mechanisms leading to
insubordination is broader than traditionally assumed, encompassing both subordinate and non subordinate clauses. Various types of cross-linguistic evidence suggest
that languages may also display distributional patterns that look like insubordination,
but originate in a different way.
Evans (2007: 385), for example, mentions cases where a former main verb has
been reduced to a particle and a former subordinate verb has become the main verb in
the clause. This yields distributional patterns that are superficially similar to insubordination, but shouldn’t actually count as such, because the original main clause is still
there, though this is not apparent at the synchronic level.
A case in point is provided by Lango (Noonan 1992: 144), where the use of the
subjunctive in negative imperative clauses is motivated by the fact that the negative
imperative marker kʊ̀ʊ̀rɔ̀ is the former verb ‘to guard, wait for’, and this verb, like other
complement-taking verbs (see example (1) above), requires subjunctive complements.9
A more complex case is represented by various languages where the same verb
forms are used in various types of subordinate clauses (typically including temporal,
conditional and purpose clauses, as well as complement clauses encoding unrealized states of affairs), narrative sequences, and independent clauses where the state
of affairs being described is not presented as ongoing, for example clauses with future
time reference, injunctions, proverbs, or clauses expressing general truths. This is the
. Some of the cases presented as instances of insubordination in §3 also involve the retention of main clause material (the head noun of a relative clause). Cases such as the Lango one
are different, however, because the whole source construction is maintained, hence none of
the processes usually leading to insubordination takes place.
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Sonia Cristofaro
case with the null tense in Wolof (Robert 2010) and the non-reduplicated aorist in
Mwotlap (François 2003), illustrated in (36) and (37) respectively.
Wolof (Niger-Congo)
(36) (a)Jox mako, ma
seet!
givemeit null.1sglook
‘Give it to me, so I can have a look!’
(Robert 2010: 479)
(b)
Ma
wàcc fi!
null.1sgget.offhere
‘(Let me through so) I can get off here!’
(Robert 2010: 479)
(c)As soxnadafa
amoon doomju jigéen.Bi
indeflady vbfoc.3sghave.pastchild relgirl when
doomji Ø mateesey
mu
mayeko.
childdef null.3sgbe.ripe.antmarrynull.3sgoffer 3sg.obj
‘Once upon a time there lived an old woman with her daughter. When
the daughter became nubile, her mother married her off.’
(Robert 2010: 479)
(d)
Ku Ø
muñ,muuñ
who
null.3sgbe.patientsmile
‘The one who is patient will smile.’
(Robert 2010: 479)
Mwotlap (Oceanic)
(37) (a)Kemem van
tālow
Apnōlape, kememmitiy.
1pl.excl aor.gotomorrowVanua-lavacoe1pl.excl aor.sleep
‘If we go to Vanua-lava tomorrow, we will stay there overnight.’
(François 2003: 190)
(b)
Nēkne-myō
so kē niwuhnēk?
2sgSTAT-wantthat3sg aor.kill2sg
‘You want him to kill you?’
(François 2003: 186)
(c)Nok etm̄ōlegvanhiy.
1sg aor.seeclear more
‘I would like to know more.’
(François 2003: 192)
(d)
Lōlōm-et
kamyō, tō kē niboel.
Lōlō perf-see1du.exclthen3sg aor.upset
‘Lōlō saw the two of us, and he got upset.’
(François 2003: 181)
(e)Sisquetna-baklap niatlō.
Momentarily
art-boat aor.appear
‘The boat will appear momentarily.’
(François 2003: 191)
These patterns resemble insubordination in that the same verb forms are used for
several types of subordinate clauses and some types of independent clauses. It is in
fact possible that some of the independent clause uses are a result of the ellipsis of a
main clause. For example, injunctive and desiderative uses of the type in (36b) and
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
(37c) could arise through the ellipsis of the main clause in purpose constructions
and sentences involving ‘want’ verbs, such as the ones in (36a) and (37b). The other
independent clause uses, as well as the narrative and subordinate clause uses, however, could be a result of a rather different process. In all of these cases, the states
of affairs being described are presented as bounded, rather than ongoing. Bybee,
Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994: 230–236) show that, in many languages where these
types of states of affairs are encoded through a dedicated verb form also used in
subordinate clauses, this form is an old imperfective that got restricted to the relevant contexts due to the development of a new progressive form encoding ongoing
states of affairs. The distribution of the form, then, is a result of a restriction in its
original uses, rather than a change in the uses of a former subordinate clause, as is
the case with insubordination. While this may or may not be the case for Wolof and
Mwotlap, this is a possibility that should always be considered when dealing with
such patterns.
Finally, several languages display constructions that look like insubordinate
clauses originating from the ellipsis of a copula, very much like the Chantyal pattern
illustrated in (24) above, but probably arise in a different way and cannot be regarded
as cases of insubordination. In Musqueam, for example, nominalized verb forms are
used both as independent predications, as in (38a), and in combination with a copula,
as in (38b) (other uses include conjuncts in narrative sequences and various types of
complement clauses: Suttles 2004: 100–112). While the former use could have developed from the latter through the ellipsis of the copula (see also Watanabe, this volume,
as well as Kuipers 1967: 21 for a similar suggestion for the related language Squamish),
most word types in the language can occur in predicative function without a copula,
as shown by (38c). It is then possible that, when used in predicative function, nominalized forms have always been self-standing clauses in their own right, and there never
was any additional material in the first place (see Yap & Wrona 2011: 43 for similar
observations on a number of Asian languages).
Musqueam (Salish)
(38) (a)s-niʔ-s
wə-xwə-ƛ’əlél
məstə́yəxw kwsə
nomlz-aux-3poss est-become-middle.agedperson art
nə-téns-niʔ-swə-xwə-sqəl’éʔƚ
my-mother
nomlz-aux-3poss est-become-sickly
‘My late mother became a middle-aged person. She was sickly.’
(Suttles 2004: 110)
(b)
ƛ’as-niʔ-s
wə-xwə-sθəlθəléq
be.3
nomlz-aux-3poss est-become-separated(pl.res)
təwƛ’aləmnem’ xwə-sk’ wə́yəθ
those aux(go)become-slave
‘Therefore those taken as slaves became separated’
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
(Suttles 2004: 111)
 Sonia Cristofaro
(c)təm-x̌ǝý ’ƛ’
time.of-cold
‘It was winter.’
(Suttles 2004: 60)
7. Concluding remarks
In spite of a growing body of cross-linguistic data on insubordination, we still need a
thorough understanding of a number of key issues about the possible origins of this
phenomenon. Individual insubordination patterns are compatible with several possible sources and developmental mechanisms, and it is possible that different instances
of these patterns are produced in different ways, both cross-linguistically and within
individual languages.
This reflects a general problem in the study of language change, also described,
for example, in relation to sound change and grammaticalization processes (Blevins
2004, Heine 2003, among others). While we can observe particular constructions that
are the result of a change, we cannot usually observe the processes through which
these constructions are produced by speakers, and individual constructions may be
compatible with several different processes. Research on insubordination, however,
has so far concentrated on identifying general similarities between particular insubordinate clause types and particular types of complex sentences. We now need more
fine-grained contextual evidence about what constructions can actually give rise to
what types of insubordinate clauses in individual languages, the relative frequency of
these constructions, and the relative degree of autonomy of individual clauses involved
in the construction. In some cases, diachronic evidence should also be collected in
order to distinguish between insubordination and superficially similar patterns that
originate through different processes.
The data presented in this chapter, while by no means exhaustive of the range of
insubordination patterns attested in the world’s languages, also pose some more general challenges for our current view of insubordination.
Insubordinate clauses can develop through more mechanisms than previously
assumed, and these mechanisms are quite different in nature. Ellipsis, usually regarded
as the major mechanism leading to insubordination, involves a metonymic process
whereby some part of a complex construction takes on the meaning originally associated with the construction as a whole as some other part is dropped. Extension and
clausal disengagement, on the other hand, are rather based on what Bybee, Perkins, and
Pagliuca (1994: 289–293) call generalization, a process whereby particular properties of
the context where a construction is originally used (for example, for i­nsubordination,
a lack of assertiveness, or the fact that some clause has independent clause-like properties) become particularly prominent over time, and motivate an expansion of the
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
uses of that construction to other contexts displaying similar ­properties. This suggests that insubordination might not actually be a unified phenomenon, but rather an
­epiphenomenal result of several distinct processes.
Also, the various processes leading to insubordination take place in several types of
contexts, which may or may not involve subordinate clauses. This is in line with other
findings on clause combining (Reinhart 1983, Deane 1991, Thompson 2002, Cristofaro
2003, 2008 and 2014, Mithun 2009), which show that various phenomena traditionally
regarded as specific of either coordination or subordination actually cut across this distinction, and are found in all contexts displaying certain semantic or pragmatic properties, independently of syntactic structure. These phenomena include, for example,
assertiveness vs. lack thereof, the integration of two linked clauses into a single conceptual unit, or various syntactic phenomena regarded as criterial for syntactic embedding.
These facts suggest a shift in perspective in our view of insubordination. The nature
of insubordination patterns is probably best investigated by referring not so much to a
general notion of insubordination, in the sense of a specific phenomenon pertaining to
subordinate clauses, but rather to a variety of mechanisms that apply to clause combining in general and lead some of the relevant clauses to acquire a self-standing status,
presumably due to a variety of highly particularized contextual factors.
List of abbreviations
abl
abs
absl
advl
ant
aor
art
asp
ass
attr
aux
caus
cert
cl
coe
cond
conj
conjv
cont
ablative
absolutive
absolute
adverbial form
anterior
aorist
article
aspect marker
assertive
attributive
auxiliary
causative
certainty particle
(valency) classifier
coenonciation
conditional
conjunct order
conjunctive
continuous aspect
conv
cop
dat
def
dep
du
e
emph
erg
est
evid
excl
gen
imp
impfv
indef
inf
intrans
link
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
converb
copula
dative
definite
dependent
dual
epipatetic vowel
emphatic
ergative
established
evidential
exclusive
genitive
imperative
imperfective
indefinite
infinitive
intransitive
nominal linker
 Sonia Cristofaro
loc
m
mir
narr
nom
nomlz
nonpast
null
obj
obv
past
perf
pfv
pl
poss
prep
prox
ptcl
locative
masculine
mirative
narrative
nominative
nominalizer
non past
null tense
object
obviative
past
perfect
perfective
plural
possessive
prepositional object marker
proximate
particle
ptcpl
purp
q
refl
relpres
res
retro
s
sg
stat
sub
subj
top
um
v
vbfoc
vent
participle
purposive
question
reflexive
relative present
resultative
retrospective
subject
singular
stative
subordinator
subjunctive
topic
unmarked verbal inflection
vowel
verbal focus
ventive extension
References
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge:
CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486357
Bybee, Joan. 2008. Formal universals as emergent phenomena: The origins of structure preservation. In Linguistic Universals and Language Change, Jeff Good (ed.), 108–121. Oxford:
OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0005
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1988. On the temporal interpretation of postposed when clauses
in narrative discourse. In Papers on Language and Mediaeval Studies Presented to Alfred
Schopf, Richard Matthews & Joachim Schmole-Rostosky (eds), 353–372. Frankfurt: Peter
Lang.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1989. Foregrounding and temporal relations in narrative discourse.
In Essays on Tensing in English, Vol. II: Time, Text and Modality, 7–29. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1996. Intonation and clause combining in discourse: The case of
because. Pragmatics 6: 389–426. doi: 10.1075/prag.6.3.04cou
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: OUP.
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2008. Asymmetric events, subordination, and grammatical categories. In
Asymmetric Events [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 11],
Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), 151–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
doi: 10.1075/celcr.11.11cri
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2014. Is there really a syntactic category of subordination? In Contexts of Subordination. Cognitive, Typological and Discourse Perspectives [Pragmatics & Beyond New
Series 249], Laura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski & Helena Sorva (eds), 73–91. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.249.03cri
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Routes to insubordination 
Deane, Paul. 1991. Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics 2, 1–63. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1991.2.1.1
Declerck, Renaat. 1997. When-Clauses and Temporal Structure. London: Routledge.
doi: 10.4324/9780203211472
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 1982. The Turkana Language. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical
Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 366–431. Oxford: OUP.
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554278
Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. & Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. Constituency and the grammar
of turn increments. In The Language of Turn and Sequence, Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox
& Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 14–38. Oxford: OUP.
François, Alexandre. 2003. La sémantique du prédicat en mwotlap, Vanuatu. Leuven: Peeters.
Hargus, Sharon. n.d. Subordination and insubordination in Deg Xinag’. Ms. 〈http://courses.
washington.edu/lingclas/481/Insubordination.docx〉
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D.
Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 576–601. Oxford: Blackwell.
Heine, Bernd & Claudi, Ulrike. 1986. On the Rise of Grammatical Categories: Some Examples
from Maa. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2000. Suppressed assertion and the functions of the final-attributive in prose
and poetry of Hejan Japanese. In Textual Parameters in Older Languages, Susan Herring,
Pieter van Reenen & Lene Schøsler (eds), 237–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kalinina, Elena. 2011. Exclamative clauses in the languages of the North Caucasus and the problem of finiteness. In Tense, Aspect, Modality and Finiteness in East Caucasian Languages,
Gilles Authier & Timur Maisak (eds), 161–202. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Kuipers, Aert H. 1967. The Squamish Language. The Hague: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783111358024
Michaelis, Laura A. 2001. Exclamative constructions. In Language Universals and Language
Typology: An International Handbook, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf
­Österreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1038–1050. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 83:
69–119. doi: 10.1353/lan.2008.0054
Mithun, Marianne. 2009. Re(e)volving complexity: Adding intonation. In Syntactic Complexity
[Typological Studies in Language 85], Tom Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds), 53–80.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.85.03ree
Mori, Junko. 1999. Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective Expressions and Turn Constructions [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 8]. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.8
Noonan, Michael. 1992. A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
doi: 10.1515/9783110850512
Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Essays in Language Function and Language
­ msterdam:
Type, Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 373–394. A
John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.82.21noo
Noonan, Michael. 2011. Aspects of the historical development of nominalizers in the T
­ amangic
languages. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives
[Typological Studies in Language 96], Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick
Wrona (eds), 195–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.96.07noo
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Sonia Cristofaro
Patz, Elisabeth. 2002. A Grammar of the Kuku Yalanji Language of North Queensland. [Pacific
Linguistics 527]. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
Reintges, Chris H. 2010. Coordination, converbs, and clause-chaining in Coptic Egyptian typology. In Clause Hierarchy and Clause Linking: Syntax and Pragmatics [Studies in Language
Companion Series 121], Isabelle Bril (ed.), 203–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
doi: 10.1075/slcs.121.07rei
Robert, Stéphane. 2010. Clause chaining and conjugations in Wolof: A typology of parataxis
and its semantics. In Clause Hierarchy and Clause Linking: Syntax and Pragmatics [Studies in Language Companion Series 121], Isabelle Bril (ed.), 469–498. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.121.15rob
Scheutz, H. 2001. On causal clause combining: the case of weil in spoken German. In Studies in Interactional Linguistics [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 10], Margret Selting &
­Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 111–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.07sch
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
Suttles, Wayne. 2004. Musqueam Reference Grammar. Vancouver: University of British ­Columbia
Press.
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account.
Studies in Language 26(1): 125–164. doi: 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
Tucker, Archibald Norman & Mpaayey, John Tompo Ole. 1955. A Maasai Grammar with Vocabulary. London: Longmans.
Valentine, J. Randolph. 2001. Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
van der Auwera, Johan. 1985. The predicative relatives of French perception verbs. In Predicates
and Terms in Functional Grammar, A. Machteld Bolkestein, Casper de Groot & J. Lachlan
Mackenzie (eds), 219–234. Dordrecht: Foris.
Watters, David E. 2002. A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486883
Yap, Foong Ha & Matthews, Stephen. 2008. The development of nominalizers in East Asian
and Tibeto-Burman languages. In Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 76], Marie José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds), 309–341.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.76.15yap
Yap, Foong Ha, Grunow-Hårsta, Karen &. Wrona, Janick 2011. Introduction. Nominalization
strategies in Asian languages. In Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 96], Foong Ha Yap, Karen GrunowHårsta & Janick Wrona (eds), 1–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. doi: 10.1075/tsl.96.01yap
© 2016. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved