Feature 26. Finiteness of subordinate clauses
found in question(s): 60
Definition and illustration
Finiteness is defined here as a property of a verb. In particular, non-finite verbs forms exhibit one or more of the following characteristics (cf. Cristofaro 2007: 91). They
- can be marked with case or nominal possession (nominal property),
- can be used adnominally (adnominal property),
- can require special argument marking (e.g., agent as possessor),
- cannot function as the form in main clauses (balanced/deranked), or
- can lack some of the inflectional categories found on finite verbs (e.g., person, number, and tense).
Question 60 addresses the finiteness of the verb within three contexts: adverbial clauses and complement clauses functioning as subject or object. In Turkish, all three clause types are non-finite (e.g., nominal form, accusative marking, etc.).
(1) Turkish
[Ne zaman gel-eceğ-in-i] bil-mi-yor-um.
what time come-ptcp-3sg.poss-acc know-neg-prs-1sg
'I don't know when he will come.'
(2) Turkish
[Dün gel-diğ-in-i] gör-dü-m.
yesterday come-ptcp-3sg.poss-acc see-pst-1sg
'I saw her/him coming yesterday.'
(3) Turkish
[Hiç gazete-ye bak-ma-mış ol-ma-sı] şaşırtıcı değil.
never newspaper-dat look-neg-pst be-nmlz-3sg.poss surprising not
'It isn't surprising that he never looked at the newspaper.'
In German, on the other hand, all three can be finite:
(1) German
Ich weiß nicht, [wann er kommt].
'I don't know when he will come.'
(2) German
Ich habe gesehen, [dass er gestern gekommen ist].
'I saw that he arrived yesterday.'
(3) German
[Dass er keine Zeitung liest], ist nicht überraschend.
'It isn't surprising that he does not read the newspaper.'
But German also allows prenominal adverbial (gerund) and participle clauses to be non-finite.
For some languages like Akan, the question is not applicable as the the finiteness of the verb could not be determined with the above-mentioned set of properties.
Correlations
The seems to be a cross-linguistic tendency in OV languages to use nonfinite verb forms in subordinate clauses, whereas VO languages use finite forms (Lehmann 1980; É. Kiss 2023).
There is also a clear areal pattern within Eurasian languages: The combination of OV and nonfinite forms (including participles and converbs) can often be observed in Asian OV languages (such as Mongolic, Tungusic) whereas many European languages exhibit VO and finite verb forms (Table 1).
Table 1: Some simplified (areal) correlations concerning subordination and finiteness in Eurasian languages (Keskin et al. forthcoming)
| Adverbial Clauses | Relative Clauses | Complement Clauses | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Function | adverbial modifier | adnominal modifier | argument |
| OV (Asian) | converbs; participles + peripheral case (e.g., locative) | participles | participle + core case (e.g., accusative) |
| VO (European) | initial subordinators + finite verb | initial relative pronouns + finite verb | initial complementizer + finite verb |
References
| Author(s) | Title | Year | Published in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cristofaro, Sonia | Deconstructing categories: Finiteness in a functional-typological perspective. | 2007 | In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 91–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| É. Kiss, Katalin | The (non-)finiteness of subordination correlates with basic word order: Evidence from Uralic. | 2023 | Acta Linguistica Academica 70(2). 171–194. |
| Keskin, Cem, Andreas Hölzl & Krasikova, Natalia | Word order shift and hybrid relative clauses in North Balkan Turkic. | forthcoming | |
| Lehmann, Winfred P. | The reconstruction of non-simple sentences in Proto-Indo-European. | 1980 | In Paolo Ramat (ed.), Linguistic reconstruction and Indo-European Syntax, 113–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. |