 I think she's probably known to all of you, but let me just give you some benchmarks. So Tanya is a professor at the University of Dysadof. She is a research associate in our department, and so she is kind of part of our intellectual family, and she is a very renowned scholar. Word-leading standing has written and co-written really influential books on criticalization, language contact, English, and I probably forgot at least two or three of the topics you have worked on. You've been very flattering. So, and today she has a very rebellious subject. So we're looking forward to the talk on the mirrors of the subordination. Okay, interesting that you should make this association with rebellious. Yeah, because subordination is about subordinating, subjecting. It's a little bit of a different context than, of course, the term is used here. In fact, I'm going to talk about a phenomenon which, as you see here in the title, is referred to as the mirror of subordination. So that will be in coordination just to make it easier. But before that, let me say that as always, I'm very, very happy to come back to Sauer's. I know some of you and it's wonderful to have in my audience today. So as you see already from the first slide, this is part of a bigger project co-authored by Bert Heine and Peter Rothstein as well. A PhD student of mine, Domenico Niccol, Marine Villogme, and also Sanjali from Hancock University, Sao. But now let me very quickly walk you through the structure of this presentation. After a brief introduction, I'll be talking about what actually we mean by this term in coordination. And we'll have to come necessarily to the phenomenon of which, in coordination, we claim is a mirror, namely, in subordination. In subordination is a familiar by now term because it was introduced by Nicholas Evans back in 2007. So I assume that you're all familiar with it. And then I will come to the notion of mirativity. Why? Because in the following section, I will argue that in coordination can lead to particular mirativity expressions. Mirativity in itself is a very interesting category because it is under-researched in a sense, and it became the object of a very active debate in the literature like 10, 20 years ago, but still there are a lot of linguists who just come into question. It's very existent. So in itself, mirativity is an interesting category. And of course, if it is possible for us to combine the two notions of mirativity and in coordination, we decided to just grab the chance and do that. And it also suits our purposes very well. Then I will try and give you a Berks eye picture, the global picture, within which it is possible to place both notions in subordination, in coordination. And in fact, we'll be talking about incosubordination. Why? Because as is well known, these two phenomena, coordination and subordination, are not exactly to clear-cut, discrete phenomena, rather various gradients between them. So it has been modulated to the literature already that in some languages we can refine structures which are neither examples of coordination nor of subordination, but rather core subordination. And then of course it makes sense for us to ask the question, is it also possible to talk of incosubordination just like we can talk of in subordination and in coordination as well? And we'll answer tentatively this question in the positive and then we'll come to the conclusions. So let's start from the beginning and let me tell you in the introduction that my major goals here are to build a case for the existence of a cross-linguistically identifiable morphosentactic phenomenon which we propose to call incoordination. And also to show that incoordination mirrors a phenomenon that has been described as in subordination by Evans 2007 and then there is a recent volume also with a lot of articles on in subordination. So for this purpose we will examine the category of narrativity as I pointed out. Narrativity, more generally speaking, has to do with that particular emotion of all basic emotions which is considered to be the hardest one to fake. Here you have several pictures of how surprise is expressed in body language. But now of course here we're interested in narrativities with the expression of surprise means. So now this was a very small introduction. Let me come to the second section namely incoordination. What is actually incoordination? This is an object of investigation as I pointed out. So this is a process with a starting point, a complex coordinated sentence with coordinating connectives such as but and we know that the canonical conjunctions which I pointed out as coordinated conjunctions are but and all. He will be talking about but and and I'll come to the point also of how all figures in our discussion here actually we we we've only been able to identify all as relevant to our topic in one in a single language. So it will have to be put aside for the time being. Now when we have so let's come back to the starting point namely a coordinated complex sentence with a coordinated connectives such as but and. Now it has been pointed out that the relationship between the conjunctions. These are the two clauses of the complex coordinated sentence. The relationship between the contracts between the two clauses can be either symmetric or asymmetric. So the first examples here illustrate a symmetric relationship between the contracts. This is where I mean these are cases where the contracts can be changed freely. So they're interchangeable. For instance, folds can go fast and old mobiles are safe. This is a so-called symmetric and an example of another symmetric relationship with the conjunction but would be folds can go fast but old mobiles are safe. Here we have semantic opposition but again clearly you can change the places of the contracts without any difference in meaning. Now when it comes to asymmetric relationship between the conjunctions we have a situation where the conjunctions are in chronological or causal relationship. An example of an asymmetric and will be folds can go fast and Harry just got a ticket for speeding. An example of an asymmetric but would be folds can go fast but Harry will never get a ticket for speeding. Now our concern in this study is with asymmetric relationship between conjunctions. So in this situation you have your first conjunct being the dominating clause and the second conjunct the dominated clause. Fonds can go fast is the dominating clause in this particular example and the dominating one is Harry just got a ticket for speeding and the connected between them is the coordinator and. Now so what happens actually in coordination? We have the starting point namely the two conjuncts of the complex coordinated sentence there is the coordinator between them and this is what you see in A here right so the clause one it is of course in the case of coordinated sentences the main clause you have the coordinate connective clause to the other main clause. An example would be John is told but he's not good at basketball. So this is a starting point and then the transition from this starting point to a structure like in B where you only have the coordinating connective followed by the second clause which again is the main clause because we're dealing with complex coordinated structures. Now that would be what we call in coordination. So the first clause gets submitted and what is used is only the coordinated connective and the second clause. An example of this would be in number two. So let me read this aloud. What was there before it began? Where did it all come from and how does it all work and why? This is physics George exciting brilliant and fascinating physics. But that is really okay the right intonation but that is really interesting. Maybe you can do that. Anyway what is important here is of course that we see but the coordinated connective is at the beginning of the utterance and then we have clause two. And this is perfectly fine. There is no communicative breakdown or anything because all the information that the hearing needs is there it is in the context itself. So the definition of in coordination that we propose is that this is a mechanism underlying the use of the sequence coordinating connective plus clause two in context where clause one is missing but it is pragmatically inferred. So what happens in coordination is I mean coordination this process involves coordinating connectives such as but and and I will give examples of this in different languages. Then we see that in coordination I mean in coordination is what I'm talking about. In coordination leads to the sentence initial use of coordinating connectives as we saw in the example and this process results in the independent use of formally coordinated clauses. So then of course there arises the legitimate question do the coordinating connectives change their status after they undergo in coordination or the starting point of complex coordinated centers with big of coordinators with big of conjunctions coordinating conjunctions but then if you have I mean processing in coordination and the resulting new structure with a particular form of the initially the erstwhile coordinated conjunction and the second clause only isn't this something different? We argue that in coordination leads to change in the status of the coordinating connective. So from a connective you come to a sentence particle. Now the connective but when it is used in complex coordinated sentence links two segments on the basis of contrast or denial of expectation for instance thoughts can go fast but Harry will never get a ticket for speeding this is a sentence that we discussed already. However when I mean after in coordination this but becomes a sentence particle because but expresses now the speaker's attitude and it doesn't link segments it may but doesn't have to even relate to a linguistic chunk that is it is not bound to a previous assertion by an interlocutor. In fact you can just open a conversation you can start your utterance and you can use but in the beginning. So you could say oh but that's a beautiful landscape and this could be something uttered by a speaker who admires the surrounding landscape while traveling by train or you can also imagine somebody talking to himself or herself or so this is what we propose to term in coordination and in coordination has been under the radar of scholarly research. Nicholas Evans predicted in fact its existence but he postponed its study for further stage of research and I'm quoting here what Yama says on this in his article on insubordination. He explicitly says I shall exclude from this survey for reasons of scope formally coordinated clauses used independently but in this study Nick established the phenomenon of insubordination across languages so let's take a closer look now at insubordination because we're constantly comparing the two processes here. The way insubordination was defined was that this is the phenomenon whereby the subordinated clause of a complex subordinate sentence comes to be used as a standalone independent main clause. So I'm quoting here Evans's definition of insubordination was often insubordinate clause was the conventionalised main clause used of what on prima facie grounds appear to be formally subordinate clauses. And here we have some examples of insubordination. If you could lend me a pen please so we see it's only the subordinated clause I mean the structure is one of the subordinate clause but it is used independently and there is absolutely no problem in inferring the meaning. Here plausibly this is derived from I'd be most grateful if you could lend me a pen please. Another example is that you would come to my party plausibly derived from I never expected that you would come to my party. And of course language users have no difficulty in supplying from the discussed dramatic context the plausible contents of the missing main clause. So what is initially a subordinate clause may be used as an independent main clause on its own. This is what insubordination is. And insubordination can be observed not only in English. Here we have the so-called less clause construction. This is from Peter Rostin's Gram Diary where we observe the process of insubordination what is initially a less clause, namely less clause construction, a complex subordinated sentence becomes what has been termed apprehensive. Use of only the main clause. So the less clause called also precautioning or validity of fear. In other words these clauses encode an apprehension causing situation which is an undesirable feared situation. And they are subordinated to a main clause or precautionary situation clause which indicates a possibility to averted or the avoidance situation clause. So that would be an example of a less clause, I mean the complex clause construction be quiet or I'll hit you. Here we have the precautionary situation encoded in the first clause and then you have the apprehension causing situation encoded in the second clause and as you can see there is this suffix, the less form, the suffix is yati and in English this is translated by less. Less itself is the result of a grammaticalization development in English. Now this is the starting point, the less clause construction but then you can have the first clause, the precautionary situation clause submitted so the result is apprehensive. And if you want to say this dog might bite you, you just use the less clause on its own the way that Peter Austin discusses this is that yati appears to function as a main clause verb suffix. Nevertheless it is clear from the context that an understood imperative warning or suggestion is implicit. Now another example of insubordination purpose of clauses that can be used alone these particular examples here have not been discussed in the literature that's why we pay special attention to them. For instance in English you can have to have with a main clause obviously this is also an erstwhile subordinated clause but it can be used on its own and thanks to the context here obviously it is plausibly derivable from I have brought this wine for example to have with the main clause. Another example would be to read on the journey. The context is picking up a book on display at a railway station plausibly derivable from this would be a good book to buy to read on the journey. We have examples from German to drink by Halbgericht. We have exactly the same situation to drink in the main clause to have with the main clause very similar. We have an example from Italian here also from French likewise I mean things are the same there. This is a bit more. Now why do we say that this was about insubordination right and as the title of this talk is the mirror of insubordination why do we say that incoordination is a mirror of insubordination well opposite this is a metaphor hopefully captures the parallels here just to make this graphically representable let's take a look at what happened one and two in the first couple of sentences in these first lines here which capture the nature of insubordination so what we have in insubordination we have clause one then we have the subordinated connective and we have clause two and that's the initial does the starting point in subordination but then after insubordination we just have only the subordinated connective and clause two for example if you would give me the pen please if you remember right so the first clause is omitted only the connective the subordinated connective is used and the second clause and very similarly like in a mirror fashion almost in incoordination we have again is a starting point a complex center structure with clause one and clause two connected by a connective only this time it is a coordinating one and the result of the process of incoordination is something very similar maybe omitted first clause what remains is the connective it is this time coordinated connective and the second clause so we will okay I mean this is the reason why we call incoordination the mirror of insubordination there are differences of course simply because in the one case we deal with subordination with the other one of a different nature now we pass on to the next section which is about mirativity because we would like to illustrate in more detail the phenomenon of incoordination by taking a closer look at this category and the way that it is encoded across languages so we will claim that incoordination can lead to the rise of model centers particles which express mirativity among other things mirativity was so to say I mean it was put on the map by Dilanze 1997 2001 there are also some later works of his I mean Dilanze insisted that this is a category in his own right he defined it as conveying information as a category conveying information which is new or unexpected to the speaker in the literature so far there has been a broad range of mirativity there has been proposed a broad range of mirativity values with respect to the speaker the audience or the address or thirds the main character in a narrative so the major elements of the major notions relevant to the category of mirativity are sudden discovery surprise, unprepared mind, counter expectation new information as you can see all of these are related somehow we take the notion of surprise, the value of surprise to be the core one for a number of reasons not every meaning within the mirative range is expressed in every language the most consistent one is to A that is the surprise of the speaker and 3A, unprepared mind of the speaker, this could be considered the core meaning of the mirative label, this is a quote from Ikevalt 2012 our standpoint is that surprise is the core meaning of mirativity since it typically entails the other meanings with exception of new information notice that this does not always have to be the case, for example Christa König in a forthcoming work shows that one of the core sound languages and excuse me I cannot do the click sound here there are people who can do that better than me but in this language we have a surprise mirative marker which is in complementary distribution with a distinct counter expectation marker so one has to be always careful but we talk about a tendency now let me just exemplify the category of mirativity by means of a language by means of a Tibetan language spoken in Nepal this is an example that Ikevalt herself gives so here the English translation is father shot the leopard, I realise to my surprise is the implication now father shot the leopard so what you have is the glosses are father in the irrigative leopard, the date of case and then you have this imperfective mirative specialised, dedicated form for the mirative category now we have to make a distinction here between mirativity versus evidentiality these two have traditionally been discussed together in the literature let's tease those apart mirativity as I said has gained popularity since 1997 but it is still a debated topic in the literature for example one of our colleagues here from Samas in Hill 2012 and also in other words calls its existence into question and there has been a very lively debate about this, I think that it is understandable why mirativity is an elusive category because it is really frequently expressed by evidential markers in many languages and in fact up to 1997 it was not systematically distinguished from the category of evidentiality so it is important to take a look at the difference between mirativity and evidentiality I understand the point here is that mirativity is not the same as evidentiality and my own mother tongue here comes very helpful because I'm a speaker of a language where we do have evidentiality as a very well established grammatical category and a lot of research done on that also in Bulgarian and it is clear that on the basis of Bulgarian data alone that mirativity and evidentiality constitute two different categories not only because of the semantics of the context in which they are used but also because there is a particular formal difference between them in one particular context which has to do with third person singular third person plural and singular but first of all what does actually mirativity mean sorry not mirativity evidentiality we are talking about the distinction between mirativity and evidentiality evidentiality is a grammatical category it is grammatical marking of the source of information so it is about the source of information different languages with evidentiality and evidentiality markers sophisticated so to say to a different degree when it comes to the expression of the source of information in some languages you only have two distinctions within the evidentiality category something which is witnessed by the speaker and something which is hearsay in other languages you could have up to seven as far as I remember audible information, audible information languages differ in that respect but here are examples from Bulgarian and I am so proud this is one of the languages where I can pronounce something and I can feel really my element Timotris de Plouvesh is what you would have in the normal situation where the speaker is also the witness it means you can swim I can sit or I know at first hand and in the second example you have the evidential category marked it means they say reportedly you can swim so you see there is a difference between the witness and non-witness in the non-witness that is the hearsay the evidentiality marker is it is in fact an auxiliary construction you have the verb to be conjugated for a person numbering tens and you also have one particular form of the verb which is called an heiress participle ending in L so that's a different form of expression of the evidential, a dedicated one to this particular category now in Bulgarian the evidential can be used as one of the strategies to express narrativity so you can say tisim mozhim de Plouvesh it means I am surprised you can swim in two languages as well hence the temptation to collapse the two categories into one this may well have been the reason why narrativity has turned out to be such an evasive category because of course you have one in the same form which can have the two functions it's very tempting to say well it's just why the same thing however there exists a clear indication there are two different categories I'm talking still about Bulgarian here evidential and mirative in Bulgarian the two differ in a formal expression in one particular type of context namely when the third person is involved in most cases the auxiliary verb to be is omitted from the grammaticalized expression of the mirative but not of the evidential that's for Bulgarian but in some languages you have even better even more straightforward evidence that mirativity and evidentiality can be two different things also can be totally differently expressed so in some languages there are distinct expressions for the mirative and the evidential all together and this can co-occur within the same sentence here's an example from Aikindal the English translation is I realized to my surprise apparently I have eaten this type of meat obviously there was something wrong with that meat and when the speaker realized that she produced the utterance and here you see in the final form of the verb we have these two forms the le which is imperfective mirative and sa which is inferential that marked for the first person pronoun so different formal expression one important thing evidentiality and mirativity are distinct they're different things another important thing that we have to point out here is that there is a distinction also that we made between also this study that we made between mirativity and the mirative so mirativity is a term used for a semantic category and mirative is a grammatical category this is the meaning of mirativity expressed by a dedicated grammatical grammaticalized structure so our concern here is that mirativity as a semantic category and the scope of its formal expression across languages now it has been pointed out already in the literature that mirativity can be expressed by means of first of all of course prosody with the right prosody, with the right intonation you can put everything into a mirative context she came to my lecture you know this is just a normal utterance nothing mirative everything as expected she came to my lecture do the right prosody and there is the expression of surprise prosody is very helpful always helps to express mirativity now we also have exclamatives with wh words to infinitives these examples that have been taken from Evans 2007 as you can see all of them are actually cases of insubordination why they don't schedule the under 11s oh this is first this is not W but it's F right first why they don't schedule the under 11s first to think that she should be so this that's another exclamative construction that I would meet you here again my intonation might not be the right one but these examples of mirativity being expressed here we also have lexical and formulaic expression of course I mean you can just say I'm surprised I'm amazed I'm shocked oh my god lo and behold this is used in narratives for example well I'm told by my Chinese informants that in Chinese if you want to say I'm surprised to use a lot of they don't have a dedicated grammatical morphine for that so they have a number of expressions and they are all expletives but really very very graphic expletives I don't have them here but I mean many languages many languages have a lot of those but also there is special linguistic expressions dedicated to encoding miratility as a grammatical morphine independent of evidentials or test aspect namely we have the mirative read as a grammatical morphine right the one that actually exemplified a couple of sites there is also 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 a fifth group of expressions of the mirativity category namely a non-dedicated grammatical means of expressing mirativity Alexandra Eichenwald calls these mirative strategies particular grammatical means which have particular functions and as an additional function they can also be used to express mirativity and it is this group of linguistic expressions that we mainly concerned with and this is what I'm going to talk about now because the focus of this study is actually that there exists okay let me first say what the status quo is regarding this group of non-dedicated grammatical means of expressing miratility or mirative strategies in the specialised literature so far there have been pointed out the groups of expressions as mirativity strategies namely verbal categories evidentials person marking and our proposal here is that there exists an additional group of expressions namely co-ordinated connectives such as but and and which after they go after they undergo incoordination become centres particles for expressing and whole construction then becomes a mirativity expression so this is the fourth group and we want to add this to what has been done already in research on mirativity so but let me first illustrate to you what has been pointed out in the literature verbal categories how can a verbal category for instance the aorist which is a verb form typically used as a narrative past in Hindi and Udu this may express surprise of the speaker as an additional mirative function so in a context where a couple and their 15 year old son visit their old friend after a long time and the friend can hardly recognise the boy whom he had known as a child this is a sentence which has been an utterance that has been made and I can about cite it so my how tall he has become is hey how much tall be and then you have go or become and the marker and the marker is ya the marker for the aorist here is used not as an aorist like normally it is just a narrative past narrative bounded past but as a marker of mirativity so the speaker is confronted with an unexpected factor situation here the size of the boy and uses the aorist rather than the perfect or present which would only mean a neutral statement the use of the same form in the aorist would have a different meaning in a narrative he became very tall right so you see how something which is designed with one particular function namely past can also acquire an additional function namely another well recognised way to encode the narrative as a narrative strategy is as I pointed out already evidential here is another example again from Bulgarian the non first hand information evidential or reported speech marker can be used to express speakers surprise for example if I were to say I have about money it means half the first person single or present and then money but then if I use the form of the evidential which is here say something like reported speech non-witnessed which doesn't make sense because it's me I'm talking about me nevertheless I can use this form of the evidential here say and I can say which means I'm surprised my god I thought that I don't have any money but thank god I can go to the restaurant and I can treat myself with a nice meal I have money I'm so nice and surprised she has money which she did not think she had so evidentials are very often used to express narrative and then there are some languages where there is a special person marking depending on whether it is a narrative expression a lot so in Sofiki spoken in Ecuador there is alternation between conjunct and disjunct person marking which marks new information and surprise especially in first person contexts disjunct person marking indicates something under speaker's control unexpected and thus surprising ok now the present proposal is as I said that there exists in addition to these three groups of expressions also a fourth group of non-dedicated grammatical expressions of narrativity namely centres of articles which result from the incoordination of coordinated connectives such as hand so we come now to the way that incoordination and narrativity fit together the first coordinating conjunction that we will consider is but and we will see how the process of incoordination where but is involved can lead to the expression of narrativity here is the representation of incoordination again the transition from a complex coordinated sentence with clause 1 main clause, clause 2 also main clause coordinated connective and then to a situation where you only have the coordinated connective and the second clause this is incoordination and here is an example of incoordination so this example results in the expression of narrativity it expresses surprise and it is the result of the process of incoordination many citizens of the so-called first world are still shocked to discover that we tropical islanders islanders speak English but you speak English so well they say but is used in the beginning of the sentence and it is followed by the second clause and this is exactly the structure that we have as a result of incoordination well here we have contacted our colleagues who work in the area of narrativity and it is interesting to see that the recoverability of the missing clause in the incoordination of but is a matter of gradients which depends on single languages and possibly on single speakers because for instance Alexandra Eichenwald and Victor Friedman Victor Friedman is a Slavist he has done extensive work on Bulgarian language with evidentiality the opinion about the recoverability of the missing clause is very different from the opinion of Skaldilansi for example so let me read those the less speakers feel the need to reconstruct the missing clause or are able to do so at all the less the component of contrast or opposition or denial of expectation is anchored in their mental representation and the more the mirative is entrenched hence the contrast judgments of language users Alexandra Eichenwald Victor Friedman versus Skaldilansi Alistair Eichenwald and Victor Friedman view but as mirative both in dialogical context that is to say when you have person A says something but also when there is no trace of objection to the previous but only constitutes an improving emotional response to the content of the letter and in monological context where you can start, you can open a conversation with but for instance where mirative but is already implied by the admitted sentence involving contrary expectation both admit however that they have no adequate explanation for this phenomenon for Skaldilansi I mean he still strongly perceives the component of objection or contrast contrast in dialogical context I don't think, I mean this is Skaldilansi's idea I don't think that this construction is mirative although my intuition is that it always occurs with mirative intonation it's hard to explicate the force of but in examples like that but it seems to have to do with emotional shading for me this construction can only be used with a clause expressing emotional evaluation but that's awful terrible, terrific it seems to me that the sense of the construction you're talking about is originally contrastive it occurs only in response to a statement and seems to imply something like that's terrible even though you didn't say so it's very interesting also when I speak for instance with speakers of Mandarin Chinese as their first language there is a very clear understanding that they can start an utterance with but in a mirative sense only if somebody else has said something but you can never start for example but that's a wonderful landscape on your own or imagine you see a very important situation you see somebody like 5 meters away from you who is stealing your bike you know that somebody let's say not 5 but 50 meters away from you you cannot hear you and your first reaction is but that's my bike you're surprised right you can say but perfectly well I think you can say that in German can't you? in German is a different story because you have your abba in the middle of the center so we'll come to German a little bit later you can just start you know you can open it well you can make your utterance say but that's my bike you can never do that in Mandarin Chinese I think here we're dealing with a very similar situation also depending not only on the language but depending also on individual speakers for some of them it depends really whether it is a dialogical or monological context and that's a very fine distinction a very interesting one too now in coordination and we saw that in English for instance it is possible to see how in coordination can lead to narrativity I mean to an expression of surprise but English is not the only language this is another language I mean Mangarai where you see the conjunction but can also function as a sentence particle and it is then an expression of narrativity so in the first sentence here you have this side is not sacred but that side is sacred so this side then you have non-sacred then you have the conjunction but in the second conjunct the second clause is other side sacred but you can also have the sentence gana yi which means but fat and it means oh it is fat so you see how in this language we have again used in the beginning is a sentence particle and then there follows the second clause use but in fact we have three words for but in Bulgarian one of them is very colloquial ama it comes from Persian sorry it comes from Arabic through Persian through Turkish and then into Bulgarian it's ama another but is not which is very neutral we have another one but it is not relevant and the first two buts ama and nor both of them can undergo in coordination and become expressions of narrativity so in the example she adores children but doesn't want to have children of her own this is the example where we see both in its normal adversity function but you can also have this in a context where here comes out to the swimming pool and speaker opens the conversation and the speaker knows from the hero really from an earlier conversation from an earlier communication that the hero I mean the hero said to the speaker that the hero cannot swim but then you know the situation is such that obviously the hero can swim so this is what the speaker says and opens the conversation meaning I'm surprised that you can swim possibly derivable from I expected you to not being able to swim but contrary to expectation you can swim Bulgarian is another language where a but a but form can be used about the conjunction becomes a sentence particle for the expression of we have examples from server creation and Bosnian same thing we have an example from Italian where you can see that it can also be used I'm surprised that this car is fast but this car is fast this is what you're saying literally same thing in Dutch if you want to say you here look who we have here what you're saying is you use ma which is but but who we there have so again in French this is the cover of a nice children's book and as you can see there is the mummy bunny and the small rabbit and the mummy is very happy that the bunny can finally walk she's nicely surprised and she says but you're walking and the way that she says that is by using me in French in the beginning of our game we have the use of the conjunction but as a sentence particle for the expression of narrativity German is a very special situation why well because if we take ABLA can also be used in the beginning of a sentence however if you use it ABLA is but in German if you use it in the beginning of your utterance you have to use DOCH and DOCH is a very special model particle in German and actually DOCH is the one it is the model particle which expresses narrativity ABLA in itself is a bit different here so if I want to say I'm surprised that this is DOCH is very important if you want to do your narrativity if you want to express it only by means of BA then interestingly you have to put BA not in the beginning but in the middle after the verb this is what you have to say and it's a very interesting question why I mean like we've been thinking about all that we have a couple of suggestions but maybe in the discussion period we'll come to that now another language where you can do the same thing you can use your conjunction but as a sentence particle to express narrativity and put it in the beginning is Turkish you see AMA the same one the same form which comes from Arabic through Persian through Turkish to Italian you can use AMA if you want to say but you can swim in a similar context and not only in Turkish you have this in Lebanese, Arabic BES is used there it can be used optionally but this is not the case in all languages in Mandarin Chinese for instance there are three different words for but as a conjunction but in Mandarin Chinese if you want to say I'm surprised you're still here then you have very special I mean you have specialized adverbials which means surprise to be surprised in this particular adverbial not any of the conjunctions but still be here Persian you can't use but in order to express surprise so let's say the same situation you come out of the room and you see your student who wanted you to help him you told him we have to come tomorrow because I have to go to a meeting afterwards but the student is I mean he needs your help he's still waiting there for you and you come out of the room and you say you're still here in a normal way but if you're surprised and if you want to express that you're surprised in Persian you would say you are a complimentizer that still here then be means that you should still be here basically you see just like in English we have incoordination here but not incoordination of but so it is not the case that but can always be used as an expression for creativity now we also have some examples of the coordinating conjunction and where we see that this conjunction can also undergo incoordination so when used centers initially the coordinate conjunction may come to express that speaker as a surprise after receiving new information in the first example Mary cleaned the room and went to the movies we have a sequential meaning and I mean it means sequence in the second example that's what she said that's what she told me and I believe her here there is ambiguity you know about the meaning of and it could be sequential it could also be mirative in the third example obviously it is only a mirative meaning I might have known no girl could keep a secret it's my fault I kicked her I squeezed her neck I twisted her arm and now you are making fun of me well so you see different uses of and in English one of them is mirative and yields mirative influences of parasitic when it does not involve the quest for an answer as in one versus when it does as in two for instance if you take a look at the first couple of sentences A says I did everything for her B says and she left you this is a mirative expression in the second one I did everything for her and she left you so in one we have interaction between old and new knowledge the utter of the and sentence reconsiders with astonishment considered and such B already knew that A had been dropped but now that he also knows that A always acted in a different way he or she is surprised about his being dropped in German you have a similar situation Friedrich, would you please read that for me we go to the girls at night with Felix to answer do you actually know what is the reason for a punishment for this fireman in German you can also have and in the beginning and it expresses but not all languages show in coordination of and in order to express mirativity for example our Korean co-author is absolutely determined to claim that the clear and co-ordinator here you see the clear and co-ordinator because in Korean we happen to have a lot of forms which are not clear either co-ordinators or subordinators this co-form this is a clear co-ordinator and it does not carry the mirativity marking function it has other functions as we will see a little bit later so this was about but and and for which you can find enough examples across languages as expressions of mirativity after undergoing co-ordination now when it comes to the other typical co-ordinating connective or this is what you find in our textbooks and but and or are the canonical co-ordinating connectives then you have subordinators then you have a different intermediate group of connectives which are neither clear co-ordinators nor clear subordinators and but and or what about or it's difficult it has been very difficult for us to come across languages where or can also undergo co-ordination and express but we only have one case which comes this is the mother tongue of a student from Syria and he found this context this example from his own language variety western which is a Semitic language spoken in three villages in Syria so it is about the form we love which can be used either as a disjunction or as a mirative marker lo and behold at the beginning of a clause in a narrative only so here this is how the wheeler form functions as a conduction I don't know whether this book belongs to Barbara or Sabah we have wheeler or but then in a context where the speaker is narrating a story and something unexpected happens the narrator is telling a story about a man Yusuf's father who collected firewood from the mountain here is what you have what the English translation is one day as Yusuf's father went up the farm mountain to bring some firewood he heard a sound so in this final part of the utterance that we have is the mirativity expressed and how is it expressed it is expressed by the final part the mirative one it is expressed by using the conjunction all so you begin the clause with wheeler here in the past third person singular sound he heard an unexpected sound or lo and behold but that's the only example that we have all coordinated or expressing now let me step back together with you now and take a look at the bigger picture so what is all this about in coordination mirativity in subordination and as I will introduce to you now today first time we've been exchanging emails today and we came up with this new term in addition to in coordination namely in close to coordination it's like the machinery of producing terms made a connection between in coordination as a process it is a morphosyntactic process actually which can lead among other things to the expression of mirativity but we have to point out that while in coordination may result in mirativity denoting structures we are not claiming that in coordination is the only mechanism leading to such structures Evans shows that in subordination often underlies the rise of surprise denoting utterances if you remember in an earlier slide I also gave you the same examples where we have Y expression in the beginning of an exclamatory or 2 in the beginning of an exclamatory and also that now the other thing that we have to bear in mind is that in coordination may result in structures which do not have to express mirativity so we can have also other functions other meanings which result from the process of in coordination namely in coordination can lead to the use of a sentence particle which is a comment marker for instance from English and used as a sentence particle as a comment marker then she says your daddy and me used to drive his old road on his bike you did lots you don't know and she is right about that and this is so typical was dating several women at the same time so here we see and used as a comment marker and again we have in coordination coordination can lead to an expression to a sentence particle which marks shift in topic not only common for instance mirativity well in one of my earlier slides we have the following thing mirativity is not the same as evidentiality and then I said but what does evidentiality mean here I obviously used but I did my in coordination and I used but as a shift in topic marker in English and can also use a sentence particle can also function as a shift in topic marker I'm quite happy with my new job this is what A says but B says and where are you going on holiday and uses a sentence particle for a shift in topic now some languages manifest in coordination of more than one coordinated conjunctions at the same time Persian is one such language in here both and and but may undergo in coordination within the same structure in order to indicate shift of topic for instance if you want to say and now the weather report on TV you know shift of topic what you do in Persian is you use first and and then but you can recognize amma and then report the as effect construction state and then where and what you're saying is in English the weather report until now talking about in coordination the test assumption obviously was that syntax can be orderly neatly divided into subordination and coordination this however as we know is not a realistic picture of what we find in languages there does exist in fact syntactic gradients and you know you have indications of this already in works from 1932 and then more recently also 1981 van verden et cetera et cetera so basically when it comes to coordination we say that we have two clauses combined complex sentence where both clauses are not dependent and they're not embedded they're not two likes potatoes but two likes tomatoes when it comes to subordination we have two clauses both of which are dependent and both of which are embedded but now there is also this middle ground those situations which are neither subordination or coordination and the term that has been suggested for this is co-subordination from Coulette Craig I'll just take a look at the English translation of the example I watched the clause whistling now this whistling is a very interesting form because it is actually one clause and you see it is a dependent predicate because it cannot be used on its own on the other hand it is not embedded it is separate from the main clause I watched the clause and if you take a look at the structure in Yakutek you really have the subject and then the verb and that's your dependent clause and the other one is absolutely normally marked as a finite verb clause in the main clause now co-subordination is this middle ground and co-subordination crucially involves the so called dependent predicate and dependent predicates are verbs which cannot be used in independent clauses as I said, Maury Simonif who did his PhD in 2015 and then later on can continue on this variety spoken in Morocco I mean his latest article which is a most insightful study of what can be regarded as a particular kind of co-subordination he exemplifies it by Misa the so called chain heiress construction and in the chain heiress construction the English translation would be he went to the market and came back so you see here the first clause is marked very nicely, fully by a tense aspect mood form this is the perfective form here but the second clause which is not embedded it is an heiress in the vanity but the heiress is a non-marked form for tense aspect in mood and it is a dependent predicate, on the other hand it is not embedded so the two clauses are just suppose without the use of any conjunction and the heiress verb is interpreted as having perfective values it follows an initial perfective form of a plus dependent, minus embedded clause and this is a clear example of co-subordination the question is, the question that I asked Malouri was is it possible to omit the initial clause in the initial middle clause chain heiress construction this example of co-subordination the middle ground situation and Malouri answered the topic needs more study but it seems to be the case that this is possible I am quoting his email I recall a situation in the field when one of my language assistants uttered a dependent predicate after resuming his narration after a long interruption the dependent predicate was the first verb uttered after the long break that was meant to flag his attention to link the conversation back to where the interruption had taken place and indeed also in his thesis back in 2015 Simone pointed out that the function, the major function of this chain heiress construction, the co-subordination type at Tamatzik is cohesion, which is a very interesting finding so in that case he also has another article where he becomes clear that in myndu the middle form may be used without any initial form in narrative discourse so then we can speak of in co-subordination most likely as Simone says further research is needed but things look like this is going to be the case my final slide, what did we do here we built a case for the morphosyntactic phenomenon of in co-ordination we show that in co-ordination may lead to yet another mirage strategy that has remained unnoticed in the literature so far across languages and we propose that what Nikolas Emerson discovered about the independent use of subordinated clauses in his 2007 study may well turn out to hold true for all areas of sentence formation that is the process of undoing syntax in discourse pragmatic situations may be detected not only in co-ordination, subordination, but also in the gray or fuzzy zone of co-subordination and I really abuse to your patience here for which I apologize, thank you very much