10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415
Similatives (e.g. she swims like a fish) have been the focus of a number of investigations (e.g. Treis &amp;&nbsp;Vanhove 2017). However, hypothetical manner constructions (e.g. She treats me as if I were a&nbsp;stranger) have received little attention cross-linguistically. Therefore, our typological knowledge of&nbsp;this type of comparative clause is still in its infancy. This paper offers an analysis of the cross-linguistic&nbsp;variation in the expression of hypothetical manner constructions in a sample of 61 languages. Among&nbsp;the most common strategies found are similative ‘like’ markers and free adverbial conjunctions. Also&nbsp;discussed are other rare strategies, which seem to show clear areal patterns. In particular, some&nbsp;languages from Mesoamerica use correlative words, some Australian languages use counterfactual&nbsp;mood markers and some African languages employ head nouns meaning ‘thing’. This paper also&nbsp;explores whether hypothetical manner constructions show formal resemblances to other&nbsp;constructions.
application/pdf
2785-0943
13415
1
en
Jesús Francisco  Olguín Martinéz
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
real manner constructions
Hypothetical manner constructions in world-wide perspective
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
1
Research articles
2021-08-31
2021-08-04
2021-08-31
2021-10-11
6-46
LTC
Jesús Francisco  Olguín Martinéz
2021/08/31
10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415
6
University of California, Santa Barbara 
2785-0943
1
real manner constructions
en
46
<p>Zylstra, Carol F. 1991. A syntactic sketch of Alacatlatzala Mixtec. In C. Henry Bradley &amp; Barbara E. Hollenbach (eds.), <em>Studies in the Syntax of Mixtecan Languages</em> 3, 1-177. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.</p>
Hypothetical manner constructions in world-wide perspective
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/13415/13063
1
             Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46   ISSN 2785-0943



       Hypothetical manner constructions in world-wide
                                         perspective

                         JESÚS FRANCISCO OLGUÍN MARTÍNEZ1
                           1
                               UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA




                    Submitted: 17/11/2020        Revised version: 23/03/2021
                       Accepted: 25/03/2021          Published: 31/08/2021




                                              Abstract
Similatives (e.g. she swims like a fish) have been the focus of a number of investigations (e.g.
Treis & Vanhove 2017). However, hypothetical manner constructions (e.g. She treats me as if
I were a stranger) have received little attention cross-linguistically. Therefore, our typological
knowledge of this type of comparative clause is still in its infancy. This paper offers an
analysis of the cross-linguistic variation in the expression of hypothetical manner
constructions in a sample of 61 languages. Among the most common strategies found are
similative ‘like’ markers and free adverbial conjunctions. Also discussed are other rare
strategies, which seem to show clear areal patterns. In particular, some languages from
Mesoamerica use correlative words, some Australian languages use counterfactual mood
markers and some African languages employ head nouns meaning ‘thing’. This paper also
explores whether hypothetical manner constructions show formal resemblances to other
constructions.


Keywords: Comparative clauses; adverbial clauses; hypothetical manner constructions;
similatives; real manner constructions.




1. Introduction


Qualitative comparative constructions “do not express a quantitative gradation on a
particular parameter, but bring together the two terms of the comparison on the basis




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                    6
Olguín Martínez                                                     Hypothetical manner constructions


of similarity or likeness” (Fuchs 2014: 133).1 Qualitative comparative constructions
are divided into similarity (e.g. she swims like a fish) and hypothetical manner (e.g.
She treats me as if I were a stranger) (Treis 2018: iii). The linguistic typological
literature has especially been concerned with similatives (e.g. Treis & Vanhove 2017)
while hypothetical manner constructions have received little attention cross-
linguistically (but see Hetterle 2015: 195). To the best of my knowledge, this
construction has been explored mostly in individual languages, such as Pesh
(Chamoreau 2017: 331-332), Zaar (Caron 2017: 183) and North Saami (Ylikoski
2017: 275) and in European languages (e.g. Kortmann 1997: 284). Therefore, our
typological knowledge of this type of comparative construction is still in its infancy.
Martowicz (2011: 144) mentions that this type of semantic relation has not as yet
received serious linguistic interest, let alone special attention in any cross-linguistic
study. In a similar fashion, Hetterle (2015: 195) points out that hypothetical manner
constructions are unexplored territory in that no previous studies have addressed the
precise semantic and discourse functions of this type of comparative clause.
     The aims of this paper are two-fold. First, this research offers an analysis of the
cross- linguistic variation in the expression of hypothetical manner in a sample of 61
languages. Kortmann’s (1997) study of free adverbial conjunctions in the languages
of Europe shows that hypothetical manner constructions tend to be formed by phrasal
clause-linking devices, such as Spanish como si ‘as if’, German als ob ‘as if’, Portuguese
como se ‘as if’ and Icelandic likt og ‘as if’. However, it is not entirely clear whether
languages from other areas of the world also use free adverbial conjunctions to encode
hypothetical manner constructions. The present research should make it clear that
there may be more to the story, in that languages may use other clause-linking devices
to express hypothetical manner. Some languages from Mesoamerica use correlative
words, as in (1), some Australian languages use counterfactual mood markers, as in
(2) and some African languages employ head nouns meaning ‘thing’, as in (3).


(1)     Silacayoapan Mixtec (Oto-Manguean/Mixtecan; Shields 1988: 431-432)
        tá    tuhūn ndáā               nā          xyoko,         xá     ndáā        nā
        if    word      appear:PL      3PL.SBJ     San.Andrés thus appear.PL 3PL.SBJ



1
    Translated from the French original: “… une comparaison qualitative qui n’opère pas de gradation
quantitative sur un paramètre, mais rapproche les deux termes de la comparaison sur la base d’une
similarité ou d’une analogie.”


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                       7
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


      ndahví.
      poor
      ‘As if they were from San Andrés, those poor people look (lit. about like the
      people from San Andrés appear, so appear those people).’


(2)   Kayardild (Tangkic; Evans 1995: 378)
      jani-jani-ja        niwan-ju, yakuri-ya buru-tha           thaa-tha        marak.
      search-RDP-ACT 3SG-PROP fish-LOC                take-ACT   return-ACT      CF

      ‘They searched for him, as if they were going out to get fish.’


(3)   Dogul Dom (Dogon; Heath 2016: 269)
      è-wé      gòŋ       ɲǎ:       bè        ɲà:-l              yáŋ, yǎ:     yɛ̂:-ǹ.
      child-PL thing      meal      3PL.SBJ eat-PFV.NEG.PL       like tears weep-IPFV.3PL.SBJ
      ‘As if the children have not eaten, they are crying.’


Given that these strategies seem to be only attested in particular areas forming areal
clusters, it is proposed that the most obvious explanation seems to be language
contact. This is because: (1) the languages are spoken in the same region, (2) they are
not genetically related and (3) the probability of chance resemblance is low, given
the rarity of the strategies. Interestingly, the forms of the strategies are not the same.
Accordingly, speakers seem to have replicated these clause-linking strategies with
native material. This is known as pattern replication. In this scenario, only the
patterns of the other language are replicated, i.e. the organization, distribution and
mapping of grammatical or semantic meaning, while the form itself is not borrowed
(Weinreich 1964: 39; Heath 1978; Sakel 2007: 15; Heine & Kuteva 2008). Therefore,
this research aims at contributing to theories of language contact in that it can help
us to better understand how a particular grammatical pattern may have spread to
different neighboring languages not genetically related (e.g. the different possible
directions from which a particular development could have been stimulated; Mithun
2012).
   Second, this paper explores whether hypothetical manner constructions show
formal resemblances to other constructions. Some work has shown that hypothetical
manner constructions exhibit formal and functional resemblances to similatives (e.g.
The man swims like a fish; Fortescue 2010: 131; Chamoreau 2017: 331-332). Another
construction that is also very similar to hypothetical manner constructions is that of



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                    8
Olguín Martínez                                            Hypothetical manner constructions


real manner adverbial clauses (e.g. do as I told you; Darmon 2017: 372-373). In
achieving this goal, the guiding questions are: do hypothetical manner constructions
tend to resemble similative or real manner constructions formally? How can
hypothetical manner constructions be classified according to whether they resemble
similatives and/or real manner constructions? Are any of these systems frequent in
particular areas of the world? If hypothetical manner, similative and real manner
constructions are expressed by the same marker in a particular language, how do the
different meanings arise (e.g. context, specific TAM values)? Put it another way, if ‘X’
language employs the same marker to express hypothetical manner, similative and
real manner, how do speakers differentiate these meanings? Is context the only factor
that can distinguish them? Or do specific TAM markers aid in the disambiguation
process? Some work has shown that TAM markers may differentiate one adverbial
meaning from others (Hetterle 2015). A case in point comes from Lango
(Nilotic/Eastern Sudanic). This language expresses when-relations and after-relations
by means of the device àmɛ̂. Interestingly, the ‘when’ interpretation arises in
combination with the progressive aspect and the ‘after’ interpretation arises in
combination with perfective aspect (Noonan 1992: 243-246).
  The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 2 provides some remarks on
hypothetical manner constructions. Section 3 addresses methodological questions
relating to the language sample of the present study and the collection and analysis
of the data. Section 4 discusses the range of strategies used to express hypothetical
manner in the language of the sample, highlighting the role of language contact in
the spread of some strategies. Section 5 explores the formal and functional
resemblances that hypothetical manner constructions show to other constructions, in
particular to similatives and real manner constructions. Section 6 summarizes the
main points of the study as a whole and presents its overall conclusions.


2. Hypothetical manner: some remarks


A large number of unrelated languages scattered throughout the world share a
complex sentence construction that portrays an imagined (‘do X as if it was caused by
Y’), or counterfactual (‘do X as if Y were true’) situation (Dixon 2009: 35; Hetterle
2015: 54; Darmon 2017: 372-373). Because of the lack of typological studies, there is
as yet no consensus on the proper terminology for referring to this construction.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                              9
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


   Kortmann (1997: 195) employs the term “comparative clause” to refer to
hypothetical manner clauses. He mentions that ‘comparative clauses’ encoded by
morphemes whose meaning is close to ‘as if’ express a situation that is typically
hypothetical. Hengeveld (1998: 355) employs the term “unreal circumstance clause”.
He notes that this construction is introduced by a counter-factive conjunction
characterizing the situation as not real. Vanhove (2017: 206), in her description of
similative, equative and comparative constructions in Beja (North-Cushitic), uses the
term “pretence clauses”. Roulon-Doko (2017: 226) calls this construction “modus
essendi”. Heath (2014, 2016), in various grammatical descriptions of Dogon
languages, uses the term ‘counterfactual manner adverbial clauses’. Finally, Treis
(2017: 125) employs the term “hypothetical similarity clause”. In this paper, Dixon’s
terminology (i.e. hypothetical manner clauses) has been adopted in that it seems to
be the most accessible term to refer to this construction. The term ‘simulative’ may
be confused with the term ‘similative’ because of their phonological similarity. The
term “comparative clause” used by Kortmann (1997) is also ambiguous in that there
are different types of comparative constructions (e.g. inequality, superlatives).
   Hypothetical manner constructions may be considered adverbial clauses or
complement clauses. In order to flesh out this claim, however, it is necessary to
elaborate somewhat on what is meant by adverbial clauses and complement clauses.
Hypothetical manner constructions may be adverbial clauses, that is, non-argument
clauses that relate to the predicate or the entire proposition expressed by another
clause (i.e. the main clause) (Schmidtke-Bode & Diessel to appear: 2). This is nicely
illustrated in the West Coast Bajau example in (4), in which the non-argument clause
introduced by masam ‘as if’ fulfils a semantic and syntactic role in another unit.
Accordingly, the dependent clause spells out part of the setting of the main-clause
situation.


(4)   West Coast Bajau (Austronesian/Sama-Bajaw; Miller 2007: 418)
      be-sinar-sinar      no     emas      e     masam keadaan     kampung e       tunu.
      DISTR-shine-RDP FOC        gold      DEM   as.if   condition village   DEM   burn
      ‘The gold shimmered as if the village were burning.’


Hypothetical manner constructions may also be considered complement clauses, that
is, the predicate of one clause “entails reference to another proposition or state of
affairs expressed in a second clause” (Cristofaro 2003: 95). They would function as a



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                               10
Olguín Martínez                                                Hypothetical manner constructions


syntactic argument of a higher clause (Dixon 2006: 15). The range of semantic classes
of complement-taking predicates in this construction is rather limited in that only
some verbs may appear in this environment. First, hypothetical manner constructions
in which the verb of the main clause means ‘to act’ or ‘to pretend’ are known in the
literature as MISTAKEN IDENTITY constructions (see Spronck 2015; Spronck & Vuillermet
2019). The mistaken identity involves a reversal of polarity by expressing some ideas
inconsistent with behavior of a particular participant (Qian 2016: 220), as is shown
in the Donno So example in (5).


(5)   Donno So (Dogon; Heath 2016: 269)
      ù=ŋ         bɛ̀ndɛ́-dɛ̀-ŋ     gìnɛ̀   kán-jɛ̀-Ø.
      2SG=ACC hit-IPFV-LOG.SBJ as.if        act-IPFV-3SG.SBJ
      ‘He acts as if he’s going to hit you.’


Second, hypothetical manner constructions in which the verb of the main clause
means ‘to look’ or ‘to seem’, as in (6), are known in the literature as EPISTEMIC-
JUDGEMENT PREDICATES      (Schmidtke-Bode 2014: 44) and they belong to the domain of
propositional modality (Palmer 2001: 8). This stems from the fact that speakers
express their judgments about the factual status of the proposition (Palmer 2001: 8).
This type of hypothetical manner construction is a subject complement clause.
Schmidtke-Bode (2014: 44) mentions that “the experiencer, or holder, of the
propositional attitude is normally the speaker, and the proposition whose truth is
evaluated is coded as a complementation pattern in a main clause.”


(6)   Ojibwe (Algic/Algonquian; Valentine 2009: 214)
      dibishkoo      miznaakide-g     izhinaagwad-w.
      as.if          be.printed-CNJ look-IND.OBJ
      ‘It looked as if there were printing on it.’


This study only takes into account adverbial hypothetical manner clauses. However,
based on a close inspection of the languages of the sample, it has been found that
hypothetical manner constructions have usually developed by extension from the
adverbial domain to the complementation domain. This theoretical fact has not gone
unnoticed. López-Couso & Méndez-Naya (2015: 193) show that this development is
not restricted to English and other Indo-European languages, such as Spanish, Dutch



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                 11
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


and German, but can also be found in other languages (e.g. Caucasian languages).
What this seems to indicate is that this connection cannot be considered a language
specific phenomenon, but rather a development common in many languages not
genetically related. López-Couso & Méndez-Naya (2015: 196) mention that this
development is a case of secondary grammaticalization, that is, it refers to “increased
grammaticalization of already grammatical items in specific contexts” (Hopper &
Traugott 2008: 175). With this in mind, the hierarchy put forward in (7) aims at
capturing this tendency.


(7)     Adverbial clause > complement clause (‘to look’ or ‘to seem’) > complement
        clause (‘to act’ or ‘to behave’) > insubordinate clause2


There are two main theoretical observations to be gleaned from the hierarchy in (7).
First, if adverbial hypothetical manner constructions and mistaken identity
constructions (‘to act’ or ‘to behave’) are encoded by the same linking device in ‘X’
language, epistemic-judgement predicates (‘to look’ or ‘to seem’) will also tend to be
encoded in the same way. Second, one further development attested in the languages
of the sample of the present study is that of insubordination, that is, once adverbial
hypothetical manner constructions develop into complement clauses, they may
develop into insubordinate clauses, i.e. “the conventionalized independent use of a
formally subordinate clause” (Evans 2007: 377). This development is only attested in
a few languages of the sample, mainly Indo-European. For instance, in the Spanish
example in (8), the como si ‘as if’ insubordinate construction has the illocutionary
force of an exclamation, that is, the como si ‘as if’ has come to serve another function
(e.g. incredulity, disbelief, repulsion, disgust), but at the same time the construction
retains its irreality value. Given that only a few languages have insubordinate clauses
functioning in this way, further studies will enable us to explore in more detail the
functions served by this type of insubordinate construction.

(8)     Spanish (Indo-European/Romance)
        como si       tuvieras suficiente dinero!
        as       if   have.SBJV enough money
        ‘As if you had a lot of money!’

2
    In English the ‘as if’ conjunction can be used colloquially on its own (e.g. “Miss me, honey?” As if.
Where’s my crab cake?; Brinton 2014: 95). This usage has not been attested in the languages of the
sample.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                          12
Olguín Martínez                                                      Hypothetical manner constructions


Before leaving the present section, mention should be made of another domain
relevant to the study of hypothetical manner constructions. Hypothetical manner
constructions may be encoded by TAM markers appropriate to this context in the
languages of the sample, such as irrealis, subjunctive markers and counterfactual
mood markers. For instance, Chafe (1995) mentions that Caddo (Caddoan) has a
realis/irrealis distinction encoded within pronominal prefixes on verbs. He notes that
irrealis pronouns are used in several contexts, such as yes/no questions, prohibitions,
obligations, conditions and hypothetical manner constructions. The fact that
hypothetical manner constructions appear with TAM markers that harmonize with
their meaning is the expected scenario in that, as explained by Darmon (2017: 372-
373), hypothetical manner constructions portray an imagined (‘do X as if it was
caused by Y’), or counterfactual (‘do X as if Y were true’) situation. However, there
are languages in which hypothetical manner constructions are encoded by past tense
marking, perfective marking and/or completive marking. This is only attested in a
few languages of the sample. In Korean, the hypothetical manner clause has to appear
with the past tense marker -ʌt. In a similar fashion, in Uyghur, the hypothetical
manner construction occurs with the past tense marker -d.


(9)     Korean (Koreanic)3
        kɨ-nɨn         matɕhi      njʌn toŋan      mʌktɕi anɨn kʌt-tɕhʌrʌm mʌk-ʌt-ta.
        3SG.SBJ-TOP    as.if       year during eat         NEG      thing-as.if    eat-PST-DECL
        ‘He ate as if he had not eaten in years.’


(10) Uyghur (Turkic)4
        u           xuddi hëchqachan tamaq ye-mi-gen-dek                    yë-d-i.
        3SG.SBJ     like       never        food     eat-NEG-PTCP-SIM       eat-PST-3SG
        ‘S/he ate as if s/he had never eaten before.’


Given that hypothetical manner constructions portray an imagined (‘do X as if it was
caused by Y’), or counterfactual (‘do X as if Y were true’) situation, it seems reasonable
to explore whether other constructions expressing imagined or counterfactual
situations also occur with the same TAM markers. A possible candidate to this analysis
is counterfactual conditionals, a complex sentence construction in which the relation

3
    Example provided by Jiyoung Jang (personal communication).
4
    Example provided by Michael Fiddler (personal communication).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                       13
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


between the two clauses is that of an imagined situation that did not happen (‘if it
had not been for him, we could have got lost’) (Olguín-Martínez & Lester to appear).
Before proceeding to the analysis of this domain, it is important to bear in mind that
many of the sources taken into account in the present study do not contain a detailed
analysis of counterfactual conditionals. Therefore, this pioneering research can make
only a modest contribution to the understanding of this domain.
   Of the 61 languages of the sample, 16 languages provide a detailed analysis of
counterfactual conditionals. As is shown in Table 1, in most languages, the as if-clause
and the if-clause of a counterfactual conditional construction tend to appear with
different TAM markers. Note that only in two languages, the as if-clause and the if-
clause appear with the same TAM markers (i.e. Korean and Finnish). Accordingly,
these results seem to indicate that although hypothetical manner constructions and
counterfactual conditional constructions express imagined situations, they tend to
appear with different TAM markers. However, caution needs to be exercised with
these results given that they are based on 16 languages. Furthermore, these languages
are for the most part African languages and Eurasian languages. Future studies will
have to find out whether these results hold in a larger sample.


3. Sample and methodology


Since this is primarily an explorative study that seeks to characterize a type of
construction that has been traditionally neglected, the method for language sampling
employed here is the Genus-Macro-area method proposed by Miestamo et al. (2016).
This is a variety sample method, which aims at capturing as much variety as possible
with respect to the expression of the phenomena under investigation and to reveal
even the rarest strategies (Miestamo et al. 2016: 234). In this method, the primary
genealogical stratification is made at the genus level, and the primary areal
stratification at the level of macro-areas. In particular, a bottom-up variant of the
method has been employed in this research. In what follows, the structure and
motivations behind the selection of the languages of the current sample are
introduced.
   An ideal sample would include one and only one language from each genus of the
classification of the world’s genera in Dryer (2013). However, for some genera (e.g.
Alacalufan, Camsá, Tacame, Shabo, Yurimangí), it has not been possible to find any
source that provides a description of hypothetical manner constructions.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                         14
Olguín Martínez                                                     Hypothetical manner constructions




      Language            As if-clause TAM marking                 If-clause TAM marking
     Alto Perené         Irrealis and conditional mood     Irrealis and counterfactual mood (Mihas
                              (Mihas 2015: 285)                           2015: 263)
      Armenian            Present tense (Dum-Tragut          Past tense and irrealis (Dum-Tragut
                                  2009: 440)                              2009: 263)
       Ben Tey          Progressive (Heath 2015: 253)           Past tense (Heath 2015: 258)
        Boko             Progressive (McCallum Jones         Past perfect (McCallum Jones 1998:
                                  1998: 263)                                 269)
       Cuwabo          Past perfect (Guérois 2015: 350)      Counterfactual mood (Guérois 2015:
                                                                             410)
       Finnish           Conditional mood (Sulkala &            Conditional mood (Sulkala &
                             Karjalainen 1992: 53)                 Karjalainen 1992: 315)
       Goemai            Consecutive marker (Hellwig           Past tense (Hellwig 2011: 463)
                                  2009: 333)
       Ingush           Simultaneous converb (Nichols            Irrealis (Nichols 2011: 305)
                                  2011: 574)
        Iraqw            Past tense (Mous 1992: 167)          Past infinitive tense and perfective
                                                                      (Mous 1992: 329)
         Ket            Non-past tense (Nefedov 2015:       Past tense and irrealis (Nefedov 2015:
                                     201)                                    187)
       Korean              Past tense (Jiyoung Jang,            Past tense (Chang 1996: 159)
                           personal communication)
       Lezgian          Aoristic participle (Haspelmath        Past tense and aoristic converb
                                  1993: 247)                       (Haspelmath 1993: 396)
       Lumun            Incompletive (Smits 2017: 669)          Completive (Smits 2017: 390)
       Supyire             Perfect or potential mood         Counterfactual mood (Carlson 1994:
                              (Carlson 1994: 570)                            576)
    Tundra Nenets         Dubitative (Nikolaeva 2014:      Perfective aspect (Nikolaeva 2014: 374)
                                     104)
        Udihe           Present participle (Nikolaeva &      Past tense and irrealis (Nikolaeva &
                             Tolskaya 2001: 748)                     Tolskaya 2001: 750)


         Table 1: TAM marking of the as if-clause and the if-clause in the languages of the sample.


  As can be observed in Table 2, Eurasia has a stronger representation in the
languages of the sample. This is because many genera of this macro-area contain
languages with good grammatical descriptions of hypothetical manner constructions.
Note that many languages from Australia and South America could not be taken into




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                         15
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


    Macro-area         Number of genera         Number of genera in the sample         Coverage
       Africa                   77                            12                        15.58%
     Australia                  43                             3                         6.97%
      Eurasia                   82                            21                        25.60%
  North America                 95                            11                        11.57%
     Papunesia                 136                            10                         7.35%
  South America                110                             4                         3.63%
       Total                   543                            61                         ---------


                                Table 2: Genera covered in the sample.


consideration. This is due to the fact that various grammars provide detailed
descriptions of hypothetical manner constructions. However, they do not explain the
encoding of similatives and real manner constructions. Table 3 shows a complete list
of the languages taken into account for each macro-area.


  Macro-area                                  Sample languages                                   Sum
     Africa         Beja, Ben Tey, Boko, Cuwabo, Gbaya, Goemai, Iraqw, Kusaal, Lumun,                12
                                          Supyire, Tadaksahak, Yulu
   Australia                            Arabana, Kayardild, Warrongo                                 3
    Eurasia       Armenian, Biak, Chinese, English, Finnish, Georgian, Greek, Ingush, Karbi,         21
                   Ket, Korean, Latvian, Lezgian, Mongolian, North Saami, Spanish, Tundra
                             Nenets, Turkish, Udihe, Yakkha, Yukaghir (Kolyma),
     North          Crow, Barbareño Chumash, Francisco León Zoque, Magdalena Peñasco                 11
    America       Mixtec, Pech, Sahaptin, Sochiapan Chinantec, Huasteca Nahuatl, Warihio,
                                           Xicotepec Totonac, Yuchi
   Papunesia        Komnzo, Makasae, Mali, Manambu, Marind, Moskona, Urim, Samoan,                   10
                                           West Coast Bajau, Yimas,
     South                       Alto Perené, Cavineña, Chamacoco, Piapoco,                          4
    America
                                                                                                     61


                          Table 3: Languages of the sample per macro-area.


The uneven distribution of comprehensive descriptions of hypothetical manner
constructions and the limitations mentioned above cause what Bakker (2011: 106)
calls a bibliographical bias. In this regard, Schmidtke-Bode (2014: 49) notes that the
sampling procedure for complex sentence constructions is complicated because of the




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                              16
Olguín Martínez                                                          Hypothetical manner constructions


of lack of comprehensive reference materials. This gives rise to areal biases that
cannot be controlled for.5


4. Range of strategies


Across languages, the semantic relation between the adverbial clause and its
associated main clause may be indicated by various strategies (Hetterle 2015: 106).
In this section, the focus is on individual items that serve this function. Section 4.1
first concentrates on the most common clause-linking strategies in the languages of
the sample, viz. similative ‘like’ markers and free adverbial conjunctions. Section 4.2
then proceeds to explaining the less common strategies attested in the languages of
the sample, to which more time is devoted in that some of them seem show clear
areal patterns. In this regard, some languages from Mesoamerica use correlative
words, some Australian languages use counterfactual mood markers and some African
languages employ head nouns meaning ‘thing’.


4.1. Most common strategies


Across the languages of the sample, similative ‘like’ markers are more common in the
expression of hypothetical manner, as in the Cuwabo example in (11). Among the
languages of the sample, 39 seem to show this scenario in that they employ the
similative ‘like’ marker to express hypothetical manner. This clause-linking device
tends to introduce clauses whose internal structure shows no evidence of dependent
status, dependent verb forms or a combination of both. Accordingly, they operate in
clauses that appear with the same properties of main clauses. This finding echoes
Hetterle (2015: 173) who shows that ‘as if’ constructions exhibit the lowest degree of
downgrading in comparison to other types of adverbial clauses (e.g. purpose, cause).


(11) Cuwabo (Niger-Congo/Bantoid; Guérois 2015: 350)
         nyúwó        mu-ní-óná           nínga ddi-a-kweńt-ílé                     iiyí
         2PL.SBJ      2PL.SBJ-IPFV-see like        1SG.SBJ-PST-copulate-PFV         while



5
    The sample taken into account in the present study is first and foremost a variety sample. Accordingly,
the areal bias is not directly harmful for the general aims of variety sampling (Miestamo et al. 2016:
251).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                            17
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


      ka-ddi-a-kweńt-île.
      NEG-1SG.SBJ-copulate-PFV

      ‘You see me as if I had had sex, whereas I had not.’


Free adverbial conjunctions (Kortmann 2001: 842) are morphemes which mark
adverbial clauses for their semantic relationship to the main clause. Of the languages
of the sample, 22 have free adverbial conjunctions encoding hypothetical manner
constructions, as in the Comaltepec example in (12), where the adverbial clause is
introduced by the adverbial conjunction laᶫhuaɂ ‘as if’. Free adverbial conjunctions
also tend to introduce clauses whose internal structure shows no evidence of
dependent status. Therefore, similative ‘like’ markers and free adverbial conjunctions
tend to operate in clauses that appear with the same properties as main clauses.


(12) Comaltepec Chinantec (Oto-Manguean/Chinantecan; Anderson 1989: 50)
      ɂiᶫ    hiúːᶫ     naᶫ-b        zé     laᶫhuáɂ       ŋóᶫ   hnäᶫ.
      REL    child     that-AFF     go     as.if         go    1SG.SBJ
      ‘That child is going as if I were going.’


Two general remarks on free adverbial conjunctions are in order here. First, in some
languages of the sample, the free adverbial conjunction seems to have been derived
from a verb meaning ‘to say’. In Lezgian (Nakh-Daghestanian/Lezgic), guja na luhudi
‘as if’ is a fixed expression that is synchronically best regarded as a free adverbial
conjunction. Etymologically, na luhudi means ‘you would say’ (na is the ergative case
of wun ‘you’ and luhudi is the archaic future of luhun ‘say’) (Haspelmath 1993: 247).
Another example comes from Georgian (Kartvelian). In this language, the free
adverbial conjunction titkos ‘as if, as though’ derives from tu ttkva ‘if it was/is said’ or
tu ttkva ‘if it transpires that it is said’ (Hewitt 1995: 589). An interesting example is
found in Supyire (Niger-Congo/Senufo). In this language, hypothetical manner may
be expressed by a construction, which literally means ‘you would say’ (cf. French on
dirait). Carlson (1994: 570) notes that this clause is beginning to function as a phrasal
connective meaning ‘as if’ because it is not possible to pronounce it with pauses. This
finding echoes Heine & Kuteva (2002: 268), in which verbs meaning ‘to say’ may
grammaticalize into devices expressing the meaning ‘as if’. Although not explicitly
mentioned by them, the examples shown by Heine & Kuteva (2002: 268) seem to
indicate that this is common in Mande languages, such as Koranko (Mande/Western



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                             18
Olguín Martínez                                                             Hypothetical manner constructions


Mande), e.g. kó ‘say’, > íko (‘you say’) ‘as if ’ and Vai (Mande/Western Mande), e.g.
ro ‘say’ > i:ro (‘you say’) ‘as’, ‘as if ’.
   Second, there are languages in which a similative ‘like’ marker and a free adverbial
conjunction may occur at the same time in a clause, as in (13), (14), and (15).
Interestingly, in these languages, it is the similative ‘like’ strategy that has become
optional. Cross-linguistically, various types of adverbial clauses may appear at the
same time with two clause-linking devices expressing the specific semantic relation
in question. In this scenario, one of the markers is usually dropped (Hetterle 2015:
108; Schmidtke-Bode & Diessel to appear: 15). One possible hypothesis is that
hypothetical manner constructions in these languages appeared first marked by
similative ‘like’ markers. After that, speakers gradually developed a more specialized
way of expressing hypothetical manner in order to differentiate similatives from
hypothetical manner constructions. Once the two strategies converged in the same
construction, the similative ‘like’ marker gradually became optional. Schmidtke-Bode
& Diessel (to appear: 15) mention that in the recent typological and psycholinguistic
literature, such patterns have attracted increasing attention under the label of
redundancy management in grammar.


(13) Boko (Mande/Eastern Mande; McCallum Jones 1998: 263)
      má               kã          zu          gbɛ̃      pĩ          sàɛ́       láńdɔ̃ málɛ́
      1SG.SBJ.FUT      arrow       shoo        rock      that        beside as.if         1SG.SBJ.PROG
      pɔ          bã        wà.
      animal      fire      like
      ‘I will shoot an arrow beside that rock as if I am firing at an animal.’


(14) Makasae (Timor-Alor-Pantar/Makasae-Fataluku-Oirata; Huber 2008: 116)
      gi          nagar seu             meti      wa’a        lor       hani.
      3SG.SBJ     as.if     meat        sea       REL         swim      like
      ‘He swims as if he were a fish.’


(15) Piapoco (Arawakan/Inland Northern Arawakan; Klumpp 2019: 332)
      báawa-ca na-icá-ca           wía,        càide iyúwa wa-dé-ca                       nacaicaalí
      bad-DECL 3PL-see-DECL 1PL.OBJ thus                 like        1PL-attain-DECL as.if




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                              19
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


         wa-màni-ca       báawa-iri.6
         1PL-do-DECL         bad-M
         ‘They look badly upon us (i.e. they hate us), as if we had done (something) bad
         to them.’


The mono/polyfunctionality of the strategies shown above seems to be another
domain relevant to the study of hypothetical manner constructions. By
polyfunctionality is meant the range of meanings within the domain of adverbial
subordination that a particular temporal clause-linking strategy can have (Kortmann
1997: 89; Hetterle 2015: 202). Hetterle (2015: 214) shows that hypothetical
manner and concession are the two relations most commonly expressed by
monofunctional markers, as is illustrated in Figure 1. However, it is important to
mention that her analysis is based on only one example found in her sample.
Accordingly, this seems to suggest that there may be more to the story. One question
that arises at this point is: does the form of the clause-linking strategy encoding


                               most explicit        Hypothetical manner
                                                     concessive relations
                                                       before-relations
                                                        until-relations
                                                      purpose relations
                                                   terminus a quo relations7
                                                       result relations
                                                       causal relations
                                                temporal subsequence relations
                                                     conditional relations
                                                        when-relations
                                                        while-relations
                               least explicit        instrument relations


                     Figure 1: The explicitness scale of adverbial relations (Hetterle 2015: 218).




6
    One reviewer mentions that the example (15) could be analyzed as a correlative construction.
However, it is important to stress that in correlative constructions, both clauses must appear with a
clause-linking device. In (15), the first clause does not appear with a clause-linking device.
7
    Clauses that express terminus a quo refer to a semantic relation in which the situation of the dependent
clause indicates a starting point or starting period of time in the (relative) past from which the situation
in the main clause has been true (Kortmann 1997: 85).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                             20
Olguín Martínez                                              Hypothetical manner constructions


hypothetical      manner    constructions      play   a   role    in    the    degree      of
mono/polyfunctionality? That is, do similative ‘like’ markers used to express
hypothetical manner and free adverbial conjunctions develop different degrees of
mono/polyfunctionality?
  One interesting observation on the languages of the sample is that while free
adverbial conjunctions tend to be monofunctional, similative ‘like’ markers used in
the expression of hypothetical manner tend to be polyfunctional in that they are also
used to express other adverbial semantic relations. Accordingly, this suggests that the
mono/polyfunctionality of clause-linking devices encoding hypothetical manner
constructions will vary depending on their form.


4.2. Less common strategies


After having explored the most common strategies that languages may use to express
hypothetical manner, I can now proceed to explaining some rare strategies attested
in the languages of the sample. Interestingly, these strategies form particular areal
clusters. Since these strategies are cross-linguistically rare and are only found in
languages not genetically related spoken in the same area, diffusion through language
contact is most likely to have taken place.


4.2.1 Correlative words


From a cross-linguistic perspective, languages may use pairs of correlative words to
connect clauses together into complex sentences (see Haspelmath 2004 for an
overview of correlative coordinators). Perhaps the best known case is that of
comparative correlatives, such as the more money you have, the more you want to travel
(see Culicover & Jackendoff 1999) and immediate temporal subsequence (e.g. No
sooner had I left home than the phone rang), to name but a few.
  In the languages of the sample, Silacayoapan Mixtec and Huasteca Nahuatl express
hypothetical manner by means of a correlative construction. In this correlative
construction, the first connective is a conditional marker which can be optionally
followed by a lexical item meaning ‘word’. Note that the main clause must appear
with a linker meaning ‘thus’. Interestingly, in both languages, the verbs of both
clauses must be the same. In the Silacayoapan Mixtec example in (16), the verb of the
dependent clause ndáā ‘to appear’ must occur in the main clause. In a similar fashion,



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                               21
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


in the Huasteca Nahuatl example in (17), the two verbs must be the same in both
clauses. Furthermore, the first connective is a conditional marker optionally followed
by a lexical item meaning ‘word’ and the main clause must appear with a linker
meaning ‘thus’. The most obvious explanation to this parallelism seems to be language
contact. This is because: (1) the languages are spoken in the same region, (2) they are
not genetically related and (3) the probability of chance resemblance is low given the
rarity of the strategies.


(16) Silacayoapan Mixtec (Oto-Manguean/Mixtecan; Shields 1988: 431-432)
        tá     tuhūn ndáā              nā            xyoko,        xá          ndáā       nā
        if     word     appear:PL      3PL.SBJ       San.Andrés thus           appear.PL 3PL.SBJ
        ndahví.
        poor
        ‘As if they were from San Andrés, those poor people look (lit. about like the
        people from San Andrés appear, so appear those people).’


(17) Huasteca Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan/Aztecan)
        tla    tlahtol mayana-h,8 yekah mayana-h                ki-kua-yaya       baka naka-tl,
        if     word     be.hungry.PL thus        be.hungry.PL 3SG.OBJ-eat-IPFV cow meat-ABS
        ‘As if they were hungry, they ate the cow meat.’


This pattern is also attested in other Mixtec languages. In the Alacatzala Mixtec
example in (18), the verb of dependent clause ndóō ‘to sit’ must appear in the main
clause. In this correlative construction, the first connective is a conditional marker
which can be optionally followed by a lexical item meaning ‘word’. Note that the
main clause must appear with a linker meaning ‘thus’. It is important to stress that
other Nahuatl varieties do not express hypothetical manner in this way. For instance,
Tetelcingo Nahuatl expresses this semantic type by means of the phrasal linker kiem
tlɔ ‘as if’, composed of the similative marker kiem ‘like’ and the conditional marker tlɔ
‘if’ (Tuggy 1979: 129). Accordingly, this seems to indicate that Mixtec languages
served as the source. The fact that several Mixtec adverbial clause-linking strategies
may have spread to Huasteca Nahuatl is an interesting finding in that it has been
proposed for the most part that Nahuatl served a prominent role in the formation of
Mesoamerica as a linguistic area (Brown 2011: 201). This stems from the fact that

8
    The Huasteca Nahuatl example comes from the fieldwork of the author of the paper.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                      22
Olguín Martínez                                               Hypothetical manner constructions


this language served as a widely used lingua franca. However, it is important to stress
that this does not necessarily mean that Nahuatl did not copy linguistic traits from
other Mesoamerican languages (Brown 2011: 201). Speakers of Mixtec languages and
Nahuatl languages have been in contact through intermarriage, alliances and warfare
at least since the colonial period (Sousa & Terraciano 2003: 353), which has resulted
in a complex network of interactions and bilingualism (Terraciano 1990: 142).
Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that Nahuatl may have copied various
patterns from Mixtec languages and vice versa.


(18) Alacatzala Mixtec (Oto-Manguean/Mixtecan; Zylstra 1991: 149)
     tá     ndóō        ñĩĩ   kĩti    sãá ndóō        nā.
     If     sit.CONT.PL one animal thus sit.CONT.PL 3PL.SBJ
     ‘They live as if they were animals (lit. as animal live, so they live).’


Before leaving the present section, it is important to mention that in spite of the fact
that neighboring languages have not copied the same Mixtec pattern for expressing
hypothetical manner, they seem to have copied some properties for expressing other
meanings closely related to the hypothetical manner meaning. Chiapas Zoque has a
construction expressing real manner in which the verbs of both clauses must be
repeated as in (19), where kips ‘think’ is repeated in the second clause. Bear in mind
that this is a feature similar to one attested in Mixtec hypothetical manner
constructions. Similatives in Francisco León Zoque show an interesting scenario. As
can be seen in the example in (20), the second clause must appear with the linker
jetse ‘therefore’; a feature similar to one attested in Mixtec hypothetical manner
constructions. What this seems to indicate is that some of the properties of a
construction may be copied from one language to another to express a similar
meaning. This can set the stage for further processes of development, which may be
internally motivated.


(19) Chiapas Zoque (Mixe-Zoque; Faarlund 2012: 172)
     uj-t               te’=se=ti       ñu       ø-kips-ke’t-u
     1SG.SBJ-ERG        DET=SIM=LIM     PROG     1SG.SBJ-think-REP-PROG
     m-kips-u-se.
     2SG.SBJ-think-PROG=SIM
     ‘I think the same way as you think.’



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                23
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


(20) Francisco León Zoque (Mixe-Zoque; Bartholomew & Engel 1987: 358)
      como      ncastillo    nø            jya’pøtyøju-se       jetse          ajnøpya.
      like      castle       PROG.AUX      fire.PST.TERM-like therefore sound.CONT
      ‘It sounds like a castle is on fire (lit. like a castle is on fire, therefore it sounds).’



4.2.2 Counterfactual mood markers


Hypothetical manner constructions encoded by counterfactual mood markers are only
found in Australia in the languages of the sample. This is attested in Warrongo, a
Pama-Nyungan language, as in (21), and Kayardild, a Tangkic language, whose
genetic affiliation lies with the non-Pama-Nyungan languages of Arnhem Land (Evans
1995: 239), as in (22).


(21) Warrongo (Pama-Nyungan/Northern Pama-Nyungan; Tsunoda 2011: 683)
      nyola          yaji-garra-n             jilbay-Ø=gaji.
      3SG.NOM        laugh-ITER-NON.FUT       knowing-NOM=CF
      ‘He is laughing as if he knew (i.e. understood Warrongo).’


(22) Kayardild (Tangkic; Evans 1995: 378)
      jani-jani-ja           niwan-ju, yakuri-ya buru-tha           thaa-tha     marak.
      search-RDP-ACT         3SG-PROPì fish-LOC          take-ACT   return-ACT CF
      ‘They searched for him, as if they were going out to get fish.’


What is interesting to note is that these languages show a striking parallelism in a
type of pattern that is quite unusual cross-linguistically. Therefore, this pattern cannot
be explained by chance. Another important aspect to bear in mind is that these
languages are not genetically related. Accordingly, the fact that both express
hypothetical manner by means of counterfactual mood markers cannot be due to
common inheritance. The most likely explanation is language contact because the
languages are spoken in the same geographical region. In this regard, Evans (1995:
239) notes that there is evidence for sustained contact with Pama-Nyungan languages
now spoken on the northern fringe of the Central Australian desert.
   One important aspect that further supports the idea that this construction may have
spread through language contact comes from the fact the markers in both languages



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                 24
Olguín Martínez                                                    Hypothetical manner constructions


have almost the same range of functions. The counterfactual marker maraka in
Kayardild expresses not only hypothetical manner, but also other meanings. First, it
indicates the course of action which should have been taken, but was not, as in (23).
Second, it may refer to events that could have happened but did not, as in (24). Third,
it may be used to express mistaken identity or belief, that is, it indicates that, at the
time of the situation, someone either held a false belief about the identity or
characteristics of the relevant entity, or acts as if they had such a belief, as in (25).
Fourth, this marker may be used to express similative meanings, as in (26).


(23) Kayardild (Tangkic; Evans 1995: 378)
     nyingka      maraka           raba-nangku         dathin-ku dulk-u.
     2SG.NOM      CF           tread-NEG.POT        that-PROP place-PROP
     ‘You should not have set foot in that place.’


(24) Kayardild (Tangkic; Evans 1995: 378)
     maraka            yuuma-thu        barruntha-y.
     CF           drown-POT        yesterday-LOC
     ‘He could have drowned yesterday (but did not).’


(25) Kayardild (Tangkic; Evans 1995: 379)
     kurri-ja     manharr-iy       maraka              dangka-karran-ji     birra     niwan-ji.
     see-ACT      torch-LOC        CF               man-GEN-LOC           too       his-LOC
     ‘They saw a bark torch, and thought it was the man’s, that it too was his.’


(26) Kayardild (Tangkic; Evans 1995: 381)
     kaban-d             maraca         kamarr.
     stargazer-NOM CF                   stone-NOM
     ‘The stargazer (fish) is like a stonefish.’


In a similar fashion, the Warrongo counterfactual mood marker =gaji expresses not
only hypothetical manner, but also other meanings similar to those expressed by the
Kayardild marker maraka. First, it may be used for expressing epistemic-judgements,
that is, the speaker expresses his judgments about the factual status of the proposition,
as in (27). Second, it may also be used to express mistaken identity or belief, that is,
it indicates that, at the time of the clause, someone either held a false belief about the



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                      25
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


identity or characteristics of the relevant entity or acts as if they had such a belief, as
in (28).


(27) Warrongo (Pama-Nyungan/Northern Pama-Nyungan; Tsunoda 2011: 586)
        gibagiba-Ø=gaji          jombi-Ø         yino.
        mushroom-NOM-CF          penis-NOM       2SG.GEN
        ‘It looks as if your penis were a mushroom.’


(28) Warrongo (Pama-Nyungan/Northern Pama-Nyungan; Tsunoda 2011: 677)
        yarro-Ø      ngalnga=gaji          jojarra-Ø.
        this-NOM CF=CF                     urine=NOM
        ‘I thought it was urine, but in fact it was not (it was semen).’


This pattern is also attested in other Pama-Nyungan languages, such as Bidyara,
Gungabula and Wunambal. Tsunoda (2011: 984) mentions that this marker is a
cognate attested in various Pama-Nyungan languages that can be reconstructed.
Accordingly, this seems to indicate that Pama-Nyungan languages served as the
source, that is, Kayardild seems to have replicated this pattern from Pama-Nyungan
languages by using native material.


4.2.3 Nouns meaning ‘thing’


In the sample used for the present study, hypothetical manner constructions encoded
by head nouns meaning ‘thing’ appear as an African singularity. As can be seen in the
Dogul Dom example in (29), hypothetical manner is expressed by means of the noun
gòŋ ‘thing’ plus the similative yáŋ ‘like’. This is also attested in other Dogon languages,
such as Donno So, as in (30). Jeffrey Heath (personal communication) informs me
that the noun meaning ‘thing’ is not an argument (subject or object) within the
predicate of the ‘as if’ clause. Accordingly, this construction should be understood as
‘like the thing (situation) in which the children have not eaten’ in (29), and as ‘like
the thing (situation) in which I had hit him’ in (30).9



9
    As correctly pointed by one reviewer, the examples in (29) and (30) are similar to those shown in
§4.1, in which a similative ‘like’ marker and a free adverbial conjunction occur at the same time in a
clause.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                       26
Olguín Martínez                                                      Hypothetical manner constructions


(29) Dogul Dom (Dogon; Heath 2016: 269)
     è-wé          gòŋ        ɲǎ:       bè          ɲà:-l             yáŋ,      yǎ:
     child-PL      thing      meal      3PL.SBJ     eat-PFV.NEG.PL    like      tears
     yɛ̂:-ǹ.
     weep-IPFV.3PL.SBJ
     ‘As if they the children have not eaten, they are crying.’


(30) Donno So (Dogon; Heath 2014: 269)
     Î          yǎ:        yà:-dɛ̀-Ø,             kìdɛ̀     wò=ŋ́     mí           bɛ̀nd-ɛ́-Ø
     child      tears      weep-IPFV-3SG.SBJ thing          3SG=ACC 1SG.SBJ        hit-PFV-3SG.SBJ
     gìnɛ̀.
     like
     ‘The child is crying, as if I had hit him.’


Interestingly, a similar pattern is also attested in another African language of the
sample. In Gbaya, hypothetical manner is expressed by a similative ‘like’ marker
accompanied by a noun meaning ‘thing’, as in (31). Dogon languages and Gbaya are
not genetically related and the probability of chance resemblance is low given the
rarity of the strategies. Although it is very tempting to propose that language contact
may have played a role, Jeffrey Heath (personal communication) informs me that this
scenario is highly unlikely in that Dogon languages have not been contact with this
language. Therefore, care should be taken when interpreting these results.


(31) Gbaya (Niger-Congo/Gbaya-Manza-Ngbaka; Roulon-Doko 2017: 227)
     ɂà         gɔ̀nà            gásá zɔ́    hé     mɛ̀ nɛ́     Gbàmbɔ̀ndɔ́ mɛ̀í             gá.
     3SG.SBJ carve.out.PFV big grass SIM thing be               Gbàmbɔ̀ndɔ́ over.there SIM
     ‘He prepared a large plot of lands as if it were Gbambɔndɔ (the village’s largest
     hunting territory) over there.’



5. Hypothetical manner and formal resemblances to other constructions


This paper also explores whether hypothetical manner clauses show formal
resemblances to other types of constructions. It is well-known that comparative and
superlative constructions are more similar to each other than to other types of



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                       27
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


comparative clauses (Ultan 1972). Equative and similative constructions are more
similar to each other than to other types of comparative clauses (Haspelmath &
Buchholz 1998: 278). With this in mind, the question is: are there any structural
similarities between hypothetical manner clauses and other types of comparative
constructions? Various language-specific investigations have shown that hypothetical
manner clauses show formal and functional resemblances to similatives. In this
regard, Chamoreau (2017: 331-332) notes that hypothetical manner expressions and
similatives are related in various languages. These concepts are distinct but
connected, as hypothetical manner means “to imitate, pretend, aspire to the
appearance of something” and similarity means “to give the same appearance as
something” (Chamoreau 2017: 331-332). In a similar fashion, Fortescue (2010: 131)
mentions that most languages have expressions related to those they use as similative
markers that express hypothetical manner relations. However, as he acknowledges,
no typological study has explored this aspect in more detail.
   Another construction that is also very similar to hypothetical manner is that of real
manner clauses (e.g. do as I told you). Although real manner clauses are not a subtype
of comparative construction, they show formal resemblances to hypothetical manner
constructions in many languages. Darmon (2017: 372-373) notes that while
hypothetical manner portrays an imagined (‘do X as if it was caused by Y’) or
counterfactual (‘do X as if Y were true’) situation, real manner adverbial clauses depict
an action or state identical to that of the main clause. Hetterle (2015: 54) mentions
that both hypothetical manner and real manner constructions answer the questions
‘how?’, but they differ from one another in that real manner describes the character
of a situation comparing it to a real situation and hypothetical manner compares a
situation to a hypothetical or counterfactual situation.
   Here it is proposed that hypothetical manner constructions can be classified into
three main types according to whether they are encoded in the same way as
similatives and/or real manner clauses. In what follows, this classification is discussed
in more detail.


5.1. Hypothetical manner, real manner and similatives marked in the same way


Hypothetical manner, real manner and similative meanings may all be expressed by
the same clause-linking device, as is illustrated in the Chamacoco examples in (32),
(33), and (34). Note that ɨtso is used to express a similative meaning in (32), while it



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                          28
Olguín Martínez                                                           Hypothetical manner constructions


is employed to express hypothetical manner in (33) and real manner in (34). This is
the most common system in that 30 languages in the sample have this type. Note that
all constructions in the languages showing this pattern are always marked by a
similative ‘like’ marker. This indicates that from a diachronic perspective hypothetical
manner constructions and real manner constructions seem to have developed from
similatives. Although this pattern is attested in all macro-areas, in the languages of
the sample, it seems to be more frequent in Papunesia.


(32) Chamacoco (Zamucoan)10
        o-ho        naraje      oti-ch             shɨ          ɨtso awɨ-t.
        3PL-drink orange        juice-M.SG         only         like water-M.SG
        ‘They drink orange juice like water.’


(33) Chamacoco (Zamucoan)
        ese    ɨr   otɨ-ch         nosh=ãha              õr     ɨshu-wo    shɨ   ɨtso uje     o-ch-ũrhu
        that 3SG liquid-M.SG       spill=PREP            3PL dress-M.SG only like SUB PL-3-wash
        l-asu-wo=ho             wɨr         erze              wino.
        REFL-dress-M.PL-PREP DET.PL         that.PL           wine
        ‘Its liquid spills from their dresses, as if they had washed their dresses with wine.’


(34) Chamacoco (Zamucoan)
        uhu         ɨtso     uje         y-ɨkitkẽr yẽr.
        2SG.do      like     SUB         1PL-talk REC.F
        ‘You do the way we talk to each other’


One question that may arise at this point is: if hypothetical manner, real manner, and
similative constructions are realized by the same clause-linking device in a particular
language, how are the various meanings differentiated?
     In almost all languages showing this system, contextual factors seem to be the only
factor disambiguating the different meanings. In Pesh, a Chibchan language spoken
in Honduras, the similative clitic =kán appears in hypothetical and real manner
constructions. In this scenario, the distinction is only given by context (Chamoreau
2017: 331-332). In a similar fashion, Luca Ciucci (personal communication) informs
me that, in Chamacoco, hypothetical manner, real manner and similative

10
     Examples provided by Luca Ciucci (Personal communication).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                            29
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


constructions are expressed by the similative marker ɨtso ‘like’. He mentions that the
only way one can distinguish them is based on the context.
      For only a small number of languages, scattered pieces of information are available
regarding this disambiguation process. Therefore, this pioneering research can make
only a modest contribution to the understanding of this domain. In some languages
for which this sort of information is available, hypothetical manner constructions are
marked by a similative ‘like’ marker plus a TAM marker that aids in disambiguation.
A case in point comes from Alto Perene. In this language, hypothetical manner, real
manner and similative constructions appear with the similative marker ki- ‘like’.
Hypothetical manner constructions occur with the similative marker ki- plus the
irrealis marker -ia and the conditional clitic =rika, which allows speakers of this
language to disambiguate this adverbial meaning from the others, viz. similative and
real manner meanings.11


(35) Alto Perene (Arawakan/Pre-Andine Arawakan; Mihas 2015: 285)
         a=ny-i=ri                           nihaa-tsapya-ki kisaa-tsantsana-ite          katari
         1PL=see-REAL=3SG.OBJ.M              river-bank-LOC be.black-wide-AUG             duck
         i=ki-t-ak-a                  i=mitsaink-ia=rika                  y=ovayeri-t-ia-ranki.
         3PL=SIM-EP-PFV-REAL          3PL=be.in.line-IRR=COND             3PL=fight-EP-IRR-ADV
         ‘We see black ducks on the river banks as if they were all warriors standing in
         lines.’


Another example comes from Karbi. In this language, hypothetical manner, real
manner and similative constructions are encoded by asón ‘like’. Hypothetical manner
constructions appear with the irrealis marker -jí, as in (36), to disambiguate this
meaning from the similative and real manner meaning. Interestingly, hypothetical
manner constructions can also appear with thàngbāk ‘as if’, considered another
constructional property used to disambiguate hypothetical manner from similative
and real manner. This seems to be an instance of compositional encoding; i.e., specific


11
     Mithun (1995: 384) explains that the notion IRREALIS portrays a state of affairs as purely within the
realm of thought, knowable only through imagination. A source of potential confusion in any
discussion on irrealis is that it has been applied to different concepts and constructions in languages
from many areas of the world. It is therefore important to clarify what is meant when using this term.
In this paper, irrealis is considered a specific marker (rather than notional descriptions of non-encoded
meanings of constructions) in the form of verbal affixes and clausal enclitics (Brooks 2018: 4).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                           30
Olguín Martínez                                                   Hypothetical manner constructions


constructional properties of a clause combine to dictate a particular adverbial reading
(Hetterle 2015: 106) and also to disambiguate various meanings from one another.


(36) Karbi (Sino-Tibetan/Kuki-Chin; Konnerth 2014: 409)
     mh           è-lì=ke              ke-rè-èt              a-tum=ke thàngbāk=si
     pause        1PL.INCL-HON=TOP NMLZ-be.alive-all POSS-PL=TOP as.if=FOC
     ke-lè-dūn-tām                                thèk-jí                    asón
     NMLZ-reach-join-impossible                   know.how.IRR               like
     nang=pinkhát-táp                             nang=pinkhát-phrú.
     1SG.NON.SBJ=advise-here.and.there 1SG.NON.SBJ-advise-here.and.there
     ‘Since we are alive, how can you give me so many pieces of advice as if we could
     reach (the place where my wife has gone after she died).’



5.2. Hypothetical manner and similative constructions marked alike; Real
manner encoded differently


The second most common system in this study is that of languages in which
hypothetical manner and similative constructions are marked in the same way, while
real manner constructions are encoded differently. In Tadaksahak, hypothetical
manner and similative constructions occur with the similative marker inʒin ‘like’, as
in (37) and (38), respectively. Note that real manner clauses appear with the head
noun ǝmmǝk ‘manner’, as in (39). Of the languages of the sample, 18 languages seem
to have this system. These languages are scattered in the different areas of the world
showing no effects of areal grouping.


(37) Tadaksahak (Songhay; Christiansen-Bolli 2010: 268)
     ee-dag       aɤo       senda   inʒin         ni=yyikkǝl-a     ni=dd=a          suubu    ka.
     SG-place     DET       DEM     as.if    2SG=lift-3SG        2SG-put-3SG hay          LOC

     ‘This matter is as if you take it (fire) up and put it to the hay.’


(38) Tadaksahak (Songhay; Christiansen-Bolli 2010: 268)
     feeji        aɤ(o)     ooda    inʒin         aɤ=wani.
     sheep        DET       DEM     like     2SG=of
     ‘This sheep is like mine.’



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                    31
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


(39) Tadaksahak (Songhay; Christiansen-Bolli 2010: 284)
      ǝmmǝk        aɤo       ǝnda aɤ=tǝ-d-a…
      manner       DET       with 1SG-FUT-do-3SG
      ‘The manner in which I do it…’


Another example comes from Crow. In this language, hypothetical manner and
similative constructions are encoded by the similative marker kummah ‘like’, as in
(40) and (41), respectively. Real manner clauses are marked by a headless relative
construction in which a head noun meaning ‘manner’ has been omitted, but it is
understood from context, as in (42). Note that in this example the construction still
keeps the relativizer am-.


(40) Crow (Siouan/Core Siouan; Graczyk 2007: 350)
      “kuss-dee-ssaa-la-h”       he-m      kummah “naa-la-h”           he-lahth      dee-laa.
      GL-go-NEG-PL-IMP           say-DS as.if            go-PL-IMP     say-even.if   go-SS
      ‘“Do not go”, he said, and as if he had said “go”, they went.’


(41) Crow (Siouan/Core Siouan; Graczyk 2007: 350)
      kummah issaxpuatahchewishke                  ahkaash-dak…
      like         sheep                           many-COND
      ‘They were like sheep…’


(42) Crow (Siouan/Core Siouan; Graczyk 2007: 255)
      biaxaake am-ma-lasitt-uua               ko     kala-koot-uu-k.
      ducks        REL-1PL.SBJ-happy-PL PRO          PREF-like.that-PL-DECL

      ‘(The way) that we ducks are happy, it is like that.’


One interesting correlation shown by languages having this type of system is as
follows: while hypothetical manner and similative constructions are encoded by a
similative ‘like’ marker, real manner constructions tend to be formed by a relative
clause appearing with a head noun meaning ‘manner’ or a relative clause from which
a noun meaning ‘manner’ has been elided, as in the Crow example shown above. The
fact that manner adverbial clauses are encoded in this way is not surprising.
Thompson et al. (2007: 245) point out that adverbial clauses expressing time (e.g.
Weʼll go when Tom gets here), location (e.g. Iʼll meet you where the statue used to be) and



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                    32
Olguín Martínez                                               Hypothetical manner constructions


manner (e.g. She spoke as he had taught her to) can commonly be paraphrased, in many
languages, with a relative clause that appears with a generic head noun that is
semantically empty, such as ʻtimeʼ (e.g. Weʼll go at the time at which Tom gets here),
ʻplaceʼ (e.g. Iʼll meet you at the place at which the statue used to be) and ʻway/mannerʼ
(e.g. She spoke in the way in which he had taught her to), respectively.


5.3. Hypothetical manner, real manner and similatives each marked by a
different strategy


Hypothetical manner, real manner and similative constructions may each be formally
distinguishable from one another in that they are encoded by a different marker.
Therefore, in this type of system there does not seem to be a diachronic connection
among these constructions. Note that this is the third, and least common pattern in
the present research. Of the languages of the sample, 11 languages seem to have this
sort of system. Instances of this type are found in all macro-areas, but they seem to
show a clear areal cluster in Eurasia. Languages vary with respect to the strategies
they employ to express this system. The examples discussed below do not exhaust the
whole range of ways in which languages formally distinguish this type of system, but
they should serve for discussion purposes. With that proviso, let us briefly discuss a
couple of languages showing this system.
  In Iraqw, hypothetical manner is expressed by the free subordinating conjunction
barékwa’o ‘as if’, as in (43), similatives appear with at ‘like’, as in (44) and real manner
is realized by means of a relative clause occurring with the head noun adó ‘manner’,
as in (45).


(43) Iraqw (Afro-Asiatic/Southern Cushitic; Mous 1992: 329)
     hamí án qaat                 dí-r    afá       loohi, barékwa’o   a-na
     now     1SG 3SG.M.PRS.lie place-F mouth way            as.if    1SG-PST
     gwáa’.
     1SG.die
     ‘Now I will lie at the side of the path, as if I have died.’


(44) Iraqw (Afro-Asiatic/Southern Cushitic; Mous 1992: 280)
     a        at     see’aay.
     COP      like   dog
     ‘He is like a dog.’


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                33
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


(45) Iraqw (Afro-Asiatic/Southern Cushitic; Mous 1992: 280)
      adó-r         ís     dawe          ngi-r        hlakat-i,     an     ahlaw-ká.
      manner-F 3SG elephants OBJ-INSTR hunt-3SG.M                   1SG 1SG.can-NEG
      ‘I cannot hunt elephants the way he does.’


The second example is from Tundra Nenets. This language has 15 inflectionally
formed non-indicative moods which express various epistemic, deontic and evidential
meanings (Nikolaeva 2014: 85). One of these moods is that of the reputative mood
which is formed by means of the marker -mǝna and is used to express hypothetical
manner or, as stated by Nikolaeva (2014: 85), it is employed to express “irrealis
comparison”, as in (46). Real manner constructions are formed by means of the
postposition p’iruw°na ‘how’, as in (47), and similatives are realized by means of the
similative marker -rəxa, as in (48).


(46) Tundra Nenets (Uralic/Samoyedic; Nikolaeva 2014: 104)
      wada-xəqnata         s’ita    xa-ma-m,             nyi-w°n’a=w°h nəmtor°-q       yet°h
      word-3SG.LOC         SG.ACC   call-IPFV.AN-ACC NEG-REPUT-DUB listen-CONNEG       DP

      tolaŋku.
      read
      ‘He is reading as if he does not hear that is being called.’


(47) Tundra Nenets (Uralic/Samoyedic; Nikolaeva 2014: 372)
      t’irt’a-q          məl°nə-wa-h             p’iruw°na ləx°nə°-n’ih.
      bird-GEN.PL        chirp-IPFV.AN-GEN how              talk-1SBJ.DU
      ‘We talk the ways birds chirp.’


(48) Tundra Nenets (Uralic/Samoyedic; Nikolaeva 2014: 35)
      …numki°-q            tu-rəxa-q.
      star.PL.GEN          fire-SIM-PL
      ‘…like the lights of the stars.’


Before I leave the present section, mention should be made of one system that seems
to be rare cross-linguistically in that it is only found in two languages of the sample.
This pattern is concerned with those instances in which similative and real manner
constructions appear with the same clause-linking strategy, while hypothetical



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                   34
Olguín Martínez                                                       Hypothetical manner constructions


manner constructions occur with a different one. The first example comes from Mali.
In this language, similative and real manner constructions are formed with the
similative marker klan ‘like’, as in (49) and (50), respectively. Hypothetical manner
is realized by means of the free subordinating conjunction gisnia ‘as if’, which seems
to be a contraction of a part of a larger expression used to introduce sensory
experiences ngia tu gia snēng ia ‘you would think (say) that’. Recall that this is in line
with the observation that in various languages free adverbial conjunctions may have
been derived from a verb meaning ‘to say’.


(49) Mali (Baining; Stebbins 2009: 377)
     ki            tneng             klan        ka.
     3SG.F         dodge.PRS         like        3SG
     ‘She dodges like him.’


(50) Mali (Baining; Stebbins 2009: 377)
     a=musnēng ngē                 muēn                vēt    gu=auj                      klan
     SPEC=idea         3SG         arrive.NON.PRS at          1SG.POSS=grandmother like
     da=ithik          ia          “ngo     da         vandingu vlek ngu         vang”.
     EMPH=DEM          REL         1SG      and        DES         1SG want      1SG.run.NON.PRS
     ‘An idea came to my grandmother the way in which she thought it, “I want to
     try and run away.’


(51) Mali (Baining; Stebbins 2009: 377)
     da      koki ka         tet          gisnia kule         ka       pe        mēni     aut
     and just 3SG.M          go.PRS as.if          stay.PRS   3SG.M    there     on       1PL.POSS
     gling-igēl.
     place-EXC.SG
     ‘He had just gone as if he was staying at our place.’


The second example is found in Warrongo. In this language, similative and real
manner constructions appear with yamanyon ‘similar’, as is shown in the examples in
(52) and (53), respectively. This item seems to have acquired the status of an enclitic
in that it receives stress, so it should not be considered a suffix (Tsunoda 2011: 671).
Etymologically, yamanyon ‘similar’ contains the demonstrative member of adverbs
yama ‘in such a way’. Note that the etymology of -nyon is unknown (Tsunoda 2011:


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                        35
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


671). Hypothetical manner is not expressed by yamanyon ‘similar’. Rather, the
language has developed a different formal way of expressing this meaning. As can be
seen in (54), hypothetical manner constructions are realized by the counterfactual
clitic =gaji. Etymologically, this counterfactual clitic comes from the adverb(ial) of
modality gaji ‘maybe, might’ and ‘you try!’ (Tsunoda 2011: 679).

(52) Warrongo (Pama-Nyungan/Northern Pama-Nyungan; Tsunoda 2011: 673)
      ngaya=yamanyon                nyola        gawa-l.
      1SG.NOM=like               3SG.NOM      call.out-NON.FUT
      ‘He is calling out like me.’


(53) Warrongo (Pama-Nyungan/Northern Pama-Nyungan; Tsunoda 2011: 683)
      yinda        yani-ya       yangga-gali-ya            ngaya=yamanyon.
      2SG.NOM      go-IMP        search.for-ANT-IMP        1SG.NOM=like
      ‘Go and look for it the way I do it.’


(54) Warrongo (Pama-Nyungan/Northern Pama-Nyungan; Tsunoda 2011: 683)
      nyola        yaji-garra-n               jilbay-Ø=gaji.
      3SG.NOM      laugh-ITER-NON.FUT         knowing-NOM=CF
      ‘He is laughing as if he knew (i.e. understood Warrongo).’


The present study has faced some challenges and is not without its limitations. In this
regard, determining the classification of particular types of systems has been one of
the most time-consuming parts of the analysis. A case in point comes from Cuwabo.
In this language, hypothetical manner, real manner and similative constructions occur
with nínga ‘like’. However, real manner may also be expressed by means of the head
noun mikálélo ‘way’ or the Portuguese loanword mánééra ‘way’ (Guérois 2015: 484).
Given that real manner is more frequently expressed by means of nínga ‘like’ (Guérois
2015: 484), the present study has classified Cuwabo as a language in which
hypothetical manner, real manner and similative meanings are expressed by the same
clause-linking device. These examples do not exhaust the whole range of problematic
cases that have been encountered during the analysis of the data. However, they
suffice to provide the reader with an idea of some of the difficulties that have arisen




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                        36
Olguín Martínez                                                 Hypothetical manner constructions


during the analysis. Nonetheless, such problematic cases are rather few and do not
detract from the validity of the overall conclusions.

(55) Cuwabo (Niger-Congo/Bantoid; Guérois 2015: 350)
     nyúwó         mu-ní-óná            nínga ddi-a-kweńt-ílé                 iiyí
     2PL.SBJ       2PL.SBJ-IPFV-see     like     1SG.SBJ-PST-copulate-PFV     while
     ka-ddi-a-kweńt-île.
     NEG-1SG.SBJ-copulate-PFV

     ‘You see me as if I had had sex, whereas I had not.’


(56) Cuwabo (Niger-Congo/Bantoid; Guérois 2015: 341)
     ńttítti       Rosa    ni-luw-ey-ilé         nínga     árígóra.
     hair          Rosa    NC-plait-NEUT-PFV     like    ring
     ‘Rosas’s hair is like rings.’


(57) Cuwabo (Niger-Congo/Bantoid; Guérois 2015: 483)
     ddi-ní-fúná           ddi-kál-é           nínga     e-á-ligí=ímí
     1SG-IPFV-want         1SG-be-SBJ          like      NC-PST.IPFV-be-HAB=1SG

     va-tákúlú=vênyu.
     NC-house=2PL.POSS

     ‘I want to be the way I used to be in your house.’


(58) Cuwabo (Niger-Congo/Bantoid; Guérois 2015: 484)
     mikálélo dhi-á-lí=iye…
     way           NC-PST.IPFV-be=3SG.SBJ

     ‘The way she was…’



6. Final remarks


This paper has set out to describe hypothetical manner constructions in a sample of
61 languages. It has been demonstrated that similative ‘like’ markers and free
adverbial conjunctions are more common in the expression of hypothetical manner
than other types of strategies (e.g. counterfactual markers, etc.). These devices tend
to operate in clauses that appear with the same properties as main clauses. One



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                  37
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


interesting observation in the languages of the sample is that while free adverbial
conjunctions tend to be monofunctional, similative ‘like’ markers used in the
expression of hypothetical manner tend to be polyfunctional in that they are also used
to express other adverbial semantic relations. It has also been shown that some rare
strategies are only attested in particular areas of the world. In particular, some
languages from Mesoamerica use correlative words, some Australian languages use
counterfactual mood markers and some African languages employ head nouns
meaning ‘thing’. Interestingly, the forms of the strategies are not the same. Given that
these strategies are cross-linguistically rare and are only found in languages not
genetically related spoken in the same area, diffusion through language contact is
most likely to have taken place.
   It has been proposed that hypothetical manner constructions can be classified into
three main types according to whether they are encoded in the same way as
similatives and/or real manner clauses: (1) hypothetical manner, real manner and
similatives marked in the same way; (2) hypothetical manner and similative
constructions marked alike, real manner encoded differently; and (3) hypothetical
manner, real manner and similatives marked by different strategies. It has been
demonstrated that in the majority of the languages, hypothetical manner, real manner
and similative meanings are all expressed by a similative ‘like’ marker. Contextual
factors are the most common factor used to disambiguate the different meanings of
this type of system. Scattered pieces of information seem to suggest that TAM values
may also aid in such a disambiguation process. However, at the current stage of our
typological knowledge, much more work needs to be done in this area.
   There are a number of aspects relevant to the study of hypothetical manner
constructions that this study could not address. Accordingly, they remain to be
investigated by future studies, and in what follows some potentially fruitful areas are
mentioned. First, the diachronic origin of clause-linking devices seems a promising
area. As was shown in this paper, in some languages of the sample, the free adverbial
conjunction seems to have been derived from a verb meaning ‘to say’. Second, another
candidate for larger-scale future investigations is the number of clause-linking devices
that may appear in the construction. In various languages of the sample, the complex
sentence construction may appear with two clause-linking devices at the same time
(e.g. similative marker and free adverbial conjunction). Interestingly, for the most
part, one of the devices is always optional. It remains an open task to explore the
range of factors that lead to this optionality. Third, for some large genera, this study



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                         38
Olguín Martínez                                            Hypothetical manner constructions


could only take into account one language (e.g. Oceanic). Therefore, the next step is
to explore the typology of the expression of hypothetical manner within particular
large genera. This will enable us to explore internal diversity and try to come up with
more fine-grained typological generalizations. Fourth, in most languages of the
sample, the adverbial clause tends to appear post-posed to the main clause. The
motivations for the positioning of hypothetical manner clauses are an unexplored
territory and open for future research (cf. Hetterle 2015: 127). Fifth, hypothetical
manner constructions usually develop from the adverbial domain to the
complementation domain. After that, they tend to develop into insubordinate
constructions. It remains an open task to explore whether this holds in a larger
sample. Furthermore, Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 1152) mention that insubordinate
‘as if’ constructions usually develop an exclamatory function. This holds for various
Indo-European languages. However, it is not clear whether other languages with
insubordinate ‘as if’ construction develop this function. This also remains an
unexplored territory and open for future research.



Abbreviations

 1 = 1st person                   ERG    = ergative          PFV   = perfective
 2 = 2 person
         nd
                                  EXC    = excised           PL   = plural
 3 = 3 person
         rd
                                  F   = feminine             POSS   = possessive
 ABS   = absolutive               FOC    = focus             POT   = potential
 ACC   = accusative               FUT    = future            PREF   = unglossable prefix
 ACT   = actor                    GEN    = genitive          PREP   = preposition
 ADV   = adverbial                GL   = goal                PRO =    emph./contr. proform
 AFF   = affirmative              HAB    = habitual          PROG   = progressive
 AN   = action nominal            HON    = honorific         PROP   = proprietive
 ANT   = anterior                 IMP   = imperative         PRS   = present
 AUG   = augment                  INCL   = inclusive         PST   = past
 AUX   = auxiliary                IND   = indicative         PTCP   = participle
 CF   = counterfactual            INSTR   = instrumental     RDP   = reduplication
 CNJ   = conjunct                 IPFV   = imperfective      REAL   = realis
 COND   = conditional             IRR   = irrealis           REC   = reciprocal
 CONNEG       = connegative       ITER   = iterative         REFL   = reflexive
 CONT   = continuous              LIM   = limitative         REL   = relativizer
 COP   = copula                   LOC    = locative          REP   = repetitive
 DECL   = declarative             LOG    = logophoric        REPUT   = reputative
 DEM    = demonstrative           M   = masculine            SBJ   = subject


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                               39
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


 DES   = desiderative                  NC   = noun classifier           SBJV   = subjunctive
 DET   = determiner                    NEG   = negative                 SG   = singular
 DISTR   = distributional              NEUT     = neutral               SIM   = similative
 DP   = discourse particle             NMLZ     = nominalizer           SPEC   = specifier
 DS   = different subject              NOM      = nominative            SS   = same subject
 DU   = dual                           NON.FUT     = non future         SUB   = subordinator
 DUB   = dubitative                    NON.PRS     = non present        TERM   = terminative
 EMPH    = emphatic                    NON.SBJ    = non subject         TOP   = topic
 EP   = epenthesis                     OBJ   = object




References


Anderson, Judi L. 1989. Comaltepec Chinantec syntax. Dallas: The Summer Institute of
   Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Bakker, Dik. 2011. Language sampling. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook
   of Linguistic Typology, 100-129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bartholomew, Doris A. & Engel, Ralph. 1987. Gramática Zoque. In Ralph Engel &
   Mary Engel (eds.), Diccionario Zoque de Francisco León, 329-416. Mexico: Instituto
   Lingüístico de Verano.
Brinton, Laurel J. 2014. The extremes of insubordination: Exclamatory as if! Journal
   of English Linguistics 42(2). 93-113.
Brooks, Joseph. 2018. Realis and irrealis: Chini verb morphology, clause chaining, and
   discourse. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California Santa Barbara.
Brown, Cecil. 2011. The role of Nahuatl in the formation of Mesoamerica as a
   linguistic area. Language Dynamics and Change 1(2). 171-204.
Carlson, Robert. 1994. A grammar of Supyire. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Caron, Bernard. 2017. Comparison, similarity and simulation in Zaar, a Chadic
   language of Nigeria. In Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Similative and
   equative           constructions:        A        cross-linguistic   perspective,           167-188.
   Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chafe, Wallace. 1995. The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian
   languages, and English. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in
   grammar and discourse, 349-365. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chamoreau, Claudine. 2017. Multifunctionality and polysemy of the similative
   marker =kan in Pesh. In Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Similative and




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                         40
Olguín Martínez                                                      Hypothetical manner constructions


  equative        constructions:     A         cross-linguistic        perspective,        321-337.
  Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chang, Suk-Jin. 1996. Korean. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Christiansen-Bolli, Regula. 2010. A grammar of Tadaksahak: A northern Songhay
  language of Mali. Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden.
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Culicover, Peter & Jackendoff, Ray. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English
  comparative correlative, Linguistic Inquiry 30(4). 543-571.
Darmon, Chloé. 2017. The morpheme ‑(a)ŋa in Xamtanga: Functions and
  grammaticalization targets. In Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Similative
  and      equative     constructions:    A       cross-linguistic       perspective,      359-385.
  Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2006. Complement clauses and complementation strategies in
  typological perspective. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.),
  Complementation: A cross-linguistic Typology, 1-48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in typological perspective. In
  R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The semantics of clause linking: A
  cross-linguistic typology, 1-55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Genealogical language list. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin
  Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck
  Institute       for   Evolutionary      Anthropology.              (Available       online      at:
  https://wals.info/languoid/genealogy, Accessed on 2019-06-18).
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild: With historical-comparative notes on
  Tangkic. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.),
  Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366-431. Oxford: Oxford University
  Press.
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2012. A Grammar of Chiapas Zoque. Oxford: Oxford University
  Press.
Fortescue, Michael. 2010. Similitude: A conceptual category. Acta Linguistica
  Hafniensia 42(2). 117-142.
Fuchs, Catherine 2014. La comparaison et son expression en francais. Paris: Ophrys.
Guérois, Rozenn. 2015. A grammar of Cuwabo. Mozambique, Bantu P34. PhD
  Dissertation, Lumière Lyon.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                       41
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


Graczyk, Randolph. 2007. A grammar of Crow: Apsáaloke Aliláau. Lincoln: University
   of Nebraska Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
   Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Coordinating constructions: An overview. In Martin
   Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 3-39. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
   Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin, & Buchholz, Oda. 1998. Equative and similative constructions
   in the languages of Europe. In Johan Van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial constructions
   in the languages of Europe, 277-334. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1978. Linguistic diffusion in Arnhem Land. Canberra: Australian Institute
   of Aboriginal Studies.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2014. A grammar of Donno So (Kamma So), Dogon language family,
   Mali. Ms.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2015. A grammar of Ben Tey (Dogon of Beni). Ann Arbor: University of
   Michigan.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2016. A grammar of Dogul Dom (Dogon language family, Mali). Ann
   Arbor: University of Michigan.
Heine, Bernd, & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge:
   Cambridge University Press.
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2008. Constraints on contact-induced linguistic
   change. Journal of Language Contact 2. 57-90.
Hellwig, Birgit. 2009. The semantics of clause-linking in Goemai. In R. M. W. Dixon
   & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), The semantics of clause-linking: A cross-linguistic
   typology, 318-335. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hellwig, Birgit. 2011. A grammar of Goemai. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hengeveld, Kees. 1998. Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe. In Johan van
   der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 335-420.
   Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hetterle, Katja. 2015. Adverbial clauses in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin/Boston:
   Mouton de Gruyter.
Hewitt,      B.    George.      1995.      Georgian:     A   structural   reference   grammar.
   Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2008. Grammaticalization (2nd edition).
   Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                42
Olguín Martínez                                             Hypothetical manner constructions


Huber, Juliette. 2008. First steps towards a grammar of Makasae: A language of East
  Timor. Munich: Lincom.
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English
  language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klumpp, Deloris A. 2019. A grammar of Piapoco. Dallas: Summer Institute of
  Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Konnerth, Linda. 2014. A grammar of Karbi. PhD Dissertation, University of Oregon.
Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial
  subordinators based on European languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kortmann, Bernd. 2001. Adverbial conjunctions. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard
  König, Wulf Oesterreicher, & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and
  language universals: An international handbook, 842-854. Berlin/New York: Mouton
  de Gruyter.
López-Couso,      María-José,      &    Méndez-Naya,      Belén.     2015.      Secondary
  grammaticalization in clause combining: From adverbial subordination to
  complementation in English. Language Sciences 47. 188-198.
Martowicz, Anna. 2011. The origin and functioning of circumstantial clause linkers: A
  cross-linguistic study. PhD Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
McCallum Jones, Ross. 1998. The Boko/Busa language cluster. Munich: Lincom.
Miestamo, Matti & Bakker, Dik & Arppe, Antti. 2016. Sampling for variety. Linguistic
  Typology 20(2). 233-296.
Mihas, Elena. 2015. A grammar of Alto Perené (Arawak). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de
  Gruyter.
Miller, Mark T. 2007. A grammar of West Coast Bajau. PhD Dissertation, University of
  Texas at Arlington.
Mithun, Marianne. 1995. On the relativity of irreality. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne
  Fleischman       (eds.),   Modality     in   grammar    and      discourse,     367-388.
  Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mithun, Marianne. 2012. Morphologies in contact: Form, meaning, and use in the
  grammar of reference. In Thomas Stolz, Martine Vanhove, Hitomi Otsuka, & Aina
  Urdze (eds.), Morphologies in Contact, 15-36. Berlin: Akademia Verlag.
Mous, Maarten. 1992. A grammar of Iraqw. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African
  and Amerindian Studies, University of Leiden.
Nefedov, Andrey. 2015. Clause linkage in Ket. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                              43
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


Nikolaeva, Irina & Tolskaya, Maria. 2001. A grammar of Udihe. Berlin/New York:
   Mouton de Gruyter.
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de
   Gruyter.
Noonan, Michael. 1992. A grammar of Lango. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Olguín Martínez, Jesús & Lester, Nicholas A. To appear. A quantitative analysis of
   counterfactual conditionals in typological perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics.
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge
   University Press.
Qian, Yong. 2016. A typology of counterfactual clauses. PhD Dissertation, City
   University of Hong Kong.
Roulon-Doko, Paulette. 2017. Expressing comparison in Gbaya, a Ubangian language
   of the Central African Republic. In Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds.),
   Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 213-237.
   Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. Types of loan: Matter and pattern. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette
   Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 15-29. Berlin/New
   York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2014. Complement clauses and complementation systems: A
   cross-linguistic study of grammatical organization. PhD Dissertation, Friedrich-
   Schiller-Universität Jena.
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, & Diessel, Holger. To appear. The typology of non-
   argument clauses. In Manfred Krifka & Mathias Schenner (eds.), The Oxford
   Handbook of Embedding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shields, Jäna K. 1988. A syntactic sketch of Silacayoapan Mixtec. In C. Henry Bradley
   & Barbara E. Hollenbach (eds.), Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages 1, 305-
   449. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at
   Arlington.
Smits, Helena Johanna. 2017. A grammar of Lumun, a Kordofanian language of Sudan.
   Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.
Sousa, Lisa & Terraciano, Kevin. 2003. The original conquest of Oaxaca: Nahua and
   Mixtec accounts of the Spanish conquest. Ethnohistory 50(2). 349-400.
Spronck, Stef. 2015. Refracting views: How to construct complex perspective in
   reported speech and thought in Ungarinyin. STUF – Language Typology and
   Universals 68(2). 165-185.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                           44
Olguín Martínez                                                 Hypothetical manner constructions


Spronck, Stef & Vuillermet, Marine. 2019. Mistaken-belief constructions across two
  continents. Presentation given at the 13th Conference of the Association for
  Linguistic Typology, University of Pavia 4-6 September.
Stebbins, Tonya N. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in Mali. In R. M. W. Dixon
  & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic
  typology, 356-379. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sulkala, Helena & Karjalainen, Merja. 1992. Finnish. London: Routledge.
Terraciano, Kevin. 1990. Mixtec and Nahuatl in Colonial Oaxaca. UCLA Historical
  Journal 10. 122-146.
Thompson, Sandra & Longacre, Robert & Hwang, Shin. 2007. Adverbial clauses. In
  Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description volume II: Complex
  constructions, 237- 300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Treis, Yvonne. 2017. Similative morphemes as purpose clause markers in Ethiopia
  and beyond. In Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Similative and equative
  constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 91-142. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
  Benjamins.
Treis,   Yvonne    2018.    Comparative        constructions:   An   introduction. Linguistic
  Discovery 16. i-xxvi.
Treis, Yvonne & Vanhove, Martine (eds.) 2017. Similative and equative constructions: A
  crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 2011. A grammar of Warrongo. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tuggy, David H. 1979. Tetelcingo Náhuatl. In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), Studies in
  Uto-Aztecan Grammar 2: Modern Aztec Grammatical Sketches, 1-140. Dallas: The
  Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Ultan, Russell 1972. Some features of basic comparative constructions. Working Papers
  on Language Universals (Stanford) 9. 117-162.
Valentine, J. Randolph. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in Ojibwe. In R. M. W.
  Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The semantics of clause linking: A cross-
  linguistic typology, 193-217. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vanhove, Martine. 2017. Similative, equative, and comparative constructions in Beja
  (North-Cushitic). In Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Similative and equative
  constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 189-211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
  Benjamins.
Weinreich, Uriel. 1964. Languages in contact. London/The Hague/Paris: Mouton.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                                  45
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 6-46


Ylikoski, Jussi. 2017. Similarity, equality and the like in North Saami. In Yvonne Treis
   & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic
   perspective, 259-290. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Zylstra, Carol F. 1991. A syntactic sketch of Alacatlatzala Mixtec. In C. Henry Bradley
   & Barbara E. Hollenbach (eds.), Studies in the Syntax of Mixtecan Languages 3, 1-
   177. Dallas: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at
   Arlington.



CONTACT
olguinmartinez@ucsb.edu




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415                                         46
