Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff


CiteScore 2018: 0.95

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.381
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.841

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Adverbial clauses and V3

Eva Csipak
Published Online: 2019-07-11 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0005

Abstract

This paper discusses word order effects in German adverbial clauses: often, the matrix clause can exhibit either V2 or V3 word order. I argue that adverbial clauses with V3 word order have an obligatory ‘biscuit’ interpretation and receive a speech act modifying interpretation, as has previously only been argued for ‘biscuit conditionals’. I show that this phenomenon holds more generally. On the other hand, a pragmatic analysis for V2 biscuit conditionals remains necessary.

Keywords: biscuit conditionals; German; V3 word order; speech act modification

References

  • Beaver, David & Cleo Condoravdi. 2003. A uniform analysis of before and after. In Rob Young & Yuping Zhou (eds.), Proceedings of SALT XIII, 37–54.Google Scholar

  • Biezma, Maria & Arno Goebel. 2018. The pragmatic ingredients to get perfect biscuits. In Robert Truswell, Chris Cummins, Caroline Heycock, Brian Rabern & Hannah Rohde (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21, 179–198.Google Scholar

  • Condoravdi, Cleo. 2010. NPI licensing in temporal clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. 877–910.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Coniglio, Marco. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln. Studia Grammatica 73. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Csipak, Eva. 2015. Free factive subjunctives in German. Universität Göttingen dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Csipak, Eva. 2018. Discourse-structuring conditionals and past tense. In Robert Truswell, Chris Cummins, Caroline Heycock, Brian Rabern & Hannah Rohde (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

  • Davison, Alice. 1983. Linguistic or pragmatic description in the context of the performadox. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 499–526.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Demirdache, Hamida. 1991. Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar

  • DeRose, Keith & Richard E. Grandy. 1999. Conditional assertions and ‘biscuit’ conditionals. NOUS 33. 405–420.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ebert, Christian, Cornelia Ebert & Stefan Hinterwimmer. 2014. A unified analysis of conditionals as topics. Linguistics and Philosophy 37. 353–408.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Eckardt, Regine. 2012. Hereby explained. Linguistics and Philosophy 35. 21–55.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Edgington, Dorothy. 1995. On conditionals. Mind 104. 235–329.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • von Fintel, Kai & Anthony Gillies. 2015. Hedging your ifs and vice versa. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

  • Francez, Itamar. 2015. Chimerical conditionals. Semantics and Pragmatics 8. 1–35.Google Scholar

  • Franke, Michael. 2009. Signal to Act. Game Theory in Pragmatics: Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives, and the left periphery. Lingua 116. 1651–1669.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Iatridou, Sabine. 1991. Topics in conditionals. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar

  • König, Ekkehard & Johan van der Auwera. 1988. Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives. In John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 101–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Köpcke, Klaus-Michael & Klaus-Uwe Panther. 1989. On correlations between word order and pragmatic function of conditional sentences in German. Journal of Pragmatics 13. 685–711.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1986. Conditionals. In Anne Farley, Peter Farley & Karl Eric McCullough (eds.), Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory; Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society 22, 1–15.Google Scholar

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Devon Strolovitch & Aaron Lawson (eds.), Proceedings of SALT VIII, 92–109. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

  • Krifka, Manfred. 2014. Embedding illocutionary acts. In Tom Roeper & Margaret Speas (eds.), Recursion: Complexity in cognition, 125–155. Springer.Google Scholar

  • Lewis, David. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • McCloskey, James. 2006. Resumption. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 94–117. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Stefan. 2005. Zur Analyse der scheinbar mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung. Linguistische Berichte 203. 297–330.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Gereon. 2016. Structure removal: An argument for feature-driven Merge. Glossa 2(1). 1–35.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Penka, Doris & Arnim von Stechow. 2008. Phrasal complements of before and after. In Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7, 1–17. Paris.Google Scholar

  • Pitsch, Stefanie. 2016. Syntax and semantics of causal nachdem in German. Linguistische Berichte 261–284.Google Scholar

  • Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Reis, Marga. 1997. Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Christa Dürscheid, Karl Heinz Ramers & Monika Schwarz (eds.), Syntax in Fokus, 121–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Reis, Marga & Angelika Wöllstein. 2010. Zur Grammatik konditionaler V1-Gefüge im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29. 111–179.Google Scholar

  • Scheffler, Tatjana. 2013. Two-dimensional semantics. Clausal adjuncts and complements. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Shaer, Benjamin & Werner Frey. 2013. ‘Integrated’ and ‘non-integrated’ left-peripheral elements in German and English. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35(2):465–502.Google Scholar

  • Siegel, Muffy. 2006. Biscuit conditionals: Quantification over potential literal acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 29. 167–203.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Speyer, Augustin. 2008. Doppelte Vorfeldbesetzung im heutigen Deutsch und im Frühneuhochdeutschen. Linguistische Berichte 216. 457–488.Google Scholar

  • Walkden, George. 2017. Language contact and v3 in Germanic varieties new and old. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 20. 49–81.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Wiese, Heike, Ulrike Freywald & Katharina Mayr. 2009. Kiezdeutsch as a test case for the interaction between grammar and information structure. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-06-25

Accepted: 2019-03-12

Published Online: 2019-07-11


Funding Source: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Award identifier / Grant number: RU FOR1614

The study was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, The grant home page: https://whatifkn.wordpress.com/, Grant Number: RU FOR1614 What If.


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 5, Issue s3, 20190005, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0005.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in