Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft
2 Issues per year
IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.250
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.281
CiteScore 2016: 0.56
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.171
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.727
In this paper I take issue with Antomo & Steinbach’s (2010) analysis of so-called weil-V2 clauses, by which the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties distinguishing them from integrated verb-final weil-clauses are claimed to all follow from two central factors: (i) parataxis triggering prosodic desintegration, (ii) V2-order triggering assertional force potential. Support for this analysis is sought in a close comparison of weil-V2 clauses with V2 complement and relative clauses, which is claimed to reveal pertinent functional and structural parallels. – In arguing against this analysis, I show, first, that the assertional status of the weil-V2 clause is triggered solely by the semantics of weil in combination with true main clause status, hence V2 as such plays no role; second, that the argument from subordinate V2-cases fails as well; third, that the broader interpretational range of weil-V2 clauses is completely shared by unintegrated verb-final weil-clauses; hence this difference to integrated verb-final weil-clauses cannot be due to ±parataxis and/or ±V2, but only to ±syntactic desintegration and/or ±root status. In concluding, I summarize the central factors an alternative compositional analysis of weil-V2 clauses could be based on, and sketch two problems remaining for either analysis.
Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.