Standardly, verb-first (V1) conditionals are considered to be mere variants of wenn-conditionals; accordingly, left-peripheral V1-clauses are analyzed as embedded into the prefields of declarative apodosis clauses, just like their V-end counterparts. We challenge this view, proposing instead that dependent V1-clauses are syntactically unembedded/unintegrated, and, consequently, that postposed declarative apodosis clauses are either V2-declaratives with prefield ellipsis or V1-declaratives. We argue our case by presenting evidence that (i) wenn-clauses differ considerably from V1-clauses in semantic distribution, (ii) unlike wenn-clauses, V1-clauses do not meet the criteria for syntactic embedding, (iii) the alternatives entailed by (ii) for the structural analysis of a postposed apodosis both have empirical support. As for a syntactic analysis of V1-structures suited to these findings, we argue that a CP adjunction analysis is currently the best option available. We also point out connections between the semantic restrictions on V1-conditionals and the semantics of V1-interrogatives that are suggestive of a common semantic core, which raises hope that our background vision (ultimately, all dependent V-to-C clauses are semantically licensed substitutes for genuine subordinates) may also be true for V1-clauses.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper is concerned with two variants of Wh-movement, + Wh-question-movement and topicalization. Drawing on German material, we argue that they crucially differ as to the features of the landing sites: Wh-question movement is movement of + Whphrases into A-bar positions marked by + Wh, which assigns clausal scope to the + Whphrases; topicalization is movement of XP-phrases into A-bar positions unmarked by + Wh.Since +wh-phrases are also XP-phrases, our account predicts that +Wh-phrases may undergo not only +Wh-question movement, but also topicalization, i.e., that they can be Wh-moved without the scope effects typical of + Wh-interrogatives. This prediction is borne out by the existence of Wh-imperatives in German, i.e., long distance extractions of -+Wh-phrases into imperative clauses, which we discuss in detail. It is shown that +Wh-imperatives presuppose complements with an initial +Wh-phrase, which is topicalized into the matrix clause, thus showing conclusively that scope assignment is independent of Wh-movement.

No abstract