Zur Grammatik (vor allem) konditionaler V1-Gefüge im Deutschen

Abstract

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.

On the Grammar of Optative Constructions

“…If we construe a grammatical example where the 'consequent' contains initial dann 'then' or a verb second configuration, both clauses seem to require a focus, as indicated in (390b+c). In terms of Reis & W611stein (2010) this indicates that both clauses have a separate focus-background structure, and they are Biezma (2011 a Biezma and I differ in that she assumes (400c), whereas I assume (400b). Neither of us argues directly for (400d), which may be conceptually motivated, as there seems to be no reason to assume that desirability is conveyed twice (though Rifkin 2000 may be seen as a proponent of (400d), as he argues that both antecedent and consequent must be desirable).…”

Asynchronous grammaticalization

“…Interestingly, sentence-final (and indeed sentence-medial) placement of V1-protases in German is more or less restricted to pattern B or (as in the example) pattern C verb forms, while pattern A forms tend to be avoided to varying degrees (Reis andWöllstein 2010:138-140, Pittner 2011:89-82). This is indirectly confirmed by Angela Merkel herself, whose sole documented use of (1) …”

Composing wie wenn—the semantics of hypothetical comparison clauses in German

“…At first glance, this comes as a surprise because verb-first antecedents are semantically fairly transparent in contemporary German. However, as argued for by Reis and Wöllstein (2010), they are obligatorily non-integrated and, thus, not related to the matrix VP. Bücking conjectures that verb-first conditionals cannot help identify the silent VP and are, thus, ruled out in HCCs with wie.…”