Cover not available
Part of
The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 193–213

Fictive questions in conditionals?

Synchronic and diachronic evidence from German and English

| Ghent University, Belgium
This chapter discusses the alleged emergence of verb-first (V1) conditionals in English and German from question-driven fictive interaction of the type A: p? (B: Yes.) A: Then q. Since this scenario proves impossible to maintain with regard to English, an alternative model is proposed treating V1 as the grammaticalized residue of a stage in ancient Germanic at which word-order options were determined pragmatically instead of syntactically. The chapter shows that the conversational frame left its mark on V1-conditionals indirectly through the period as a rhetorical discourse unit in which V1 emerged as a marker of conditionality. This happened in different ways linked in part to the divergence of word-order systems between English and German.
Keywords: Germanic, grammaticalization, rhetorical discourse unit, verb-first conditionals
Published online: 1 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.10leu
References (48)
References
Auer, P., & Lindström, J. (2011). Verb-first conditionals in German and Swedish: Convergence in writing, divergence in speaking. In P. Auer, & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp. 218–261). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axel, K., & Wöllstein, A. (2009). German verb-first conditionals as unintegrated clauses: A case study in converging synchronic and diachronic evidence. In S. Featherston & S. Winkler (Eds.), The fruits of empirical linguistics. Vol. 2: Product (pp. 1–36). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betten, A. (1992). Sentence connection as an expression of medieval principles of representation. In M. Gerritsen, & D. Stein (Eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change (pp. 157–173). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Boor, H. (1922). Studien zur altschwedischen Syntax in den ältesten Gesetzestexten und Urkunden. Breslau: Marcus.Google Scholar
de Castro Campos, F. (1985). On conditionals as dialogue constructs. In M. Dascal (Ed.), Dialogue: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 101–113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, R. (2013). Subject auxiliary inversion and linguistic generalization: Evidence for functional/cognitive motivation in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2005). Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donhauser, K., Solf, M., & Zeige, L.E. (2006). Informationsstruktur und Diskursrelationen im Vergleich Althochdeutsch – Altisländisch. In A. Hornscheidt, K. Kotcheva, T. Milosch, & M. Rießler (Eds.), Grenzgänger. Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Jurij Kusmenko (pp. 73–90). Berlin: Nordeuropa-Institut der Humboldt-Universität.Google Scholar
Erdmann, O. (1886). Grundzüge der deutschen Syntax nach ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Stuttgart: Cotta.Google Scholar
Fleischmann, K. (1973). Verbstellung und Relieftheorie. Ein Versuch zur Geschichte des deutschen Nebensatzes. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1978). Conditionals are topics. Language, 54, 564–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1986). A comparative typology of English and German: Unifying the contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Helbig, G. (1983). Die uneingeleiteten Nebensätze im Deutschen. In Studien zur deutschen Syntax (Vol. 1, pp. 159–167). Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Herring, S.C. (1991). The grammaticalization of rhetorical questions in Tamil. In E.C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 253–284). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2010). What can synchronic gradience tell us about reanalysis? Verb-first conditionals in written German and Swedish. In E.C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 181–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. (2014). On the interaction between syntax, prosody and information structure: an interface approach to word order developments in Germanic. In K. Bech, & K.G. Eide (Eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in Germanic and Romance languages (pp. 341–376). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R., & Petrova, S. (2010). From V1 to V2 in West Germanic. Lingua, 120, 315–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J. (1975). The syntax of the simple sentence in Proto-Germanic. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. (1991). On some principles of grammaticalization. In E.C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (Vol. 1, pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1992). A discourse perspective on syntactic change: Text-building strategies in Early Germanic. In E.C. Polomé, & W. Winter (Eds.), Reconstructing languages and cultures (pp. 217–238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer, & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp. 22–44). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J., & Traugott, E.C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1940). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part V: Syntax. Fourth volume. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kim, J.B. (2011). Conditional inversion: A construction-based approach. Language and Information, 15, 13–29.Google Scholar
König, E. (2012). Contrastive linguistics and language comparison. Languages in Contrast, 12, 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E., & van der Auwera, J. (1988). Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals, and concessives. In J. Haiman & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 101–133). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusmenko, J. (1996). Die Periode – syntaktische Haupteinheit der altisländischen Prosa. In L. Popova, & Y. Kuzmenko (Eds.), Berkovs bók (pp. 145–160). Moscow: Impeto.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1999). Virtual reality. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 29, 77–103.Google Scholar
Lenerz, J. (1984). Syntaktischer Wandel und Grammatiktheorie. Eine Untersuchung an Beispielen aus der Sprachgeschichte des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leuschner, T., & Van den Nest, D. (2015). Asynchronous grammaticalization: V1-conditionals in present-day English and German. Languages in Contrast, 15(1), 34–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nieuwint, P. (1989). Should in conditional protases. Linguistics, 27, 305–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Önnerfors, O. (1997). Verb-erst-Deklarativsätze. Grammatik und Pragmatik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Petrova, S., & Solf, M. (2008). Rhetorical relations and verb placement in the early Germanic languages. In C. Fabricius-Hansen, & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 329–351). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Podlesskaya, V.I. (2001). Conditional constructions. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook (pp. 998–1010). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Popovici, V. (1981). Dialogues rhétoriques. Degrés, 9, i1–i6.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rieger, G.E. (1968). Die Spitzenstellung des Verbs als Stilmittel des altisländischen Sagenerzählers. Arkiv för nordisk filologi, 83, 81–139.Google Scholar
Sandler, S. (2012). Reenactment: An embodied cognition approach to meaning and linguistic content. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11, 583–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolt, B. (1990). Redeglieder, Informationseinheiten. Cola und Commata in Luthers Syntax. In A. Betten (Ed.), Neuere Forschungen zur historischen Syntax des Deutschen (pp. 379–392). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepaniak, R. (2013). Satztyp und Sprachwandel. In J. Meibauer, M. Steinbach, & H. Altmann (Eds.), Satztypen im Deutschen (pp. 738–763). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C. (1985). Conditional markers. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax: Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Stanford, June 24–26, 1983 (pp. 289–307). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Nest, D. (2010). Emergenz und Grammatikalisierung von V1-Konditionalen. Ein Rekonstruktionsversuch am Beispiel des Deutschen und Englischen. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Wessén, E. [1956] (1970). Schwedische Sprachgeschichte. Band III: Grundriss einer historischen Syntax. Suzanne Öhman (trans.). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wunder, D. (1965). Der Nebensatz bei Otfrid. Untersuchungen zur Syntax des deutschen Nebensatzes. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Jarque, Maria Josep & Esther Pascual
2021. From gesture- and sign-in-interaction to grammar: Fictive questions for relative clauses in signed languages. Languages and Modalities 1 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.