Article published in:
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: 01 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.10leu
References

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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chen, R.
(2013) Subject auxiliary inversion and linguistic generalization: Evidence for functional/cognitive motivation in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
(2005) Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R., & Petrova, S.
(2010) From V1 to V2 in West Germanic. Lingua, 120, 315–328. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J., & Traugott, E.C.
(1993) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nieuwint, P.
(1989)  Should in conditional protases. Linguistics, 27, 305–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Önnerfors, O.
(1997) Verb-erst-Deklarativsätze. Grammatik und Pragmatik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Pascual, E.
(2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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