Cover not available
Part of
Micro- and Macro-variation of Causal Clauses: Synchronic and Diachronic Insights
Edited by Łukasz Jędrzejowski and Constanze Fleczoreck
[Studies in Language Companion Series 231] 2023
► pp. 51–100

Chapter 3
Types of German causal clauses and their syntactic-semantic layers

This chapter aims to discuss some distinguishing syntactic and interpretative properties of German causal weil-clauses, da-clauses and verb-first causal clauses. The chapter argues that these different properties can be fruitfully analysed in Krifka’s (2018, to appear) system of decomposition of a speech act into the levels of a proposition, of a judgement, of a commitment and of a speech act. These semantic levels are represented in syntax by TP, JP, ComP and ActP, respectively.
Standardly, a weil-clause is just a TP (covered by a CP-shell). In contrast, a da-clause is of the more complex category JP (covered by a CP-shell), which is adjoined to the JP of its host, i.e., a da-clause is interconnected with a judgement. Related to this there are, for example, the findings that in contrast to the situation with a weil-clause, a da-clause cannot be narrowly focal, that the causal relation expressed by da is not at-issue, and that there is no binding from the host into a da-clause. Furthermore, a da-clause may host a certain type of root phenomena. A verb-first causal clause is of the most complex category ActP and is licensed by an ActP. It cannot be syntactically embedded and it has illocutionary force, which, however, has a supporting function with regard to the illocutionary force of the preceding sentence. A verb-first causal clause may host all kinds of root phenomena.
The chapter also compares Krifka’s layers of interpretation and Sweetser’s (1990) three domains of interpretation (content, epistemic, speech act) and shows that these two classifications complement each other with correlations.
Keywords: different types of causal clauses, degrees of integration, (different types of) root phenomena, judgements, speech acts, sizes of clauses
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Causal clauses and the distinction between CACs, PACs and NonICs
  • 3.The layers of a speech act and their syntactic representations
  • 4.The licensing of causal clauses as PACs and as NonICs
  • 5.Consequences of the layer assignments
  • 6.Summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.231.03fre
References (57)
References
Alston, William. 2000. Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Hans. 1993. Satzmodus. In Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung / An International Handbook of Contemporary Research [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Sciences 9/1], Vol. 1, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 1006–1029. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angantýsson, Ásgrímur & Jędrzejowski, Łukasz. 2020. On causal af-því-að-clauses in Icelandic with a brief comparison to German verb final weil-clauses. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 104: 29–55.Google Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik. 2008. Epistemische Lesarten von Satzkonnektoren – Wie sie zustande kommen und wie man sie erkennt. In Semantik und Pragmatik – Schnittstellen, Inge Pohl (ed.), 217–252. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brandt, Margareta. 1996. Subordination und Parenthese als Mittel der Informationsstrukturierung in Texten. In Ebenen der Textstruktur: Sprachliche und kommunikative Prinzipien, Wolfgang Motsch (ed.), 211–240. Berlin, Boston: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breindl, Eva & Walter, Maik. 2009. Der Ausdruck von Kausalität im Deutschen. Eine korpusbasierte Studie zum Zusammenspiel von Konnektoren, Kontextmerkmalen und Diskursrelationen. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle. 2017. Non-at-issueness of since-clauses. In Proceedings of the 27th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, University of Maryland, College Park, 12–14 May, Dan Burgdorf, Jacob Collard, Sireemas Maspong & Brynhildur Stefánsdóttir (eds), 43–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Perspectives in causal clauses. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37(2): 389–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen [Studia Grammatica 73] Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger & Hetterle, Katja. 2011. Causal clauses: A cross-linguistic investigation of their structure, meaning, and use. In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 231], Peter Siemund (ed.), 23–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1918. Der Gedanke. Eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus 93(2): 58–77.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2004. A medial topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte 198: 153–190.Google Scholar
. 2011. Peripheral adverbial clauses, their licensing and the prefield in German. In Satzverknüpfung: Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion [Linguistische Arbeiten 534], Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi & Anna Volodina (eds), 41–77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. About some correlations between formal and interpretative properties of causal clauses. In Co- and Subordination in German and Other Languages [Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 21], Ingo Reich & Augustin Speyer (eds), 153–179. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
. 2020. German concessives as TPs, JPs and ActPs. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1) 110: 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. To appear. On the categorical status of different dependent clauses. In Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich: Theorie und Empirie. / Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues [Studien zur Deutschen Sprache], Jutta M. Hartmann & Angelika Wöllstein (eds). Tübingen: Narr.
Frey, Werner & Masiero, Federica. 2018. Desintegration versus Parordination bei obwohl- und weil-Konstruktionen. In Im Mittelpunkt Deutsch [ZAS Papers in Linguistics 59], André Meinunger (ed.), 57–82. Berlin: ZAS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner & Meinunger, André. 2019. Topic marking and illocutionary force. In Architecture of Topic [Studies in Generative Grammar 136], Valéria Molnár, Verner Egerland & Susanne Winkler (eds), 95–137. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freywald, Ulrike. 2018. Parataktische Konjunktionen. Zur Syntax und Pragmatik der Satzverknüpfung im Deutschen – am Beispiel von obwohl, wobei, während und wogegen [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 90]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Gohl, Christine & Günthner, Susanne. 1999. Grammatikalisierung von weil als Diskursmarker in der gesprochenen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18(1): 39–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco, Ciro & Haegeman, Liliane. 2020. Frame setters and microvariation of subject-initial verb second. In Rethinking Verb Second, Rebecca Woods & Sam Wolfe (eds), 61–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Mitchell S. 2000. Illocutionary force and semantic content. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(5): 435–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Patrick. 2014. German “doch”: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. In Proceedings of the Forty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Rebekah Baglini, Timothy Grinsell, Jonathan Keane, Adam Roth Singerman & Julia Thomas (eds), 163–178. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick Georg. 2021. Discourse particles. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann & Thomas Zimmermann (eds). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18(4): 317–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116(10): 1651–1669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and the Composition of the Left Periphery [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 8]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iten, Corinne. 2005. Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions, and Relevance: The Case of Concessives [Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2015. Satztypkonstruktionen und Satztypsensitivität. In Satztypen und Konstruktionen [Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 65], Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds), 23–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1993. Das epistemische weil. Bedeutungswandel einer Konjunktion. In Sprachgeschichte und Sprachkritik. Festschrift für Peter von Polenz, Hans Jürgen Heringer & Georg Stötzel (eds), 219–247. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2015. Bias in commitment space semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags. In Proceedings of the 25th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, Stanford University, 15–17 May, Sarah D’Antonio, Mary Moroney & Carol Rose Little (eds), 328–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Semantic types of complement clauses: Propositions, judgements and commitments. Talk and handout delivered at the conference ‘ars grammatica 2018’ at the Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim, June.
. 2019. Indicative and subjunctive conditionals in commitment spaces. In Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium, Julian Schlöder, Dean McHugh & Floris Roelofsen (eds), 248–258. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
. To appear. Layers of the clause: Propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. In Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich: Theorie und Empirie. / Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues [Studien zur Deutschen Sprache], Jutta M. Hartmann & Angelika Wöllstein (eds). Tübingen: Narr.
Levshina, Natalia & Degand, Liesbeth. 2017. Just because: In search of objective criteria of subjectivity of causal connectives. Dialogue & Discourse 8(1): 132–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pasch, Renate. 1983. Die Kausalkonjunktionen da, denn und weil: Drei Konjunktionen – drei lexikalische Klassen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 20(6): 332–337.Google Scholar
Pasch, Renate, Brausse, Ursula, Breindl, Eva & Wassner, Ulrich Hermann. 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen, Satzadverbien und Partikeln) [Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 9]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1994. Collected Papers. Electronic Edition. <[URL]> (1 September 2022).
Pit, Mirna. 2003. How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective. Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French [Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication 17]. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 2007. Dialog in der Grammatik: Doch in Kausalsätzen mit Verberststellung. In Von der Pragmatik zur Grammatik, Sandra Döring & Jochen Geilfuß-Wolfgang (eds), 39–56. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
. 2011. Subsidiäre Begründungen. In Konnektoren im Deutschen und im Sprachvergleich: Beschreibung und grammatische Analyse [Studien zur deutschen Sprache 53], Gisella Ferraresi (ed.), 157–182. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 2003. Structure for coordination. In The second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book. The Latest in Linguistics [Studies in Generative Grammar 61], Lisa Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds), 241–288. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rapp, Irene. 2018. Wenn man versucht, JA nichts Falsches zu sagen – Zum Auftreten von Modalpartikeln in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Linguistische Berichte 254: 183–228.Google Scholar
Ravetto, Miriam & Blühdorn, Hardarik. 2011. Die Kausalkonjunktionen denn, weil, da im Deutschen und perché, poiché, siccome im Italienischen. In Konnektoren im Deutschen und im Sprachvergleich. Beschreibung und grammatische Analyse [Studien zur deutschen Sprache 53], Gisella Ferraresi (ed.), 207–250. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 2013. ‘Weil-V2ʼ-Sätze und (k)ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach (2010). Zeitschift für Sprachwissenschaft 32(2): 221–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar. Handbook in Generative Syntax [Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics 1], Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schenner, Mathias & Sode, Frank. 2014. Modal particles in causal clauses. The case of German ‘weil wohl’. In Modes of Modality: Modality, Typology, and Universal Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 149], Elisabeth Leiss & Werner Abraham (eds), 291–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stede, Manfred & Walter, Maik. 2011. Zur Rolle der Verknüpfungsebene am Beispiel der Kausalkonnektoren. In Satzverknüpfung: Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion [Linguistische Arbeiten 534], Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi & Anna Volodina (eds), 149–179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taigel, Sonja. 2021. On the interpretation and use of causal verb-first-clauses in German. Studia Linguistica 75(1): 24–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen [Linguistische Arbeiten 223]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith. 2012. Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. Semantics of Underrepresented Languages in the Americas (SULA) 6: 239–254.Google Scholar
Volodina, Anna. 2011. Sweetsers Drei-Ebenen-Theorie: Theoretische Überlegungen vor dem Hintergrund einer korpuslinguistischen Studie über konditionale und kausale Relationen. In Konnektoren im Deutschen und im Sprachvergleich: Beschreibung und grammatische Analyse. [Studien zur deutschen Sprache 53], Gisella Ferraresi (ed.), 127–155. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2014. Kausale Konnektoren. In Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren 2: Semantik der deutschen Satzverknüpfer [Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 13], Eva Breindl, Ulrich Hermann Waßner & Anna Volodina (eds), 787–899. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 787–899. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, Christiane. 1989. Quaestio und referentielle Bewegung in Erzählungen. Linguistische Berichte 109: 163–183.Google Scholar
von Wietersheim, Sophie. 2016. Variable binding as evidence for clausal attachment. In Co- and Subordination in German and Other Languages [Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 21], Ingo Reich & Augustin Speyer (eds), 319–345. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Jędrzejowski, Łukasz
2023. Speech act adverbial clauses: The case of conditionaljeśli-clauses in Polish. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 68:2 ► pp. 282 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.