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. 184–220

Chapter 7
Layers of subordinate clauses

A view from causal af-því-að-clauses in Icelandic

| University of Iceland
| University of Cologne

The main aim of this chapter is to examine adverbial causal af-því-að-clauses in modern Icelandic. Semantically, we argue that af-því-að-clauses can be interpreted as eventuality-related, as evidential or as speech-act-related causal clauses. Syntactically, we show that af-því-að-clauses can be analyzed as central, peripheral or disintegrated adverbial clauses in the sense claimed by Haegeman (2010, 2012), Schönenberger and Haegeman (this volume), and Frey (2011, 2012, 2016). Based on Krifka (to appear) and Frey (2020, to appear, this volume), we assume af-því-að-clauses to be assertive clauses attaching – depending on their interpretation – as Tense Phrase, Judge Phrase or Act Phrase adjuncts. Essentially, we take interpretative differences to follow from the distinct attachment heights. Main arguments for this three part division are based on binding data, embeddability, movement restrictions, and clausal anaphora.

Keywords: causal clause, adverbial clause, syntax, assertion, Icelandic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Semantic variation of causal af-því-að-clauses
    • 2.1Semantic diversity
    • 2.2Syntactic heterogeneity
    • 2.3Interim conclusion
  • 3.Analysis
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.231.07ang
References
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
Angantýsson, Ásgrímur
2011 The syntax of embedded clauses in Icelandic and related languages. PhD dissertation, Reykjavík: University of Iceland.
2017 Stylistic fronting and related constructions in the Insular Scandinavian Languages. In Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian [Studies in Germanic Linguistics 1], Höskuldur Thráinsson, Caroline Heycock, Hjalmar P. Petersen & Zakaris Svabo Hansen (eds), 277–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 The distribution of embedded V2 and V3 in modern Icelandic. In Rethinking Verb Second, Sam Wolfe & Rebecca Woods (eds), 240–264. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angantýsson, Ásgrímur & Jonas, Dianne
2016 On the syntax of adverbial clauses in Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 96: 126–139.Google Scholar
Angantýsson, Ásgrímur & Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli
2021 The relative order of sentential adverbs in Icelandic and Faroese. Fróðskaparritið 67: 81–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antomo, Mailin & Steinbach, Markus
2010 Desintegration und Interpretation: Weil-V2-Sätze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29(1): 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2005 Binding Theory. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik
2013 Syntaktische Nebensatzklassen im Deutschen. Pandaemonium 16(21): 149–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blümel, Andreas
2019 Adnominal conditionals in German. Linguistics Vanguard 5(s3): 1–9. DOI logoGoogle 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
2020 French causal puisque-clauses in the light of (not)-at-issueness. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 16. Selected Papers from the 47th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL47), Newark, Delaware [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 16], Irene Vogel (ed.), 50–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures [Studies in Generative Grammar 9]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Copley, Bridget & Wolff, Phillip
2014 Theories of causation should inform linguistic theory and vice versa. In Causation in Grammatical Structures [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 52], Bridget Copley & Fabienne Martin (eds), 11–57. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2003 Subordination. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald
1967 Causal relations. The Journal of Philosophy 64(21): 691–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and Montague’s PTQ [Synthese Language Library 7]. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A.
1977 Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse [Longman Linguistics Library 21]. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Eberhardt, Ira
2017 From a focus particle to a conjunction. Diachronic and synchronic analysis of German zumal. Language 93(2): e66–e96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eberhardt, Ira & Featherston, Sam
2019 Focus particles and negative scope: Both evidence for syntactic integration? Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(126): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enç, Mürvet
1989 Pronouns, licensing, and binding. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7(1): 51–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endo, Yoshio
2012 The syntax-discourse interface in adverbial clauses. In Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 365–383. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endo, Yoshio & Haegeman, Liliane
2019 Adverbial clauses and adverbial concord. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(48): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faller, Martina
2002 Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Frana, Ilaria
2017 Modality in the nominal domain: The case of adnominal conditionals. In Modality across Syntactic Categories [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 63], Ana Arregui, María Luisa Rivero & Andrés Salanova (eds), 49–69. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner
2011 Peripheral adverbial clauses, their licensing and the prefield in German. In Satzverknüpfungen. Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion [Linguistische Arbeiten 534], Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi & Anna Volodina (eds), 41–77. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 On two types of adverbial clauses allowing root-phenomena. In Main Clause Phenomona. New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 405–429. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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(110): 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
To appear. On the 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
Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Steinbach, Markus
2006 A skeptical note on the syntax of speech acts and point of view. In Form, Structure, and Grammar. A Festschrift Presented to Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of his 60th Birthday [Studia Grammatica 63], Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuß (eds), 213–222. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Eyþórsson, Þórhallur
2020 Varieties of dependent verb second and verbal mood: A view from Icelandic. In Rethinking Verb Second, Sam Wolfe & Rebecca Woods (eds), 208–239. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Mitchell S.
2000 Illocutionary force and semantic content. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(5): 435–473. 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
2009 Parenthetical adverbials: The radical orphan approach. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Perspectives, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 331–347. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2010 The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua 120(3): 628–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and the Composition of the Left Periphery [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 8]. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert
2005 How to turn German into Icelandic – and derive the OV-VO contrast. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 8(1): 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Symmetry Breaking in Syntax [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 136]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 The VO-OV split of Germanic languages – A T3 and V2 production. Interdisciplinary Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 19(1): 57–79.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders
2015 ‘Verb second’. In Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook III [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 42/1], Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 242–283. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1973 On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4): 465–497.Google Scholar
Hróarsdóttir, Thorbjörg
2000 Word Order Change in Icelandic – From OV to VO [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 35]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Michael James Robert
1994 The syntax and semantics of adverbial adjuncts. PhD dissertation, Santa Cruz, CA: University of California Santa Cruz.
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli
2019 The XP-þá-construction and V2. In The Sign of the V – Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner, Ken Ramshøj Christensen, Henrik Jørgensen & Johanna L. Wood (eds), 341–360. Aarhus: Department of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2014 Embedding illocutionary force. In Recursion: Complexity in Cognition [Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 43], Tom Roeper & Margaret Speas (eds), 59–87. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Bias in Commitment Space Semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and questions 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 commitmens. Talk delivered at the Conference ‘Ars Grammatica: Theorie und Empirie im Sprachvergleich zum Schwerpunktthema Sachverhalts-/propositionale Argumente’ at the Institut für Deutsche Sprache in Mannheim.
2019 Commitments and beyond. Theoretical Linguistics 45(1–2): 73–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
To appear. Layers of assertive clauses: 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
Lang, Ewald
2000 Adversative connectors on distinct levels of discourse: A re-examination of Eve Sweetser’s three-level approach. In Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives [Topics in English Linguistics 33], Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds), 235–256. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard
2004 Sentence-final adverbs and “scope”. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 34 (NELS 34) at the Stony Brook University, Keir Moulton & Matthew Wolf (eds), 23–43. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard & Sawada, Miyuki
2012 Root transformations & quantificational structure. In Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190), Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 47–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter
1996 Adnominal conditionals. In Proceedings of the 6th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, 26–28 April, Rutgers University, Teresa Galloway & Justin Spence (eds), 154–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lubomierski, Lisa
2020 Adnominale Kausalsätze im Deutschen. Bachelor thesis, Universität zu Köln.
Maché, Jakob
2019 How Epistemic Modifiers Emerge [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 292]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morreall, John
1979 The evidential use of because. Papers in Linguistics 12(1–2): 231–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Sarah E.
2017 The Semantics of Evidentials [Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics 9]. Oxford: OUP. 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
Pittner, Karin
2011 Subsidäre Begründungen. In Konnektoren im Deutschen und im Sprachvergleich: Beschreibung und grammatische Aspekte [Studien zur deutschen Sprache 53], Gisella Ferraresi (ed.), 157–182. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher
2005 The Logic of Conventional Implicatures [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 7]. Oxford: OUP. 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-V2-Sätze und (k)ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach (2010). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32(2): 221–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, William E.
1970 Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English. Language 46(1): 97–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sæbø, Kjell Johan
1991 Causal and purposive clauses. In Semantik. Ein Internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaften 6], Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 623–631. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, Tatjana
2008 Semantic operators in different dimensions. PhD dissertation, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
2013 Two-dimensional Semantics. Clausal Adjuncts and Complements [Linguistische Arbeiten 549]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 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
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
1981 Fjölyrtar aukateningar? [‘Multi-word subordinate conjunctions?’] Íslenskt Mál 3: 59–76.Google Scholar
1990 Long distance reflexives and moods in Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic Syntax [Syntax and Semantics 24], Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds), 41–69. San Diego CA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simons, Mandy, Tonhauser, Judith, Beaver, David & Roberts, Craige
2010 What projects and why. In Papers Presented at the 20th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, 29 April – 1 May, Nan Li & David Lutz (eds), 309–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carol L.
2003 Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. I: Syntax and Semantics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 57], Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speas, Margaret
2004 Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua 114(3): 255–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stede, Manfred & Walter, Maik
2011 Zur Rolle der Verknüpfungsebene am Beispiel der Kausalkonnektoren. In Satzverknüpfungen. Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion [Linguistische Arbeiten 534], Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi & Anna Volodina (eds), 149–179. Berlin: 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
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
2005 Setningar: Handbók um íslenska setningafræði. Íslensk tunga III [‘Sentences: A Handbook on Icelandic Syntax. Icelandic Language III’]. Co-authors: Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson, Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson, Sigríður Magnúsdóttir, Sigríður Sigurjónsdóttir & Þórunn Blöndal. Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið.Google Scholar
2007 The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur & Angantýsson, Ásgrímur
2015 Orðaröð í aukasetningum [‘Word order in embedded clauses’]. In Tilbrigði í íslenskri setningagerð. II. Helstu niðurstöður. Tölfræðilegt yfirlit [‘Variation in Icelandic Syntax. II. Main Results. Statistical Overview’], Höskuldur Thráinsson, Ásgrímur Angantýsson & Einar Freyr Sigurðsson (eds), 299–330. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria
1989 Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen [Linguistische Arbeiten 223]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith
2012 Diagnosing (non-)at-issue content. Semantics of Under-represented Languages of the Americas 6: 239–254.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, Beaver, David, Roberts, Craige & Simons, Mandy
2013 Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89(1): 66–109. DOI logoGoogle 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
Williams, Edwin
1974 Rule ordering in syntax. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Wood, Rebecca Louise
2016 Investigating the syntax of speech acts: Embedding illocutionary force. PhD dissertation, York: University of York.
Zimmermann, Malte
2004 Zum Wohl: Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren. Linguistische Berichte 199: 253–286.Google Scholar
2008 Discourse particles in the left periphery. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 200–231. London: Routledge.Google Scholar