Cover not available

In: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. 101–128

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 4
Pragmatic subordination

Causal clauses with verb first position in German

 | Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.231.04pit
Abstract
The article deals with a special type of causal clauses in German which exhibits the properties of verb-first position, an obligatory modal particle doch and obligatory postposition. It has often been noted that these clauses are neither clearly subordinated nor coordinated. Syntactic tests show that these clauses are not constituents of the clause they are related to and they may not be focussed, nor may the causal relation itself be focussed. Moreover, there are no correlates for them in their host clause. These characteristics show that the clauses in question contain their own information units.
It is argued that the causal meaning of these clauses is an inference due to an interplay of the verb first position, the meaning of doch and the postposition of these clauses. The verb position signals a close connection to the preceding clause as well as a diminished assertive force. The modal particle doch signals that the information given is uncontroversial but assumed not to be taken into account presently by the recipient. It is argued that the postposition of these clauses is due to the fact that these clauses have a kind of repair function and serve to support the acceptance of the preceding clause. It is shown that these clauses express their own illocutions which are subsidiary to the illocution of the preceding utterance. Thus these sentences are pragmatically subordinated although they do not exhibit characteristics of syntactic subordination. The article closes with a short discussion of some hypotheses concerning the diachronic development of this special sentence type.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Characteristics of V1-CC
  • 3.Missing constituent characteristics
  • 4.No correlates possible
  • 5.Focusing not possible
  • 6.The contribution of doch
  • 7.Verb first position
  • 8.The interaction between verb first position and doch
  • 9.Obligatory postposition
  • 10.Pragmatic subordination
  • 11.Diachronic development – some hypotheses and tendencies
  • 12.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Primary sources
  • Secondary references
References (61)
Primary sources
[DGD] Datenbank Gesprochenes Deutsch <[URL]>
[DeReKo] Deutsches Referenzkorpus / Archiv der Korpora geschriebener Gegenwartssprache, provided by Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache <[URL]>
Secondary references
Altmann, Hans. 1993. Satzmodus. In Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, vol. 1 [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 9], Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 1006–1029. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brandt, Margareta. 1989. Zur Fokus-Hintergrund-Gliederung in komplexen Sätzen. Sprache and Pragmatik 13: 43–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Subordination und Parenthese als Mittel der Informationsstrukturierung in Texten. Sprache und Pragmatik 32: 1–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brandt, Margareta & Rosengren, Inger. 1992. Zur Illokutionsstruktur von Texten. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 86: 9–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breindl, Eva & Waßner, Ulrich Hermann. 2006. Syndese vs. Asyndese. Konnektoren und andere Wegweiser für die Interpretation von semantischen Relationen in Texten. In Text – Verstehen. Grammatik und darüber hinaus [Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 2005], Hardarik Blühdorn, Eva Breindl & Ulrich Hermann Waßner (eds), 46–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breindl, Eva, Volodina, Anna & Waßner, Ulrich Hermann. 2014. Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren 2. Semantik der deutschen Satzverknüpfer, [Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 13]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5): 511–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1912. Die stellung des verbums in sätzen mit doch und ja. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 37: 273–278. Halle: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1996. Processing factors of pre-and postposed adverbial clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society 22: 71–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43(3): 449–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Iconicity of sequence. A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19(3): 457–482. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Döring, Sophia & Repp, Sophie. 2020. The modal particles ja and doch and their interaction with discourse structure: Corpus and experimental evidence. In Experiments in Focus. Information Structure and Semantic Processing [Linguistische Arbeiten 571], Sam Featherston, Robin Hörnig, Sophie von Wietersheim & Susanne Winkler (eds), 17–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egg, Marcus. 2013. Discourse particles, common ground, and felicity conditions. In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning [Current Research in the Semantics/ Pragmatics Interface 28], Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 127–151. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich. 2004. Deutsche Grammatik. Neubearbeitung. München: Iudicium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka & Bruce, Kim. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27(1): 81–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction. Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 9]. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1994. Dialogic aspects of talk and writing: Because in the interactive-edited continuum. Text 14(4): 531–554. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. The treatment of contrasts in interaction. In Cause, Condition, Concession and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives [Topics in English Linguistics 33], Bernd Kortmann & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 283–311. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2016. On some correlations between formal and interpretative properties of causal clauses. In Co- and Subordination in German and Other Languages, Ingo Reich & Augustin Speyer (eds). Special issue of Linguistische Berichte 21: 153–179.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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.
Grosz, Patrick. 2011. Facts and ideals: On the role of doch in conditionals and optatives. In Sinn und Bedeutung 15. Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, Ingo Reich, Eva Horch & Dennis Pauly (eds), 275–289. Saarbrücken: Universaar.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2002. Zum kausalen und konzessiven Gebrauch des Konnektors wo im gesprochenen Umgangsdeutsch. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 20(3): 320–341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hentschel, Elke. 1986. Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. Ja, doch, halt und eben [Germanistische Linguistik 63]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2015. Satztypkonstruktionen und Satztypsensitivät. In Satztypen und Konstruktionen [Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 65], Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds), 23–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karagjosova, Elena. 2004. The meaning and function of German modal particles. PhD dissertation, Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes.
König, Ekkehard. 1997. Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik 136: 57–75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leys, Odo. 1988. Prospektives um. Deutsche Sprache 16(2): 97–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindner, Katrin. 1991. Wir sind ja doch alte Bekannte. In Discourse Particles. Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 168–201 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lütten, Jutta. 1979. Die Rolle der Partikeln doch, eben und ja als Konsensus-Konstitutiva in gesprochener Sprache. In Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache, Harald Weydt (ed.), 30–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, William C. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3): 243–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mattausch, Josef. 1965. Untersuchungen zur Wortstellung in der Prosa des jungen Goethe. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 1994. Modaler Kontrast und konzeptuelle Verschiebung. Studien zur Syntax und Semantik deutscher Modalpartikeln [Linguistische Arbeiten 314]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Molnár, Anna. 2002. Die Grammatikalisierung deutscher Modalpartikeln. Fallstudien. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Sonja. 2017. Kausale/konzessive Verberst- und Wo-Verbletzt-Sätze. Deutsche Sprache 45: 245–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Distribution und Interpretation von Modalpartikel-Kombinationen [Topics at the Grammar-Discourse Interface 2]. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Önnerfors, Olaf. 1997. Verb-erst-Deklarativsätze: Grammatik und Pragmatik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ormelius-Sandblom, Elisabeth. 1997. Die Modalpartikeln ja, doch und schon. Zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik [Lunder germanistische Forschungen 61]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pasch, Renate. 1982. Untersuchungen zu den Gebrauchsbedingungen der deutschen Kausalkonjunktionen da, denn und weil. In Untersuchungen zu Funktionswörtern (Adverbien, Konjunktionen, Partikeln) [Linguistische Studien Reihe A Arbeitsberichte], 41–243. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 1999. Adverbiale im Deutschen. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung und Interpretation [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 60]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007a. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007b. Common ground in interaction: The functions of medial doch. In Lexical Markers of Common Ground [Studies in Pragmatics 3], Anita Fetzer & Kerstin Fischer (eds), 67–87. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Wieder als Modalpartikel. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 37(2): 296–314. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1985. Satzeinleitende Strukturen im Deutschen. Über COMP, Haupt- und Nebensätze, w-Bewegung und die Doppelkopfanalyse. In Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen, Werner Abraham (ed.), 271–311. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Anmerkungen zu Verb-erst-Satz-Typen im Deutschen. In Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis, Rolf Thieroff, Matthias Tamrat, Nanna Fuhrhop & Oliver Teuber (eds), 215–227. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riedl, Rupert. 1990. Die Folgen des Ursachendenkens. In Die erfundene Wirklichkeit. Wie wissen wir, was wir zu wissen glauben? Beiträge zum Konstruktivismus, Paul Watzlawick (ed.), 67–90. München: Piper.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5: 1–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Daniel. 1883. Satzbau und Wortfolge in der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Abenheim.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheutz, Hannes. 2009. Wie narrativ sind Verb-Erst-Deklarativsätze im Deutschen? In Gesprochen – geschrieben – gedichtet. Variation und Transformation von Sprache [Philologische Studien und Quellen 218], Monika Dannerer, Peter Mauser, Hannes Scheutz & Andreas E. Weiss (eds), 240–251. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 315–332. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54]. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taigel, Sonja. 2020. On the role of the left periphery in the interpretation of causal Wo-VE-clauses. In Verb Second – Grammar Internal and Grammar External Interfaces [Interface Explorations 34], Horst Lohnstein & Antonios Tsiknakis (eds), 329–370. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomason, Richmond H. 1992. Accommodation, meaning and implicature: interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In Intentions in communication [System Development Foundation Benchmark Series], Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds), 325–363. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 406–416. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache [Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 7]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue