Relevance Conditionals as Utterance Modifying Adverbials - CSSP

20 Pages·2008·0.16 MB·English

EmpiricalIssuesinSyntaxandSemantics7
O.Bonami&P.CabredoHofherr(eds.)2008,pp.373–392
http://www.
ssp.
nrs.fr/eiss7
Relevance Conditionals as Utterance
Modifying Adverbials
∗
Tatjana Scheffler
1 Introduction
Relevance conditionals (RCs) such as (1) have puzzled semanticists for decades. In
contrast to the case of a regular conditional like (2), the if-clause in a relevance con-
ditional does not state a condition under which the consequent is claimed to hold.
Instead,theconsequentseemstobeputforwardabsolutely,andtheif-clauseappears
toexpressasituationunderwhichitmayberelevant.
(1) Ifyou’rehungry,there’spizzainthefridge.
(2) Ifyou’rehungry,thenIwillgetyouapizza.
The goal of this paper is to explain the syntactic and semantic properties of rele-
vance conditionals (RCs) in the light of existing analyses of sentence adverbials. Ad-
verbs like unfortunately, bizarrely, or frankly are sentence adjuncts that are used to
makecommentsonthemainassertionoftheutterance.
(3) Unfortunately,Johnlostthegame.
(4) Frankly,you’renotthebestPokerplayer.
IdemonstratethatRCssharetwocorepropertieswithasubclassoftheseadverbs:
First,thattheymaynotbesemanticallyembedded,andsecond,thattheyarenotinte-
gratedintotheverb-second(V2)clauseinGerman: theanteposedRCdoesnotcount
for V2. I argue that relevance conditionals can be analysed as conventional implica-
tureitems,ashasbeenshownbeforeforevaluativeandutterancemodifyingadverbs.
IshowthatthefactthatRCsandutterancemodifyingadverbssharethetwocoreprop-
erties of semantic unembeddability and failure to count for V2 in the syntax follows
fromtheircommonanalysisasconventionalimplicatureitems.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 demonstrates semantic unembed-
dabilityofRCsandevaluativeandutterancemodifyingadverbs.Section3showsthatin
GermanforRCsandsentenceadverbialsmodifyingtheutterancerelationarepreposed
toa completeV2-clause. Insection4 I proposea commonanalysisofrelevancecon-
ditionals and utterance modifying adverbs as conventional implicature items. Some
previousanalysesofrelevanceconditionalsarediscussedinsection5. Finally,section
6concludes.
∗
IwouldliketothankMaribelRomeroandtheCSSPreviewersforcomments aboutthiswork. All
remainingerrorsaremyown.
374 TatjanaScheffler
2 Semantic Unembeddability
Inthissection,Ishowthat,justashasbeenpreviouslydemonstratedforevaluativead-
verbs(Bonami andGodard, 2005)andutterancemodifyingadverbs(Potts,2005, sec-
tion4.7),relevanceconditionalsareunembeddableundersemanticoperators.
2.1 UnembeddabilityofSentenceAdverbials
Potts (2005) has given an analysis of the semantics of a range of adverbials such as
unfortunately,thoughtfully,andfranklyaspartofhisresearchonconventionalimpli-
cature (CI). He shows that these adverbs are conventional implicature items, and as
suchunembeddableundersemanticoperators.
2.1.1 ConventionalImplicature
TheclassofmeaningscalledConventionalImplicatures(CIs)originatesinGrice(1975).
He briefly discussed the sentence (5), and noted that it commits the speaker to the
claimthatbeingbravefollowsfrombeinganEnglishman.
(5) HeisanEnglishman:Heis,therefore,brave. (Grice,1975,p. 44)
AlthoughGricedoesnotelaboratethepropertiesofthisclassofmeanings,henotes
thattheyareseparatefromordinaryassertions(“whatissaid”),aswellasfromconver-
sationalimplicatures. AprecisedefinitionofCIswasdevelopedbyPotts(2005). Potts
identifiesthefollowingdistinctivepropertiesforCIs: (i)CIsaremeaningsconvention-
allyassociated with words or phrases; (ii)CIs are commitmentsmade bythespeaker
oftheutterance;(iii)theyarelogicallyindependentoftheassertions. CIscanthusbe
usuallythoughtofassidecommentsbythespeakeronthemainassertionoftheutter-
ance.
Potts (2005) then introduces a logic for conventional implicature items, accord-
ingtowhichanutterancecantriggeranynumberofindependententailmentsasCIs.
Potts’logicguaranteesthatCIscannotbeembeddedunderanyotheroperators,since
it doesn’t allow for operators that take CI-type meanings as their arguments. Con-
versely,conventionalimplicatureitemsregularlytakeassertion-typemeaningsastheir
arguments.
Conventionalimplicatureitemscan beeitherwords, suchas unfortunately(6),or
certainconstructionslikenominalappositives(7).
(6) Unfortunately,Johnlosttheelection.
Assertion:Johnlosttheelection
CI:Unfortunate(Johnlosttheelection)
(7) Ames,theformerspy,isnowbehindbars. (Potts,2005,(2.13c))
Assertion:Amesisnowbehindbars
CI:Amesisaformerspy
Theutterancein (6)introducestwo independententailments. First, theassertion
thatJohnlosttheelection. Andsecond,theconventionalimplicaturethatthespeaker
considersthisfactunfortunate.
RelevanceConditionalsasUtteranceModifyingAdverbials 375
In(7),thenominalappositivetheformerspyisaCI-typemeaning,whichisignored
in thecomputationof the assertion. The assertion is therefore just that Ames is now
behind bars. That he is a former spy is a side comment contributed by the speaker
as a conventional implicature. No individual lexical item in the construction causes
themeaningtobeaconventionalimplicature. Instead,thisisduetotheconstruction
ofnominalappositives,andPottsusesaspecialCOMMAoperator(Potts,2005,p. 98)
to lift regular meanings (such as the meaning of the NP the former spy) into CI-type
meanings(such as thenominalappositivein (7)). Since CI-typemeanings can never
be the argument of a function in Potts’ logic, he achieves a “widest scope”-effect for
CIs,predictingthattheycanneverbesemanticallyembeddedunderanotheroperator.
2.1.2 SemanticUnembeddabilityofUtteranceModifyingAdverbs
Semanticunembeddabilityismaybethemoststrikingpropertyofconventionalimpli-
catures.Therefore,ithasbecomethebasisofarangeoftestsforCI-hooddevelopedby
BonamiandGodard(2005)forevaluativeadverbsinFrench. Theyshowthatadverbs
like malheureusement (‘unfortunately’) cannot be embedded in the antecedent of a
conditional,inquestions,undernegation,andintheconsequentofacounterfactual;
and that they cannot be openly denied. Another type of adverbs for which seman-
ticunembeddabilityhasbeenshownareutterancemodifyingadverbs(Potts,2005,p.
145ff). Since it is this class of adverbs which will become important in my analysis
of relevance conditionals, I apply Bonami and Godard’s embeddabilitytests to these
adverbsinthissection.
AntecedentofConditionals Utterancemodifyingadverbsmaynotbeembeddedin
theantecedentofaconditional.
(8) #Siles otages sont,malheureusement,libérés,la Franceaura dû
If thehostagesare unfortunately freed, theFrancewillhavehadto
accepter destractationsavecles terroristes.
acceptedthe dealings withtheterrorists.
‘Ifthehostagesare,unfortunately,freed,Francewillhavehadtoaccepttrans-
actionswiththeterrorists.’ (BonamiandGodard,2005,ex.
(16b))
(9) #IfJohnis,frankly,anidiot,thenI’mjustbeinghonest.
According to Bonami and Godard, (8) is not natural, because it would imply that
liberatinghostagesisunfortunate.Thesentencecannothaveareadingthat“Ifitisun-
fortunatethatthehostagesarefreed,thenFrancewillhavehadtoaccepttransactions
with the terrorists”, because the adverb doesn’t embed under the if-clause. Similarly,
sentence(9)cannothavethesensiblereading“IfI’mfranklysayingthatJohnisanidiot,
thenI’mjustbeinghonest”,wherefranklyisembeddedwithintheif-clause.
Questions Inaquestion,evaluativeadverbsareinterpretedoutsideoftheinterroga-
tiveoperator:
376 TatjanaScheffler
(10) Qui est,bizarrement,arrivé à l’heure?
Whois, strangely, arrivedontime?
‘Whohas,strangely,arrivedontime?’ (BonamiandGodard,2005,ex. (11a))
(11) Honestly,hasEdfled? (Potts,2005,ex.(4.152b))
Theauthorsclaimthatthisquestioncanonlybeinterpretedas“Whowasontime?
Andiftherewassomeonewhowasontime,it’sstrangethatthatpersonwasontime.”
Utterancemodifiershaveanaddressee-orientedmeaninginquestions,asdemon-
strated by Potts’ example (11). Potts concludes that utterance modifying adverbs are
ambiguous between a declarative and a question meaning. However, both of these
readingsaresemanticallyunembeddable(sincetheyareCIs).
Negation If a sentence contains negation as well as an evaluative adverb, only one
wordorderispossibleinFrench,leadingtoonlyonescopalreading.
(12) *Pauln’estpasmalheureusement/bizarrementvenu.
Paulclis notunfortunately /strangely come.
‘Pauldidn’tunfortunately/strangelycome.’ ’(BonamiandGodard,2005,ex.
(22a))
Bonami and Godard observe that sentence (12) is impossible because it would
committhespeakertotwocontradictorypropositions:thatPauldidn’tcome,andthat
itisunfortunate/strangethatPaulcame.
For utterance modifying adverbs, it is clear that a sentence with negation allows
onlythescopeadverb≫not.
(13) Johnfranklyisn’tthebestpokerplayer.
ConsequentofCounterfactuals Evaluativeadverbsarealsosemanticallyunembed-
dableintheconsequentofacounterfactual:
(14) ??SiPaulavaitété là, il aurait bizarrementété gagnant.
If Paulhad beenthere,hewouldstrangely havewon.
‘IfPaulhadbeenthere,hewouldhavestrangelywon.’
(15) IfPaulhadbeenthere,hewouldhave,honestly,won.
The sameis truefor utterancemodifiers. (15) cannot mean that Paulwould have
woninanhonestway,hadhebeenthere.ThespeakermaywellbeexpressingthatPaul
wouldhavewonunderanycircumstances(maybebecauseheissuchagoodcheater).
Denial CIslikeunfortunatelyortheutterancemodifiermantomancannotbeovertly
contradictedinthesamewayasassertions:
(16) A: Paula malheureusementperdul’élection.
Paulhasunfortunately lost theelection.
‘Paulunfortunatelylosttheelection.’
B: #C’est faux, jetrouveque c’est unetrès bonnenouvelle!
That’sfalse,I find thatthisisa verygood news!
‘That’sfalse,Ithinkthoseareverygoodnews!’
RelevanceConditionalsasUtteranceModifyingAdverbials 377
(17) A: Democrattodemocrat,Ireallythoughtthatrecentspeechwasn’tsogood.
B: #That’sfalse,I’manindependent!
Attitude Verbs Bonami and Godard (2005, section 3.2) also discuss embedding of
evaluative adverbs under attitude verbs. According to Potts’ 2005 logic, CI items are
generallyunembeddable,includingembeddingunderattitudeverbs. Thisis whathe
finds for the CIs he studies, for example for expressive items like damn (Potts, 2005,
p. 17). Potts notes that expressives that are syntactically embedded under attitude
verbsneverthelessareunderstoodasopinionsofthematrixspeaker. Forexample,in
thefollowingutterance,itisnotimpliedthattheclothesdryercompanyhasanegative
attitudetowardsitsproducts:
(18) Weboughtanewelectricclothesdryer. [...] Nowherediditsaythatthedamn
thingdidn’tcomewithanelectricplug! (Potts,2005,ex.(2.19))
However, Bonami and Godard (2005, ex. (26))find thatthe French adverbs are in
factembeddableundercertainattitudeverbs,mostnotablysayingverbslikeexpliquer
(‘explain’):
(19) Marieexpliquaitque le prêtre,bizarrement,avaitperdula foi.
Marieexplained thatthepriest, strangely, had lost thefaith.
‘Mariesaidthat,strangely,thepriesthaslosthisfaith.’
Bonami and Godard (2005) claim that in (19), the speaker does not have to share
the judgment that the priest’s losing his faith is strange. It could be entirely Marie’s
opinion. This seems to suggest that at least two different kinds of CI items exist, of
whichonecanembedundercertainattitudes,andtheotheronecannot.
2.2 UnembeddabilityofRelevanceConditionals
ForRCs,unembeddabilityundercertainsemanticoperatorshasbeennotedinsomeof
thepreviousliterature(e.g.,seeIatridou1991fordenialandBhattandPancheva2006
forembeddingunderbelieve). However,thisunembeddabilityhasnotbeensystemat-
icallydocumentedyet. In thefollowing, I show thatRCs, unlikeregularconditionals,
categoricallyresistsemanticembedding,withtheexceptionofafewattitudeverbslike
say. Thus,theypatternexactlyliketheadverbsIdiscussedintheprevioussection.
AntecedentofConditionals EmbeddinganRCsyntacticallyintheantecedentofan-
other conditional(20) also yields interestingresults. Thesemanticembedding of the
RCisimpossible.Consider:
(20) #Ifthere’spizzainthefridgeifyou’rehungrylater,youshouldeatit.
InEnglish,itisimpossibletodistinguishregularandrelevanceconditionalsbytheir
syntactic form.1 Consequently, a given RC usually has a regular conditional reading.
Thisreadingisoftenveryodd–mostoftenonlya‘magic’ interpretationremains. For
example,considertheRCembeddedin(20):
1Inotherlanguages,thisisnotnecessarilythecase:ForexampleinGerman,RCsandregularcondi-
tionalsarealwaysunambiguouslydistinguishedbytheirwordorder.
378 TatjanaScheffler
(21) Ifyou’rehungry,there’spizzainthefridge.
This sentence has a marginalreading according to which pizza will magicallyap-
pearinthefridgeif(andpossiblyonlyif)you’rehungry.Thisistheregularconditional
or‘magic’reading.
WecanobservenowthattrueembeddingoftheRCwithinanotherif-clauseisim-
possible:theonlypossibleinterpretationof(20)istheonewheretheRCisinterpreted
in its ‘magic’ reading, that is as a regular conditional. The unembeddability of RCs
makes the RC under another operator (the conditional)bad, so that only the regular
conditionalreadingremains(whichisnormallyonlymarginallyavailable).
Questions EmbeddinganRCinaquestiondoesnotnecessarilyleadtoungrammat-
icality. In (22), the RC is syntactically embedded under a spelled out version of the
question morpheme. The only available interpretation is one where only the conse-
quent of the conditional is actually part of the question. The RC is therefore outside
ofthequestion, with thesameinterpretationas (23). Thatis, thequestionin (22–23)
is whether or not there is pizza in the fridge (now), the truth of which is understood
asindependentofthepossibilityofmebeinghungrylater.Possiblehungryness(later)
mayonlybeunderstoodasthereasonwhythequestionisbeingasked(now).
(22) TellmewhetherifI’mhungrylater,there’spizzainthefridge.
(23) IfI’mhungrylater,istherepizzainthefridge?
Thisdatacontrastswiththebehaviorofregularconditionalsinquestions. Embed-
dingofregularconditionalsinaquestionisstraightforward:
(24) Willthestreetbefloodedifitrains?
Thisutteranceasksforthevalidityofacertainconditionalstatement.
Negation Regularconditionalutterancescanbesemanticallyembeddedundernega-
tion:
(25) Shewon’thelpyouifyoureallyneedher.
Here, there exists an interpretation where the conditional “She’ll help you if you
reallyneedher”isbeingnegatedbythespeaker,claimingthat“she”ismerelyneglect-
ful. Clearly,thisisdistinctfromtheotherreadingaccordingtowhich“Ifyouneedher,
then she won’t help you” (where “she” is particularly spiteful in only helping people
thatdon’tneedhelp).
Incontrast,RCscannotbeembeddedundernegationinthisway:
(26) Thereisnopizzainthefridge,ifyou’rehungry.
(26)onlyhasthenarrow-scopereadingfornegation,utteredpossiblybyanunhelp-
fulhost.
Denial Inordertoshowthattheif-clauseofRCsisoutsideoftheassertionassociated
with the sentence, Iatridou (1991) observed that in contrast to regular conditionals,
RCscannotbestraightforwardlydenied.
RelevanceConditionalsasUtteranceModifyingAdverbials 379
(27) A: Ifitrains,she’llbehappy.
B: That’snottrue.She’llbehappyifitsnows.
(28) A: IfImaybehonestyou’relookingawful
B: That’snottrue.#Ilookawfulifyoumaybedeceitful
(Iatridou,1991,p. 53)
Forregularconditionals,thecausallinktheyexpresscanbenegated(27).Thisleads
toinfelicityinthecaseofrelevanceconditionals(28).
AttitudeVerbs BhattandPancheva(2006)notethatRCscannotbeembeddedunder
believe:
(29) #Johnbelievesthatifyouarethirstythereisbeerinthefridge.
(BhattandPancheva,2006,ex.(102b))
Inaddition,truefactivessuchassurpriseandregret(30)alsoarenotabletoembed
RCs.
(30) *Thechildrenweresurprisedthatifthey’rehungry,there’spizzainthefridge.
Bhatt and Pancheva (2006) do observe that RCs can appear properly embedded
under say. For example, in (31), the RC is actually embedded under say: the whole
RC is what John uttered. Thesentence differs from (32), where John only uttered the
consequent,andtheif-clauseisaddedbythespeaker.
(31) Johnsaidthatifyouneedhimlaterhe’llbein418.
(32) IfyouneedyourTAJohnlater,hesaidhe’llbein418.
Further, Siegel (2006) notes that although RCs are prohibited as complements of
mostattitudeverbs,theyarepossibleunderremind,remember,andrealize(shedoesn’t
mentionsay). Seeforexample:
(33) Dadcalledtoremindusthatifwe’rehungrythere’spizzainthefridge.
(Siegel,2006,ex. (31a))
I conclude that RCs are unembeddableunder most attitudeverbs. Embeddingis
possible under two types of verbs: speech act verbs such as say or ask (34), and the
cognitivefactiveverbs(Beaver,2004)realize,remind,remember,andalsoknow(35).
(34) Peteraskedmewhetherifhe’shungry,there’spizzainthefridge.
(35) Thechildrenalreadyknowthatifthey’rehungrythere’spizzainthefridge.
2.3 UnembeddabilityofRCsandSentenceAdverbials
Tosumup,Ihavedemonstratedherethatrelevanceconditionals,incontrasttoregular
conditionals,aregenerallynotsemanticallyembeddableunderotheroperators. This
includes negation, questions, conditionals, as well as most attitudeverbs. It appears
thatRCscanonlybesuccessfullyembeddedunderspeechactverbsandsemi-factives.
Thesamepropertieshavebeenclaimedforarangeofsentenceadverbials,includ-
ingevaluativeandutterance-modifyingadverbs. Fortheseadverbs,thesemanticun-
embeddabilityhasbeenarguedtofollowfromtheirstatusasconventionalimplicature
380 TatjanaScheffler
items. In section 4, I will make the same argument for relevance conditionals. First,
however,Iwillconsideradditionalevidencefortheparallelismbetweenaclassofsen-
tence adverbials and relevance conditionals, based on the lack of integration to the
V2-clauseinV2-languageslikeGermanwiththesephenomena.
3 Syntactic Disintegration
The verb-second word order (V2) in German main clauses is defined by the fact that
inmainclauses thefiniteverboccupies thesecond position,withan argumentoran
adjunctoccupyingthepre-verbalposition.
InGerman,regularhypotheticalconditionalscountforV2:iftheyarepreposed,the
verbimmediatelyfollowstheif-clause. PropositionaladverbsalsocountforV2.Inthis
section, I show that relevance conditionals and a class of sentence adverbials do not
countforV2inGerman. Instead,theseadjunctsappearnon-integratedintothemain
clause.
3.1 SyntacticDisintegrationandRelevanceConditionals
In English, conditionalsentences are structurallyambiguousbetween a hypothetical
conditionaland a relevance conditional,and they areusuallydisambiguatedby con-
text.Trulyambiguousutterancesarealsopossible,forexample:
(36) Ifyouneedmelater,I’llstayathomeallday.
Here,thespeakercouldbetryingtoconveythattheywillstayathomejustincase
thehearermightneedthemlater(thehypotheticalreading). Orthespeakercouldbe
stayingathomeinanycase,andtheymightbeinformingthehearerbecausethehearer
mightneedthemlater(therelevancereading).
In some languages like German and Dutch there is no ambiguity, because hypo-
theticalandrelevanceconditionalsaredistinguishedbythesyntax. InGerman,theif-
clausesinhypotheticalconditionalsareintegratedintothemainclauseinthattheyoc-
cupythefirstpositioninthemainclausewithverb-secondorder(37). Inotherwords,
they count as occupying the pre-verbal position before the verb in second position,
just like other adjuncts do. Relevance conditionals, on the other hand, do not count
for V2 (38) (König and van der Auwera, 1988; Köpcke and Panther, 1989; Günthner,
1999). Theyarenotintegratedintothemainclausesyntax,andthefiniteverbdoesn’t
immediatelyfollow.2 TheambiguousEnglishexampleabove(36)isdisambiguatedby
theGermansyntaxasfollows(Handke,1984):
(37) Wenndu michbrauchst,bleibeichdenganzenTag zuhause.
If youme need, stay I the whole dayathome.
‘Ifyouneedme,I’llstayathomeallday.’ (hypotheticalconditionalonly)
2Thisclear-cutdistinctionofintegratedhypotheticalconditionalsandnon-integratedrelevancecon-
ditionalsonlyholdsforregular,non-counterfactual if-clauses. Counterfactual if-clausescanalsoop-
tionallyappearnon-integratedinGerman.Formoredetaileddiscussionofsubjunctive/counterfactual
conditionalsandRCs,see(Scheffler,inpreparation).
RelevanceConditionalsasUtteranceModifyingAdverbials 381
(38) Wenndu michbrauchst,ichbleibedenganzenTag zuhause.
If youme need, I stay the whole dayathome.
‘Ifyouneedme,I’llstayathomeallday.’ (relevanceconditionalonly)
3.2 SyntacticDisintegrationandSentenceAdverbials
Germansentenceadverbialsaresyntacticallyandsemanticallyrichandinteresting.In
this section, I want to show that there are three types of sentence adverbials in Ger-
man: (i) the probably-type of adverbs, which can be semanticallyembedded and are
syntactically integrated into the V2-clause; (ii) the unfortunately-type, which cannot
besemanticallyembeddedbutstillarepartoftheV2-clause,and(iii)thefrankly-type,
whichcanneitherbesemanticallyembeddednorintegratedintotheV2-clause. Iwill
arguethatrelevanceconditionalsbehavelikethisthirdtypeofadverbialsinGerman,
andshouldreceiveaparallelanalysis(whichIproposeinthefollowingsection).
3.2.1 TheprobablyType
Thefirsttypeofadverbialsarepropositionaladverbslikewahrscheinlich(‘probably’).
ThisclassofadverbsisobligatorilyintegratedintotheV2-clauseinGerman,theyhave
tobefollowedbythefiniteverb:
(39) Wahrscheinlichhat er esnichternst gemeint.
Probably hasheit not seriouslymeant.
‘Heprobablydidn’tmeanitseriously.’
(40) *Wahrscheinlicher hat esnichternst gemeint.
Probably hehasit not seriouslymeant.
‘Heprobablydidn’tmeanitseriously.’
These are regular assertion-level adverbs that are semantically embeddable. Ex-
ample(41)showswahrscheinlich(‘probably’)embeddedintheantecedentofacondi-
tional.
(41) WennPeterwahrscheinlichmorgen kommt,müssenwirheuteeinkaufen.
If Peterprobably tomorrowcomes, must we todaygoshopping.
‘IfitisprobablethatPeterwillcometomorrow,wehavetogoshoppingtoday.’
Regular conditionals behavein parallel to this type of adverbials: they are part of
theV2-clause,andtheyaresemanticallyembeddable.
3.2.2 TheunfortunatelyType
Thesecondclassofadverbialsincludesspeaker-orientedevaluativeadverbslikeleider
(‘unfortunately’).TheseadverbialsalsoformpartoftheV2-clauseinGerman:
(42) Leider hat er esnichternst gemeint.
Unfortunatelyhasheit not seriouslymeant.
‘Unfortunatelyhedidn’tmeanit.’
382 TatjanaScheffler
(43) *Leider er hat esnichternst gemeint.
Unfortunatelyhehasit not seriouslymeant.
‘Unfortunatelyhedidn’tmeanit.’
Theseadverbialscannotbesemanticallyembedded,asnotedbyLang(1979),and
documentedaboveinsection3fortheFrenchadverbs.Thesamecanbedemonstrated
for German by comparing for example the evaluative (unembeddable) adverb leider
(‘unfortunately’)withthesemanticallyrelated(embeddable)phraseesistschade(‘itis
unfortunate’).Considerthesetwomini-dialogues:
(44) Schade, dassdu schon morgen kommenwillst.—Wennes
Unfortunate,that youalreadytomorrowcome want. —If it
schade ist,dassichmorgen kommenwill, dannkommeicheben
unfortunateis, that I tomorrowcome want,then come I (part.)
später.
later.
‘It’s unfortunatethatyou alreadywant tocome tomorrow. — If it’s unfortu-
natethatIwanttocometomorrow,thenI’llcomelater.’
(45) #Leider willstdu schon morgen kommen.—Wennich
Unfortunatelywant youalreadytomorrowcome. —If I
leider schon morgen kommenwill, dannkommeicheben
unfortunatelyalreadytomorrowcome want,then come I (part.)
später.
later.
‘Unfortunately you want to come already tomorrow. — If I unfortunately
wanttocometomorrow,thenIwillcomelater.’
While the first interaction is fine and coherent, the second using leider (‘unfor-
tunately’) fails for several reasons. It implies that the speaker considers their own
plansunfortunate(sincetheevaluativeadverb‘unfortunately’isattributedbacktothe
speaker),anditstatesthatifthespeakerwantstocometomorrow,thentheywillcome
later,whichisincoherent. Botheffects areduetothefactthatleider(‘unfortunately’)
issemanticallyunembeddable.
3.2.3 ThefranklyType
Finally, thethird class of sentenceadverbialsare utterancemodifiers likemal ehrlich
(‘frankly,honestly’)andvonFrauzuFrau(‘fromwomantowoman’). Theseadverbials
arepreposedtoafullV2clauseinGerman: theycannotbefollowedbythefiniteverb
inadeclarativemainclause.
(46) *Malehrlich/VonFrauzuFrau ister wirklichnichtsoschlau.
Honestly /Fromwomantowoman,is hereally not sosmart.
‘Honestly/Fromwomantowoman,hereallyisn’tthatsmart.’
(47) Malehrlich/VonFrauzuFrau, er istwirklichnichtsoschlau.
Honestly /Fromwomantowoman,heis really not sosmart.
‘Honestly/Fromwomantowoman,hereallyisn’tthatsmart.’