Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 219–244

What Asymmetric Coordination in German tells us about the syntax and semantics of conditionals



In this paper, I argue on empirical grounds that (VL-initial) Asymmetric Coordination in German cannot be reduced to a syntactic structure of the form [if S1, then S2], but rather needs to be analyzed as some kind of adjunction to the if-clause, i.e., along the lines of [[if S1] and S2]. This conclusion gives rise to an apparent mismatch between syntactic structure (narrow scope of if) and semantic interpretation (wide scope of if). To resolve this paradoxical situation, I propose a compositional semantics for conditionals that is based on the idea that (indexed) if is to be construed as some kind of anaphor (variable) that ranges over objects of type modal base picking up a modal background in the actual context. Even though this analysis assigns a non-vacuous semantics to the complementizer if, it is still compatible with the syntax of Asymmetric Coordination in German, and, in contrast to alternative accounts, avoids the generation of non-existent distributive readings.


Asymmetric Coordination Conditionals If Distributivity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bhatt, R., and R. Pancheva. 2006. Conditionals. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 1, Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics, ed. M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, 638–687. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Büring D., Hartmann K. (1998) Asymmetrische Koordination. Linguistische Berichte 174: 172–201Google Scholar
  3. Fortmann C. (2005) Die Lücken im Bild von der Subjektlücken-Konstruktion. Linguistische Berichte 204: 441–476Google Scholar
  4. Frank, A. 2002. A (discourse) functional analysis of asymmetric coordination. In Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, ed. M. Butt and T. King, 174–196.Google Scholar
  5. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Heycock C., Kroch A. (1994) Verb movement and coordination in a dynamic theory of licensing. The Linguistic Review 11: 257–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Höhle, T. N. 1983. Subjektlücken in Koordinationen. Ms., Tübingen.Google Scholar
  8. Höhle, T. N. 1990. Assumptions about asymmetric coordination in German. In Grammar in progress. GLOW Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, ed. J. Mascaró and M. Nespor, 221–235. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  9. Iatridou, S. 1991. Topics in conditionals. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson K. (2002) Restoring exotic coordinations to normalcy. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 97–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kehler A. (2002) Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. CSLI, Stanford, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  12. König, E., and J. van der Auwera. 1988. Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals, and concessives. In Clause combining in grammar and discourse, ed. J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson, 101–133. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  13. Kratzer, A. 1991a. ‘Conditionals’. In Semantik—Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. (Semantics—An international handbook of contemporary research), ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 651–656. Berlin: Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Kratzer, A. 1991b. ‘Modality’. In Semantik—Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. (Semantics—An international handbook of contemporary research), ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 639–650. Berlin: Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Kratzer A. (1998) ‘Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites?’. In: Rothstein S. (eds) Events and grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 163–196Google Scholar
  16. Postal P.M. (1998) Three investigations of extraction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Reich, I. 2007. Asymmetrische Koordination im Deutschen. Habilitationsschrift, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  18. Reich, I. 2008. From discourse to ‘odd coordinations’—on asymmetric coordination and subject gaps in German. In ‘Subordination’ vs. ‘coordination’ in sentence and text, ed. C. Fabricius-Hansen and W. Ramm, 281–303. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  19. Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reis, M. 1993. Satzfügung und kommunikative Gewichtung: Zur Grammatik und Pragmatik von Neben- vs. Unterordnung am Beispiel ‘implikativer’ und-Konstruktionen im Deutschen. In Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, ed. M. Reis, 203–249. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  21. Rooth, M., and B. Partee. 1982. Conjunction, type ambiguity, and wide scope ‘or’. Proceedings of the 1st west coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, California, pp. 353–362.Google Scholar
  22. Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Schlenker P. (2004) Conditionals as definite descriptions (a referential analysis). Research on Language and Computation 1: 417–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sternefeld W. (2006) Syntax. Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. Band 2. Stauffenburg, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  25. te Velde, J. R. 2006. Deriving coordinate symmetries: A phase-based approach integrating select, merge, copy and match, vol. 89 of Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today. Ansterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Truckenbrodt H. (2006) On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 257–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Von Fintel, K. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  28. Von Stechow, A. 2004. Schritte zur Satzsemantik. Ms., Tübingen.Google Scholar
  29. Wunderlich, D. 1988. Some problems of coordination in German. In Natural language parsing and linguistic theories, vol. 35 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, ed. U. Reyle and C. Rohrer, 289–316. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations