Cover not available
Part of
Focus on Additivity: Adverbial modifiers in Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages
Edited by Anna-Maria De Cesare and Cecilia Andorno
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 278] 2017
► pp. 23–44

Chapter 1
Syntax and semantics of additive focus markers from a cross-linguistic perspective

A tentative assessment of the state of the art

| Freie Universität Berlin | Universität Freiburg
Looking back on three decades of research on focus markers, I will make a cautious attempt to give an overview over this rich set of relevant publications, trying to identify and distinguish general trends, important results, open questions, obvious gaps and errors. I will provide further evidence for the view that focus markers interact with the information structure of a sentence or text, i.e. with a structured proposition or text segment analyzed in terms of focus and scope by extending this analysis also to the relevant “discourse markers”. A comparative analysis of data from various languages reveals the most frequent parameters of variation in the identification of the focus and scope of a focus marker. Finally, I will show that cross-linguistic generalizations in the relevant domain are only possible if the comparison is restricted to a certain core group of markers.
Keywords: focus marker, focus, scope, discourse markers, verum focus, comparability, cross-linguistic generalizations, semantic map
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Basic properties reconsidered
    • 2.1Positional variability
    • 2.2Interaction with information structure (focus and scope)
  • 3.Comparability
  • 4.Parameters of variation
    • 4.1Marking the focus
    • 4.2Marking scope
  • 5.Discourse markers as a special case of focus markers
  • 6.Recent comparative and typological studies
  • 7.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.278.01kon
References (35)
References
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. 1976. “L’argumentation dans la langue”. Langages 10/42: 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diana. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bühring, Daniel, and Katharina Hartmann. 2001. “The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 229–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth, and David I. Beaver. 2014. “Principles of exclusive muddle”. Journal of Semantics 31: 371–432.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2015. “Polysemy patterns involving non-scalar additive particles in Subsaharan languages: the coordinative connection”. Paper given at the annual conference of the SLE, Leiden. [URL] [accessed January 2017]
Culioli, Antoine. 2002. “À propos de même”. Langue Française 133/1: 16–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna Maria. 2015. “Defining Focusing Modifiers in a cross-linguistic perspective. A discussion based on English, German, French and Italian.” In Adverbs – Functional and Diachronic Aspects, ed. by Karin Pittner, Daniela Elsner, and Fabian Barteld (eds.), 47–81. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna Maria, and Davide Garassino. 2015. “On the status of exhaustiveness in cleft sentences: An empirical and cross-linguistic study of English also-/only-clefts and Italian anche-/solo-clefts”. Folia Linguistica 49/1: 1–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, Ines, and Henok Wondimu Tadesse. 2015. “On the relationship between additive and topic markers with special reference to African languages”. Paper given at the annual conference of the SLE, Leiden.
Forker, Diana. 2015. “Towards a typology for additive markers”. Lingua 180: 69–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garachana, Mar. 2016. “Oui, monsieur Junqueras, solo que en Francia ustedes no se comerían un rosco. Exclusividad e interacción en la expresión de la contraargumentación”. Paper given at a conference on concessivity in Freiburg, June 23–24, 2016.
Gast, Volker, and Christoph Rzymski. 2015. “Towards a corpus-based analysis of evaluative scales associated with even .” Linguistik Online 71/2: 153–173.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker, and Johan van der Auwera. 2011. “Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe”. Language 87: 2–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2007. “The landscape of even ”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 39–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katarina, and Malte Zimmermann. 2007. “Focus strategies in Chadic: The case of tangale revisited”. Studia Linguistica 61/2: 95–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. “Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies”. Language 86/3: 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2016. “Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization?”. Unpublished Ms. Cologne.Google Scholar
Herburger, Elena. 2000. What Counts: Focus and Quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hole, Daniel. 2004. Focus and Background Marking in Mandarin Chinese. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Focus particles and related entities in Vietnamese”. In Linguistics of Vietnamese. An International Survey, ed. by Hole, Daniel, and Elizabeth Löbel, 265–303. Berlin-Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “A distributed syntax for evaluative ‘only’ sentences”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 34/1: 43–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus und Skalen: Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 1983. Finnish Grammar. Helsinki: Söderström.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Frances, and Lauri Karttunen. 1977. “Even questions”. In Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, ed. by Judy A. Kegl et al., 115–34. Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1990. “Even”. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 59–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1977. “Temporal and non-temporal uses of noch and schon in German”. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 173–198.Google Scholar
. 1981. “The meaning of scalar particles in German”. In Words, Worlds, and Contexts, ed. by Hans-Jürgen Eickmeyer, and Hannes Rieser, 107–132. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1982. “Scalar particles in German and their English equivalents”. In The Contrastive Grammar of English and German, ed. by Walter F. W. Lohnes, and Edwin A. Hopkins, 76–101. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particle. A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reis, Marga. 2005. “On the syntax of so-called focus particles in German – A reply to Bühring and Hartmann 2001”. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 459–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. “Association with Focus”. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze. 1997. “ Even, polarity, and scope”. In Papers in Experimental and Theoretical Linguistics, ed. by Martha Gibson, Grace Wiebe, and Gary Libben, 40–64. Department of Linguistics: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott, and Richard Waltereit. 2010. “Presupposition accommodation and language change”, in Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 75–102. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taglicht, Josef. 1984. Message and Emphasis. On Focus and Scope in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2014. “Conventional vs. free association with focus: Insights from West African and South East Asian Languages”, Ms. University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Cited by (52)

Cited by 52 other publications

Amaral, Patrícia, Zuoyu Tian, Dylan Jarrett & Juan Escalona Torres
2023. Tracing semantic change in Portuguese. Journal of Historical Linguistics 13:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Wolde, Elnora ten & Thomas Schwaiger
2022. Modification as a linguistic ‘relationship’: Ajust soproblem in Functional Discourse Grammar. Open Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 699 ff. DOI logo
Ørsnes, Bjarne
2022. Focus particles as utterances – the case of German ausgerechnet!. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 54:2 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Jasionytė-Mikučionienė, Erika
2021. Chapter 7. The Lithuanian focus particles net ‘even’ and tik ‘only’ and clause peripheries. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
TROTZKE, ANDREAS & LAIA MAYOL
2021. Catalan focus markers as discourse particles. Journal of Linguistics 57:4 ► pp. 871 ff. DOI logo
van der Wouden, Ton & Ad Foolen
2021. Chapter 2. Dutch pragmatic markers in the left periphery. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Beaver, David & Kristin Denlinger
2020. Negation and Presupposition. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 369 ff. DOI logo
Bohn, Manuel, Josep Call & Christoph J. Völter
2020. Evolutionary Precursors of Negation in Non-Human Reasoning. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 577 ff. DOI logo
Breitbarth, Anne
2020. The Negative Cycle and Beyond. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 530 ff. DOI logo
Christensen, Ken Ramshøj
2020. The Neurology of Negation. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 725 ff. DOI logo
De Clercq, Karen
2020. Types of Negation. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo
de Swart, Henriëtte
2020. Double Negation Readings. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 479 ff. DOI logo
Delfitto, Denis
2020. Expletive Negation. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
Dwivedi, Veena D.
2020. Individual Differences in Processing of Negative Operators. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 713 ff. DOI logo
Viviane Déprez & M. Teresa Espinal
2020. The Oxford Handbook of Negation, DOI logo
Fleisher, Nicholas
2020. Calculating the Scope of Negation. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
Francis, Naomi & Sabine Iatridou
2020. Modals and Negation. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo
Fălăuş, Anamaria
2020. Negation and Alternatives. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 333 ff. DOI logo
Giannakidou, Anastasia
2020. Negative Concord and the Nature of Negative Concord Items. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 458 ff. DOI logo
Gianollo, Chiara
2020. Evolution of Negative Dependencies. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 546 ff. DOI logo
Gianollo, Chiara
2020. The Morpho-Syntactic Nature of the Negative Marker. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Grodzinsky, Yosef, Virginia Jaichenco, Isabelle Deschamps, María Elina Sánchez, Martín Fuchs, Peter Pieperhoff, Yonatan Loewenstein & Katrin Amunts
2020. Negation and the Brain. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 694 ff. DOI logo
Hochmann, Jean-Rémy
2020. Cognitive Precursors of Negation in Preverbal Infants. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 589 ff. DOI logo
Horn, Laurence R.
2020. Negation and Opposition. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Horn, Laurence R.
2020. Neg-raising. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Joshi, Shrikant
2020. Affixal Negation. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Kaup, Barbara & Carolin Dudschig
2020. Understanding Negation. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 635 ff. DOI logo
Larrivée, Pierre
2020. The Role of Pragmatics in Negation Change. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 563 ff. DOI logo
Martins, Ana Maria
2020. Metalinguistic Negation. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo
Mayr, Clemens
2020. Intervention Effects with Negation. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 216 ff. DOI logo
Moeschler, Jacques
2020. Negative Predicates. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo
Muller, Hanna & Colin Phillips
2020. Negative Polarity Illusions. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 656 ff. DOI logo
Papeo, Liuba & Manuel de Vega
2020. The Neurobiology of Lexical and Sentential Negation. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 740 ff. DOI logo
Pearce, Elizabeth
2020. Negation and Constituent Ordering. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 152 ff. DOI logo
Poletto, Cecilia
2020. The Possible Positioning of Negation. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Prieto, Pilar & M. Teresa Espinal
2020. Negation, Prosody, and Gesture. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 677 ff. DOI logo
Quer, Josep
2020. The Expression of Negation in Sign Languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
Ripley, David
2020. Denial. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Romero, Maribel
2020. Form and Function of Negative, Tag, and Rhetorical Questions. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Schein, Barry
2020. Negation in Event Semantics. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 301 ff. DOI logo
Sánchez, Liliana & Jennifer Austin
2020. Negation in L2 Acquisition and Beyond. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 615 ff. DOI logo
Thornton, Rosalind
2020. Negation and First Language Acquisition. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 599 ff. DOI logo
Tortora, Christina & Frances Blanchette
2020. Negation in Non-Standard Varieties. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 515 ff. DOI logo
Tovena, Lucia M.
2020. Negative Polarity Items. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo
Tubau, Susagna
2020. Minimizers and Maximizers as Different Types of Polarity Items. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 407 ff. DOI logo
van der Auwera, Johan & Olga Krasnoukhova
2020. The Typology of Negation. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Wallage, Phillip
2020. Quantitative Studies of the Use of Negative (Dependent) Expressions. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 499 ff. DOI logo
Weir, Andrew
2020. Negative Fragment Answers. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 441 ff. DOI logo
Zeijlstra, Hedde
2020. Negative Quantifiers. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 426 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Abbreviations. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. xi ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Copyright Page. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Introduction. In The Oxford Handbook of Negation, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.