Advertisement

The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 185–228 | Cite as

Expressive intensifiers and external degree modification

  • Daniel GutzmannEmail author
  • Katharina Turgay
Original Paper

Abstract

Varieties of colloquial German exhibit a special class of degree expression, including expressions like sau, voll and total, which we call expressive intensifiers (EIs) and which have received almost no attention in the literature. EIs are distinguished from ordinary degree intensifiers like very by several special syntactic properties. Most importantly, they can appear in what we call the external degree modification construction (EDC), a construction of the form [EI D (A) NP]. Despite preceding the determiner in these constructions, the EI still intensifies the adjective or noun inside the DP. The entire EDC behaves like a DP and, curiously, its interpretation must be indefinite, irrespective of the definite determiner that it involves. External EIs raise at least six questions for their analysis: (i) What is their relation to internal EIs? (ii) What position hosts them and why do they move at all? (iii) Why does the external position shift the interpretation of the determiner? (iv) Why is it that ordinary degree items are excluded from that position? (v) Why are some EIs prevented from appearing adnominally in internal position, but all can be used adnominally in external position? (vi) Why do some constructions block external EIs? After presenting a detailed description of the behavior of EIs both in internal and external position and in adjectival and adnominal use, we develop an analysis of EDCs to answer these questions which is based on the idea that the derivation of an EDC involves head movement to D0 where the EI forms a complex quantifier with the determiner in order to express a syntactic expressivity feature.

Keywords

Intensifiers Expressivity Adjectives Degree phrases Gradable nouns German 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Androutsopoulos, J.K. 1998. Deutsche Jugendsprache. Untersuchungen zu ihren Strukturen und Funktionen. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, E. 1967. Have and be in English syntax. Language 43(2): 462–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolinger, D. 1967. Adjectives in English: attribution and predication. Lingua 18: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breindl, E. 2009. Intensitätspartikeln. In Handbuch der Wortarten, ed. L. Hoffmann, 397–422. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale, a life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Claudi, U. 2006. Intensifiers of adjectives in German. Language Typology and Universals 59(4): 350– 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Constantinescu, C. 2011. Gradability in the nominal domain. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
  10. Corver, N. 1997. The internal syntax of the Dutch extended adjectival projection. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15(2): 289–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Epstein, S.D., H. Kitahara, R. Kawashima, and E. Groat. 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ferguson, S. 1996. Shortest move and object case checking. In Minimal ideas, eds. W. Abraham, S.D. Epstein, H. Thrainsson, C.J.-W. Zwart, 97–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Fiengo, R., and J. Higginbotham. 1981. Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis 7: 395–421.Google Scholar
  14. Gutzmann, D. 2012. Use-conditional meaning. Studies in multidimensional semantics. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  15. Gutzmann, D., and K. Turgay. 2012. Expressive intensifiers in German. Syntax-semantics mismatches. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 9, ed. C. Piñón, 149–166.Google Scholar
  16. Horn, L.R. 2013. I love me some datives: Expressive meaning, free datives, and F-implicature. In Beyond expressives. Explorations in use-conditional meaning, eds. D. Gutzmann, H.-M. Gärtner, 151–199. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  17. Kallulli, D., and A. Rothmayr. 2008. The syntax and semantics of indefinite determiner doubling constructions in varieties of German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11(2): 95–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaplan, D. 1999. The meaning of ouch and oops. Explorations in the theory of meaning as use. Ms. University of California, Los Angeles. 2004 version.Google Scholar
  19. Kayne, R.S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kennedy, C. 1999. Projecting the adjective. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  21. Kennedy, C. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kennedy, C., and L. McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2): 345–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirschbaum, I. 2002. Schrecklich nett und voll verrückt. Muster der Adjektiv-Intensivierung im Deutschen. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  24. Laenzlinger, C. 2010. The CP/DP parallelism revisited. Generative Grammar in Geneva 6: 49–107.Google Scholar
  25. Matushansky, O. 2002. Movement of degree/degree of movement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  26. Matushansky, O., and B. Spector. 2005. Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9: 241–255.Google Scholar
  27. McCready, E. 2010. Varieties of conventional implicature. Semantics & Pragmatics 3(8): 1–57.Google Scholar
  28. McCready, E., and M. Kaufmann. 2013. Maximum intensity. Talk given at the Keio Unversity Semantics Group. November 29, 2013.Google Scholar
  29. Meinunger, A. 2009. Leftmost peripheral adverbs and adjectives in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12(2): 115–135.  10.1007/s10828-009-9028-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Milsark, G. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.Google Scholar
  31. Morzycki, M. 2009. Degree modification of gradable nouns: Size adjectives and adnominal degree morphemes. Natural Language Semantics 17(2): 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morzycki, M. 2012. The several faces of adnominal degree modification. Proceedings of WCCFL 29: 187–195.Google Scholar
  33. Pafel, J. 1994. Zur syntaktischen Struktur nominaler Quantoren. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 13: 236–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pesetsky, D., and E. Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of feature. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, eds. S. Karimi, V. Samiian, W. Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: Benjmains.Google Scholar
  35. Pittner, R.J. 1991. Der Wortbildungstyp “Steigerungsbildung” im Deutschen. Betriebslinguistik und Linguistikbetrieb. Akten des 24. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Universität Bremen, 4.-6. September 1989, eds. E. Klein, F. Puradier Duteil, K. H. Wagner, 225–231. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  36. Pittner, R.J. 1996. Der Wortbildungstyp Steigerungsbildung beim Adjektiv im Neuhochdeutschen. Sprache & Sprachen 19: 29–67.Google Scholar
  37. Potts, C. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33 (2): 165–197.Google Scholar
  38. Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Roberts, I. 2001. Head movement. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, eds. M. Baltin, C. Collins, 113–147. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Sternefeld, W. 2008. Syntax, 3rd edn. Stauffenburg: Tübingen.Google Scholar
  41. Stevens, C.M. 2005. Revisiting the affixoid debate. On the grammaticalization of the word. In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, eds. T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, and S. De Groodt, 71–83. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  42. Struckmeier, V. 2007. Attribute im Deutschen. Zu ihren Eigenschaften und ihrer Position im grammatischen System. Number 65. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stump, G.T. 1981. The interpretation of frequency adverbs. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 221–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Travis, L. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  45. van Os, C. 1989. Aspekte der Intensivierung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  46. Wang, L., and E. McCready. 2007. Aspects of the indefiniteness effect. In New frontiers in artificial intelligence, eds. T. Washio, K. Satoh, H. Takeda, and A. Inokuchi, 162–176.Google Scholar
  47. Wurmbrand, S. 2012. Parasitic participles in Germanic: Evidence for the theory of verb clusters. Taal & Tongval 64(1): 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeijlstra, H. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29(3): 491–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zimmermann, M. 2003. Pluractionality and complex quantifier formation. Natural Language Semantics 11: 249–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of LinguisticsUniversity of FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.Institute of German StudiesUniversity of LandauLandauGermany

Personalised recommendations