Abstract
This paper develops an account of the German discourse particle denn that captures the meaning contribution of this particle in polar questions, wh-questions, and certain conditional antecedents in a unified way. It is shown that the behavior of denn exhibits an asymmetry between polar and wh-interrogatives, which can be captured by treating the particle as sensitive to the property highlighted by its containing clause, in the sense of Roelofsen and Farkas (Language 91(2):359–414, 2015). In addition, the paper argues that highlighting-sensitivity should be incorporated in the account of another discourse particle, German überhaupt, and discusses how the proposed account of discourse particle denn may be extended to also cover the use of denn as a causal conjunction.
References
Abusch, D. (2010). Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics, 27, 37–80.
Aloni, M., Beaver, D., Clark, B., & van Rooij, R. (2007). The dynamics of topics and focus. In M. Aloni, A. Butler, & P. Dekker (Eds.), Questions in dynamic semantics (pp. 123–146). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Antomo, M., & Steinbach, M. (2010). Desintegration und interpretation: Weil-V2-Sätze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 29(1), 1–37.
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bayer, J. (2012). From modal particle to interrogative marker: A study of German denn. In L. Brugé, A. Cardinaletti, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, & C. Poletto (Eds.), Functional heads: The cartography of syntactic structures (pp. 13–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beck, S., & Reis, M. (2018). On the form and interpretation of echo wh-questions. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 369–408.
Belnap, N., & Steel, T. (1976). The logic of questions and answers. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ Press.
Biezma, M. (2014). The grammar of discourse: The case of then. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 24, 373–394.
Brauße, U. (1994). Lexikalische Funktionen der Synsemantika. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Bublitz, W. (1978). Ausdrucksweisen der Sprechereinstellung im Deutschen und Englischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Büring, D., & Gunlogson, C. (2000). Aren’t positive and negative polar questions the same? Ms., Santa Cruz, UCSC/UCLA. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mYwOGNhO/polar_questions.pdf.
Charnavel, I. (2017). Non-at-issueness of since-clauses. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 27, 43–58.
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2013). Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(9), 459–476.
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2015). Inquisitive semantics. Lecture notes, European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information. https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/courses/esslli-2015
Csipak, E., & Zobel, S. (2014). A condition on the distribution of discourse particles across types of questions. Proceedings of NELS, 44(1), 83–94.
Csipak, E., & Zobel, S. (2016). Discourse particle denn in the antecedent of conditionals. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 11, 31–60.
Davidson, D. (1979). Moods and performances. In A. Margalit (Ed.), Meaning and use (pp. 9–20). Berlin: Springer.
Faller, M. (2006). Evidentiality and epistemic modality at the semantics/pragmatics interface. Paper presented at the 2006 Workshop on Philosophy and Linguistics, University of Michigan. http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~rthomaso/lpw06/fallerpaper.pdf.
Farkas, D. F., & Bruce, K. B. (2010). On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics, 27, 81–118.
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Franck, D. (1980). Grammatik und Konversation. Stilistische Pragmatik des Dialogs und der Bedeutung deutscher Modalpartikeln. Tampa: Scriptor.
Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Grosz, P. (2011). German particles, modality, and the semantics of imperatives. Proceedings of NELS, 39(1), 323–336.
Grosz, P. (2016). Discourse particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gutzmann, D. (2015). Use-conditional meaning. Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10(1), 41–53.
Hamblin, C. L. (1958). Questions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 36, 159–168.
Hentschel, E., & Weydt, H. (1983). Der pragmatische Mechanismus: denn und eigentlich. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Partikeln und Interaktion (pp. 263–273). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hoeks, M. & Roelofsen, F. (2018). Disjoining questions. Paper presented at Semantics and Philosophy in Europe 10.
Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.
Iatridou, S., & Tatevosov, S. (2016). Our even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39(4), 295–331.
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 3–44.
Katz, J. J., & Postal, P. M. (1965). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Foundations of Language, 1(2), 133–154.
Kaufmann, M., & Kaufmann, S. (2012). Epistemic particles and perfomativity. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 22, 208–225.
König, E. (1977). Modalpartikeln in Fragesätzen. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Aspekte derModalpartikeln (pp. 115–130). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Kratzer, A. (1999). Beyond ouch and oops. Paper presented at CornellConference on Theories of Context Dependency. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WEwNGUyO/.
Kratzer, A. (2004). Interpreting focus: Presupposed or expressive meanings? A comment on geurts and van der sandt. Theoretical Linguistics, 30, 123–136.
Krifka, M. (2001a). For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In C.Féry, & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur vox sapientia. A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow (pp. 287–319). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Krifka, M. (2001b). Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics, 9(1), 1–40.
Kwon, M.-J. (2005). Modalpartikeln und Satzmodus. Ph.D. thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
Levesque, H. J. (1984). A logic of implicit and explicit belief. In Proceedings of the 4th AAAI Conference (pp. 198–202). Austin, TX: AAAI Press.
McCready, E. (2012). Formal approaches to particle meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(12), 777–795.
Mitchell, J. E. (1986). The formal semantics of point of view. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.
Murray, S. (2010). Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University.
Murray, S., & Starr, W. (2018). Force and conversational states. In D. Fogal, D. Harris, & M. Moss (Eds.), New work on speech acts (pp. 202–236). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neale, S. (2004). This, that, and the other. In A. Bezuidenhout, & M. Reimer (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond (pp. 68–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pasch, R., Brauße, U., Breindl, E., & Waßner, U. H. (2003). Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Portner, P. (2004). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 14, 235–252.
Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potts, C. (2007). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(2), 165–198.
Pruitt, K., & Roelofsen, F. (2013). The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 44, 632–650.
Reimer, M. (1992). Three views of demonstrative reference. Synthese, 93(3), 373–402.
Reis, M. (2013). “Weil-V2”-Sätze und (kein) Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach (2010). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 32(2), 221–262.
Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse. In J. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics49: Papers in semantics (pp. 91–136). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Roelofsen, F. (2017). Suprise for Lauri Karttunen. Ms., ILLC, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3320/b4f5856b62df6133f7df5ce62684dfa76d33.pdf.
Roelofsen, F., & Farkas, D. F. (2015). Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language, 91(2), 359–414.
Rojas-Esponda, T. (2014a). A discourse model for überhaupt. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7(1), 1–45.
Rojas-Esponda, T. (2014b). A QUD account of German doch. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 18, 359–376. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/322.
Rojas-Esponda, T. (2015). Patterns and symmetries for discourse particles. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Scheffler, T. (2005). Syntax and semantics of causal denn in German. In P. Dekker, & M. Franke (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 215–220). Amsterdam: ILLC.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Starr, W. B. (2016). A preference semantics for imperatives. Ms., Cornell University, https://philpapers.org/rec/STAAPS.
Thurmair, M. (1989). Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen (Vol. 223). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Thurmair, M. (1991). Zum Gebrauch der Modalpartikel ‘denn’ in Fragesätzen. Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung. In E. Klein (Ed.), Betriebslinguistik und Linguistikbetrieb (pp. 377–387). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
von Stechow, A. (1991). Focusing and backgrounding operators. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German (pp. 37–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Williamson, T. (2002). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic modals. Mind, 116(464), 983–1026.
Zimmermann, M. (2004). Zum ‘Wohl’: Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren. Linguistische Berichte, 199, 253–286.
Zimmermann, M. (2008). Discourse particles in the left periphery. In P. Cook, W. Frey, C. Maienborn, & B. Shaer (Eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse (pp. 200–231). London: Routledge.
Zimmermann, M. (2011). Discourse particles. In P. Portner, C. Maienborn, & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 2012–2038). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zobel, S., & Csipak, E. (2016). Conditional antecedents containing the German discourse particle denn: A corpus study. Linguistica, 56(1), 345–361.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
I thank Maria Aloni, Eva Csipak, Mike Deigan, Regine Eckardt, Donka Farkas, Angelika Kratzer, Floris Roelofsen, Julian Schlöder, Johannes Schneider, Yasu Sudo, Matthijs Westera, and two anonymous reviewers for feedback on earlier versions of the ideas presented here. I am also very grateful to audiences at the ILLC, at NELS 48, CSSP 2017, the University of Konstanz, the University of Potsdam and the PLM Masterclass in Salzburg for helpful comments and discussion. This paper was written while I was a Ph.D. student at the University of Amsterdam, funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Theiler, N. Denn as a highlighting-sensitive particle. Linguist and Philos 44, 323–362 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-019-09290-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-019-09290-7