Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 229–281 | Cite as

The Syntax And Semantics Of Focus-Sensitive ParticlesIn German

  • Daniel Büring
  • Katharina Hartmann


We propose a comprehensive account of both the distribution and the interpretation of German focus particles such as nur, auch and sogar (`only', `also', `even'). We argue that they always adjoin to non-arguments (in recent terms this means that they can adjoin to VPs, IPs, APs and root CPs, but never to argument DPs or argument CPs), and that they do not undergo LF raising. Presenting a range of mostly new data and observations, we show how this theory accounts for a variety of puzzling distributional facts about adverbial and ad-adjectival particles, in particular, their specific interpretations and their behavior with respect to scope and reconstruction.


Artificial Intelligence Distributional Fact Comprehensive Account Specific Interpretation Focus Particle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bayer, Josef. 1990. Directionality of Government and Logical Form: A Study of Focusing Particles and Wh-Scope, Habilitationsschrift, Konstanz.Google Scholar
  2. Bayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality and Logical Form, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London.Google Scholar
  3. Büring, Daniel. 1997. 'The Great Scope Inversion Conspiracy', Linguistics & Philosophy 20, 175–194.Google Scholar
  4. Büring, Daniel and Katharina Hartmann. 1995. 'Is it [Only Rock'n Roll] Or Just Like It?', in J. Camacho, L. Choueiri and M. Watanabe (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 63–77.Google Scholar
  5. Büring, Daniel and Katharina Hartmann. 1997. 'Doing the Right Thing', The Linguistic Review 14, 1–42.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers, MIT-Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  7. Eisenberg, Peter. 1989. Grundrißder Deutschen Grammatik, Metzler, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  8. Frey, Werner. 1993. Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation (studia grammatica xxxv), Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  9. Grebe, Paul et al. (eds.) 1973. Duden. Grammatik der Deutschen Gegenwartssprache, 3. Auflage, Dudenverlag, Mannheim.Google Scholar
  10. Grewendorf, Günther and Wolfgang Sternefeld. 1990. 'Scrambling Theories', in G. Grewendorf and W. Sternefeld (eds.), Scrambling and Barriers, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 3–37.Google Scholar
  11. Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended Projections, Ms. Brandeis University.Google Scholar
  12. Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The Syntax of Negation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Heidolph, Karl Erich et al. 1981. Grundzüge einer Deutschen Grammatik, Akademieverlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. Helbig, Gerhard. 1988. Lexikon Deutscher Partikeln, VEB Verlag Enzyklopäie, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus und Skalen, Niemeyer, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  16. Jacobs, Joachim. 1986. 'The Syntax of Focus and Adverbials', in W. Abraham and S. de Meij (eds.), Topic, Focus, and Configurationality, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 103–128.Google Scholar
  17. Jacobson, Pauline. 1994. 'Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences', in M. Harvey and L. Santelmann (eds.), Proceedings of SALT IV, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, pp. 161–178.Google Scholar
  18. Kayne, Richard. 1998. 'Overt vs. Covert Movement', Syntax 1, 128–191.Google Scholar
  19. König, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles, Routledge, London/New York.Google Scholar
  20. Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Focus, Quantification, and Dynamic Interpretation, Ms, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  21. McCloskey, James. 1998. 'Adjunction, Selection and CP-Recursion', Ms, UCSC. Müller, Stefan. in prep. Yet Another Theory of Complex Predicates,Ms, DFKI Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
  22. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  23. Rooth, Mats. 1992. 'A Theory of Focus Interpretation', Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.Google Scholar
  24. Ross, John R. 1973. 'The Penthouse Principle and the Order of Constituents', in C. Corum et al. (eds.), You Take the High Node, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 397–422.Google Scholar
  25. Sharvit, Yael. 1997. The Syntax and Semantics of Functional Relative Clauses, PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  26. von Stechow, Arnim. 1991. 'Current Issues in the Theory of Focus', in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), pp. 804–825.Google Scholar
  27. von Stechow, Arnim and Dieter Wunderlich (eds.) 1991. Semantics ¶An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  28. Taglicht, Josef. 1984. Message and Emphasis, Longman, London and New York.Google Scholar
  29. Webelhuth, Gert. 1987. 'Eine universelle Scrambling Theorie', Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft at Augsburg.Google Scholar
  30. Zifonun, Gisela. 1997. Grammatik der Deutschen Sprache, de Gruyter, Berlin. (= Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache).Google Scholar
  31. Zimmermann, Malte. 1997. 'An Empirical Study of Quantifier Scope in German', in Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 41. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, pp. 205–225.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Büring
    • 1
  • Katharina Hartmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUC Los Angeles, 3125 Campbell HallLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Institut für deutsche Sprache & Literatur IIJohann Wolfgang Goethe-UniversitätFrankfurt/MainGermany

Personalised recommendations