Cover not available

In: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. 201–235

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 7
The scalar operator even and its German equivalents

Pragmatic and syntactic factors determining the use of auch, selbst and sogar in the Europarl corpus

Published online: 24 August 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.278.07gas
Abstract
The English scalar additive operator even has a broad distribution, e.g. insofar as it is used in upward- as well as downward-entailing contexts. Other languages, such as German, use a variety of expressions to render the function(s) of even. The question arises what conditions and determines the use of the various operators of German. The present study addresses this question with respect to the particles selbst, sogar and auch as translation equivalents of even in upward-entailing contexts. On the basis of a sample of 300 translation pairs from the Europarl corpus, the influence of four syntactic and three pragmatic variables on the choice of an operator in German is investigated. The results show that the operators are mainly sensitive to two of the pragmatic variables, the presence or absence of overt focus alternatives in the clausal environment, and the size of the set of alternatives. From a syntatic point of view, a clear difference between selbst and sogar is shown, with selbst exhibiting a tendency to attach to higher levels of syntax than sogar. The quantitative findings are interpreted against the background of historical developments, the assumption being that synchronic distributions reflect diachronic developments (‘distributional intertia’).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1 Rendering (scalar additive) even in German
    • 1.2Overview of the study
  • 2.Syntactic factors
    • 2.1Parameters of variation
    • 2.2Annotation and results
      • 2.2.1The category of the focus and of the co-constituent
      • 2.2.2The syntactic role of the co-constituent and its depth of embedding
  • 3.Pragmatic factors
    • 3.1Parameters of variation
    • 3.2Annotation and results
  • 4.Combining syntactic and pragmatic factors
  • 5. A comparison of selbst and sogar
    • 5.1Syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic addition and pragmatic cumulativity
    • 5.2Notes on the historical developments of sogar and selbst
      • 5.2.1Sogar
      • 5.2.2Selbst
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (39)
References
Atayan, Vahram and Daniele Moretti (forthcoming). Flankierende Argumentationsverfahren in Sprachvergleich undÜbersetzung: Eine Studie am Beispiel des französischen Markers même. Beiträge zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung.
Breimann, Leo 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45 (1), 5–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel and Katharina Hartmann 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 229–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cartoni, Bruno and Thomas Meyer 2012. Extracting directional and comparable corpora from a multilingual corpus for translation studies. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Istanbul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Ayala 1980. On the graphical display of the significant components in a two-way contingency table. Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods A9, 1025–1041. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William 2000. Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Perspective. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine 2001. Reanalysing selbst . Natural Language Semantics 6, 371–412. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friendly, Michael 1982. Graphical methods for categorical data. SAS User Group International Conference Proceedings, 190–200.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gast, Volker 2006. The Grammar of Identity. Intensifiers and Reflexives in Germanic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gast, Volker, Lennart Bierkandt, and Christoph Rzymski 2015a. Annotating modals with GraphAnno, a configurable lightweight tool for multi-level annotation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Models for Modality Annotation, held in conjunction with IWCS 11, 2015, Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 19–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015b. Creating and retrieving tense and aspect annotations with GraphAnno, a lightweight tool for multi-level annotation. In H. Bunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Annotation, Tilburg, pp. 23–28. Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Enriching TimeBank: Towards a more precise annotation of temporal relations in a text. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gast, Volker and Johan van der Auwera 2011. Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language 87 (1), 2–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Scalar additive operators in Transeurasian languages: A comparison with Europe. In M. Robbeets and H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Shared Grammaticalization. With Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages, pp. 113–145. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia 2011. Negative and positive polarity items. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, and P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics, Volume 22.2 of Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK), pp. 1660–1712. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jacob 2012. On the natural history of negative polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 38 (1/2), 3–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jacob and Hotze Rullmann 2001. Scalarity and polarity: A study of scalar adverbs as polarity items. In J. Hoeksema, H. Rullmann, V. Sánchez-Valencia, and T. van der Wouden (Eds.), Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items, Volume 40 of Linguistics Today, pp. 129–172. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hole, Daniel 2002. Agentive selbst in German. In S. R. Katz, G. and P. Reuter (Eds.), Proceedings of ‘Sinn und Bedeutung VI’, Osnabrück, pp. 133–150.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In E. Traugott and B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Volume I, pp. 17–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim 1983. Fokus und Skalen: Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karttunen, Fances and Lauri Karttunen 1977. Even questions. In Proceedings of the 7th meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, pp. 115–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri and S. Peters 1979. Conventional implicature in Montague Grammar. In C.-K. Oh and D. A. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 11: Presuppositions. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, Dan and Christopher D. Manning 2003. Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 423–430.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kluge, Friedrich 1995. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen 50 Volker Gast: Even and its German equivalents Sprache (23., erw. Aufl. ed.). Berlin [u.a.]: Mouton de Gruyter. ed. Seebold, Elmar.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koehn, Philipp 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. Phuket. MT Summit X.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard 1982. Scalar particles in German and their English equivalents. In F. Lohnes and E. Hopkins (Eds.), The Contrastive Grammar of English and German, pp. 76–101. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1989. On the historical development of focus particles. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln, pp. 318–329. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1993. Focus particles. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, pp. 978– 987. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard and Peter Siemund 1996. Selbst-Reflektionen. In G. Harras (Ed.), Wenn die Semantik arbeitet – Festschrift für Klaus Baumgärtner, pp. 277–302. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard, Detlef Stark, and Susanne Requardt 1990. Adver-bien und Partikeln. Ein deutsch-englisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice 1992. Selbst – Variants of a scalar adverb in German. Linguistische Berichte 4, 54–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reis, Marga 2005. On the syntax of so-called focus particles in German. A reply to Büring and Hartmann 2001. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23, 459–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats 1985. Association with Focus. Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strobl, C., Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Achim Zeileis, and Torsten Hothorn 2007. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8 (25).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandeweghe, Willy 1981. Ook maar X. Studia Germanica Gandensia 21, 15–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwarts, Frans 1981. Negatief Polaire Uitdrukkingen I. GLOT 4, 35–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Andrushenko, Olena
2023. PARTICULARIZING FOCUS MARKERS IN OLD ENGLISH: JUST A CASE OF ADVERB POLYSEMY?. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Andrushenko, Olena
2025. A Multilingual Corpus for European Studies: Unlocking Focus and Intensification Patterns in the EU Acquis. Dialogica 1:1 ► pp. 12 ff. DOI logo
Eberhardt, Ira
2022. From up-toning intensifying particle to scalar focus particle. In Particles in German, English and Beyond [Studies in Language Companion Series, 224], ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Bello, Iria
2019. On cognitive complexity in scientific discourse. In Writing History in Late Modern English, ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue