Cover not available

In:Particles in German, English, and Beyond
Edited by Remus Gergel, Ingo Reich and Augustin Speyer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 224] 2022
► pp. 95–116

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

Chapter 4
The interpretation of the German additive particle auch (‘too, also’) in quantificational contexts

 | University of Graz
Published online: 16 August 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.224.04but
Abstract
This article discusses an unexpected interpretation that arises for the German additive particle auch (‘too, also’) in quantificational contexts. It will be proposed that what auch conveys in such contexts is a superset-to-subset relation between two of its arguments. This rather unusual meaning and its alternation with the classical additive meaning will be argued to be tied to specific syntactic constructions in which the particle occurs. The main purpose of this article is to present novel data and make a tentative suggestion on how the correspondence between syntactic structure and semantic interpretation could be explained.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.More data & previous theories on additives
    • 2.1The distribution of inclusive and exclusive readings
    • 2.2Previous theories on additives
  • 3.The proposal
    • 3.1The underlying principle
    • 3.2Consequences and predictions
  • 4.What needs to be done
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (38)
References
Abrusán, Márta. 2011. Presuppositional and negative islands. A semantic account. In: Natural Language Semantics 19: 257–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Presupposition cancellation. Explaining the ‘soft-hard’ trigger distinction. In: Natural Language Semantics 24: 165–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ahn, Dorothy. 2014. The semantics of additive either. In: Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19: 20–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. A New Account for too and either. Handout from the Annual Penn Linguistics Conference 39 (March 20–22).
Aloni, Maria. 2001. Quantification under Conceptual Covers. University of Amsterdam dissertation.
Beaver, David and Henk Zeevat. 2007. Accommodation. In: The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss (eds.): 502–538. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beaver, David and Brady Clark. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity. How Focus Determines Meaning. Malden, MA/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian and Anna Szabolcsi. 2013. Presuppositional TOO, postsuppositional TOO. In: The dynamic, inquisitive and visionary life of φ, ?φ and ◇φ . A Festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof and Frank Veltman. Maria Aloni, Michael Franke and Floris Roelofsen (eds.): 55–64. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2008. An Argument against Assimilating Appositive Relatives to Coordinate Structures. In: Linguistic Inquiry 39(4): 633–655. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida Khadiga. 1991. Resumptive Chains in Restrictive Relatives, Appositives and Dislocation Structures. MIT dissertation.
Féry, Caroline. 2009. Postponed ‘auch’. Where does its accent come from? In: Snippets 20: 23–27Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 2004. Would you believe it? The king of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. In: Descriptions and Beyond. Marga Reimer and Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.): 269–296. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart and Rob van der Sandt. 2004. Interpreting focus. In: Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Griffiths, James and Mark de Vries. 2014. Parenthesis and presupposition in discourse. In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2014. Anita Auer and Björn Köhnlein (eds.): 39–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Griffiths, James. 2015. On appositives. University of Groningen, PhD thesis.
Grubic, Mira and Marta Wierzba. 2019. Presupposition Accommodation of the German Additive Particle ‘auch’ (=‘too’). In: frontiers in Communication 4(15): 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs. In: Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kobuchi-Philip, Mana. 2009. Japanese Mo. Universal, Additive, and NPI. In: Journal of Cognitive Science 10: 172–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Additive Particles under Stress. In: Proceedings of SALT 8. Devon Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson (eds.): 111–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1990/2009. Presupposition and Anaphora. Remarks on the Formulation of the Projection Problem. In: Linguistic Inquiry 40(3): 367–386.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Dmitry. 2008. Licensing of negative polarity particles ‘yet’, ‘anymore’, ‘either’ and ‘neither’. Combining downward monotonicity and assertivity. University of Stanford dissertation.
McCawley, James D. 1998. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nicolae, Andreea. 2020. Negative polarity additive particles. In: Monotoncity in Logic and Language. Dun Deng, Fenrong Liu, Mingming Liu and Dag Westerstahl (eds.): 166–182. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis and Edgar Onea. 2015. On the form and meaning of appositives. In: Proceedings of NELS 45. Thuy Bui and Deniz Özyildiz (eds.): 203–212. Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis. 2016. Ellipsis in appositives. In: Glossa 1(1): 34: 1–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reis, Marga and Inger Rosengren. 1997. A Modular Approach to the Grammar of Additive Particles. The Case of German ‘Auch’. In: Journal of Semantics 14: 237–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A Theory of Focus Interpretation. In: Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze. 2003. Additive Particles and Polarity. In: Journal of Semantics 20: 329–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruys, Eddy G. 2015. On the Anaphoricity of Too. In: Linguistic Inquiry 46(2): 343–361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Sandt, Rob and Bart Geurts. 2001. Too. In: Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam Colloquium: 180–185.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz, Bernhard. 2005. Scalar Additive Particles in Negative Contexts. In: Natural Language Semantics 13: 125–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and Syntax. The Relation Between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2015. What do quantifier particles do? In: Linguistics and Philosophy 38: 159–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Additive Presuppositions Are Derived Through Activating Focus Alternatives. In: Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium. Alexandre Cremers, Thom van Gessel and Floris Roelofsen (eds.): 455–464.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Two types of quantifier particles. Quantifier-phrase internal vs. heads on the clausal spine. In: Glossa 3(1): 69: 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2006. The Syntax of Appositive Relativization. On Specifying Coordination, False Free Relatives and Promotion. In: Linguistic Inquiry 37(2): 229–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeevat, Henk. 2004. Particles. Presupposition Triggers, Context Markers or Speech Act Markers. In: Optimality Theory and Pragmatics: 91–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue