Advertisement

Focus Particles Inside Prepositional Phrases: A Comparison of Dutch, English, and German

  • Gosse Bouma
  • Petra Hendriks
  • Jack Hoeksema
Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

Partly due to disagreement on acceptability judgements, there is little agreement on the possibility of PP-internal and DP-internal focus particles in languages such as Dutch, English, and German. Our large-scale corpus investigation reveals that PP-internal focus particles are a genuine possibility, not only in English, but also in Dutch and, to a lesser extent, German. These results seem to be incompatible with a number of existing syntactic theories of bound focus in German. However, our investigation also provides evidence for a strong dispreference for focus particles to follow a preposition, although the dispreference is less strong in Dutch than in German. Qualitative analysis of the corpus data shows that the variational patterns found in English, Dutch, and German are highly similar, and are influenced by lexical-semantic as well as syntactic factors. We sketch an alternative analysis, couched in the framework of stochastic Optimality Theory.

Keywords

Corpus analysis Focus particles Optimality Theory Prepositional phrases Word order variation 

References

  1. Barbiers, S. (2003a). Focus Particle Doubling and V2. Paper presented at the TIN-dag, Utrecht, Netherlands, February 1, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. Barbiers, S. (2003b). Generalized Focus Particle Doubling. Paper presented at CGSW, Durham, UK, September 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Bayer J. (1990). Interpretive Islands: Evidence for connectedness and global harmony in Logical Form. In: Grewendorf G, Sternefeld W. (eds) Scrambling and barriers. Amsterdam, BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayer J. (1996). Directionality and logical form: On the scope of focusing particles and WH-in-situ. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  5. Behaghel, O. (1932). Deutsche syntax, Vol. 4. Heidelberg: Winter Verlag. Boersma, P. (1998). Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Boersma P., Hayes B. (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bresnan, J., Dingare, S., & Manning C. D. (2001). Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In: M. Butt & T.H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Bü ring D., Hartmann K. (2001). The syntax and semantics of focus sensitive particles in German. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 229–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky N. (1976). Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2: 303–352Google Scholar
  10. Clark B. Z. (2004). A stochastic optimality theory approach to syntactic change. Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  11. Grimshaw J. (1997). Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422Google Scholar
  12. Hendriks P. (2004). Either, both and neither in coordinate structures. In: ter Meulen A., Abraham W.(eds). The composition of meaning: From lexeme to discourse. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 115-138Google Scholar
  13. Hoeksema J. (1989). Only in Dutch: a comparison of three adverbs. Penn Review of Linguistics 13: 106–121Google Scholar
  14. Hoeksema J. (1999). Review of Josef Bayer, Directionality and Logical Form. Journal of Linguistics 35: 395–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoeksema J., Zwarts F. (1991). Some remarks on focus adverbs. Journal of Semantics 8: 51–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacobs J. (1983). Fokus und Skalen: Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen, NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
  17. Jäger G. (2004). Learning constraint sub-hierarchies. The Bidirectional Gradual Learning Algorithm. In: Blutner R., Zeevat H. (eds). Optimality theory and pragmatics. MacMillan, Palgrave, pp. 251- 287Google Scholar
  18. Kayne R.S. (2000). Parameters and universals. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein H. (1998). Adverbs of degree in Dutch and related languages. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  20. König E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Link G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretic approach. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., von Stechow A.(eds). Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin, De Gruyter, pp. 302-323Google Scholar
  22. Malouf, R. & van Noord G. (2004). Wide Coverage Parsing with Stochastic Attribute Value Grammars. In: IJCNLP-04 Workshop Beyond Shallow Analyses – Formalisms and statistical modeling for deep analyses.Google Scholar
  23. Neijt A. (1979). Gapping: A contribution to sentence grammar. Dordrecht, ForisGoogle Scholar
  24. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. (distributed as unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ and University of Colorado, Boulder, 1993).Google Scholar
  25. Reinhart T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Reis M., Rosengren I. (1997). A modular approach to the grammar of additive particles: the case of German Auch. Journal of Semantics 14(3): 237–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reis M. (2005). On the syntax of so-called focus particles in German —- A reply to Büring And Hartmann 2001. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(2): 459–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  29. Ross J.R., Cooper W.E. (1979). Like syntax. In: Cooper W.E., Walker E.C.T. (eds). Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Honor Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale NJ, Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  30. Shannon, T. F. (1995). Extraposition of NP complements in Dutch and German: An empirical comparison. In: T. F. Shannon, & J. P. Snapper (Eds.), The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1993 (pp. 87–116). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge, MA MIT.Google Scholar
  31. Taglicht J. (1984). Message and emphasis: On focus and scope in English. London, LongmanGoogle Scholar
  32. van der Beek L., Bouma G., van Noord G. (2002). Een brede computationele grammatica voor het Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 7(4): 353–374Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Language and Cognition GroningenUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations