Focus on Again



This paper examines the effect that focus has on repetitive versus restitutive again. It is argued that a pragmatic explanation of the effect is the right strategy. The explanation builds largely on a standard focus semantics. To this we add an anaphoric analysis of again’s presupposition and a detailed analysis of the alternatives triggered when focus falls on again.


Topic Time Natural Language Semantic Preceding Sentence Presupposition Projection Accent Pattern 
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.


  1. Bale, A.: 2005, ‘Quantifier Raising, the Semantics of Again and the Complexity of Verb Phrases’, Paper presented at SALT 2005, UCLA.Google Scholar
  2. Beaver, D. 2001‘Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic SemanticsCSLIStanfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, S. 2005a‘There and Back Again: A Semantic Analysis’Journal of Semantics22351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, S.: 2005b, ‘A Second Time and Again’, in: Proceedings of the 15th Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, S.: (to appear a) ‘Alternatives to Again’. To appear in: UConn Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, S.: (to appear b) ‘Quantifier Dependent Readings of Anaphoric Presuppositions’. To appear in Uli Sauerland et al. (eds.), Palgrave.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, S., Johnson, K. 2004‘Double Objects Again’Linguistic Inquiry3597124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dimroth, C. (2004), ‘Fokuspartikelnn und Informationsgliederung im Deutschen’. Studien zur Deutschen Grammatik 69, Stauffenburg, Tuebingen.Google Scholar
  9. Fabricius-Hansen, C. 1983‘Wieder ein Wieder? Zur Semantik von Wieder’Baeuerle, R.Schwarze, C.Stechow, A. eds. Meaning, Use and Interpretation of LanguageDe GruyterBerlin97120Google Scholar
  10. Fabricius-Hansen, C. 2001‘Wi(e)der and Again(st)’Fery, C.Sternefeld, W. eds. Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von StechowAkademie VerlagBerlin101130Google Scholar
  11. Fintel, K. 2003Pragmatics; Notes on PresuppositionMITMAGoogle Scholar
  12. Heim, I.: 1990, ‘Presupposition Projection’. in R. van der Sandt (ed.), Presupposition, Lexical Meaning and Discourse Processes, Workshop Reader, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  13. Huitink, J.: 2003, ‘We Cannot Have Pizza Again’, in: Proceedings of the ESSLI ’03 Workshop’ The Meaning and Implementation of Discourse Particles’, M. Stede and H. Zeevat (eds.), Downloaded from
  14. van der Sandt, R. and J. Huitink: 2003, ‘Again’, in: Proceedings of the 2003 Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
  15. Jäger, G. and R. Blutner: 2000, ‘Against Lexical Decomposition in Syntax’, in Proceedings of IATL 15.Google Scholar
  16. Jäger, G. and R. Blutner: 2003, ‘Competition and Interpretation: The German Adverb wieder (‘again’)’, in E. Lang, C. Maienborn and C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying Adjuncts, pp. 393–416, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Kadmon, N. 2001Formal Pragmatics. Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition and FocusBlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamp, H., Rossdeutscher, A. 1994‘DRS-construction and Lexically-Driven Inference’Theoretical Linguistics20165235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein, W. 2001‘Time and Again’Fery, C.Sternefeld, W. eds. Audiatur Vox SapientiaeA Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Akademie VerlagBerlin267286Google Scholar
  20. Kratzer, A. (1996). ‘Severing the External Argument from Its Head’. In: J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, pp. 109–137.Google Scholar
  21. Kratzer, A.: 1998, ‘More Strucural Analogies Between Pronouns and Tenses’, in: Proceedings of SALT 8, MIT, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Partee, B. 1973‘Some Structural Analogies Between Tenses and Pronouns in English’The Journal of Philosophy70601609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pittner, K.: 2003, ‘Process, Eventuality and Wieder/Again’, in E. Lang, C. Maienborn, and C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying Adjuncts, pp. 365–391, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Rooth, M. 1992a‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’Natural Language Semantics175116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rooth, M.: 1992b, ‘Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy’, in B. Steve and A. Hestvik (eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. Report 29 of the series ‘Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen fuer die Computerlinguistik’, IBM Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  26. Sæbø, J. K. 2004‘Conversational Contrast and Conventional Parallel: Topic Implicatures and Additive Presuppositions’Journal of Semantics21199217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sandt, R. 1992‘Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution’Journal of Semantics9333377Google Scholar
  28. Schwarzschild, R. 1999‘GIVENness, AvoidF and other Constraints on the Placement of Accent’Natural Language Semantics1387138Google Scholar
  29. Soames, S. 1989‘Presupposition’Gabbay, D.Günthner, F. eds. Handbook of Philosophical LogicKluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  30. Stalnaker, R. 1973‘Presuppositions’Journal of Philosophical Logic2447457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stechow, A. 1995a‘Lexical Decomposition in Syntax’Egli, U.Pause, P.E.Schwarze, Ch.Stechow, A.Wienhold, G. eds. The Lexicon in the Organization of LanguageJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam and Philadelphia81118Google Scholar
  32. Stechow, A.: 1995b, ‘On the Proper Treatment of Tense’, Proceedings of SALT 5.Google Scholar
  33. Stechow, A. 1996‘The Different Readings of Wieder ‘Again’: A Structural Account’Journal of Semantics1387138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stechow, A.: 2003, ‘How are Results Represented and Modified? Remarks on Jäger and Blutner’s Anti-Decomposition’, in E. Lang, C. Maienborn, and C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying Adjuncts, pp. 417–451, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  35. Tomioka, S.: 1997, ‘Focusing Effects in VP-Ellipsis and Noun Phrase Interpretation, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  36. Project Gutenberg official homesite: Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität Tübingen, Englisches SeminarTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations