Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language pp 227–283Cite as

Quantification in German

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy ((SLAP,volume 90))

Abstract

After presenting some basic genetic, historical and typological information about German this chapter outlines the quantification patterns it expresses. It illustrates various semantic types of quantifiers, such as generalized existential, generalized universal, proportional, definited and partitive which are defined in the Quantifier Questionnaire in Chapter 1. It partitions the expression of the semantic types into morpho-syntactic classes: Adverbial type quantifiers and Nominal (or Determiner) type quantifiers. For the various semantic and morpho-syntactic types of quantifiers it also distinguishes syntactically simple and syntactically complex quantifiers, as well as issues of distributivity and scope interaction, classifiers and measure expressions, and existential constructions. The chapter describes structural properties of determiners and quantified noun phrases in German, both in terms of internal structure (morphological or syntactic) and distribution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   309.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   399.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Pafel (2005) for more discussion as to the structure of DPs, which is largely orthogonal to our purposes here.

  2. 2.

    This is an approximation. There is a rich literature on so-called ‘embedded verb second’ clauses, see e.g. Vikner (1995). For a good introduction to the issues surrounding an analysis of verbal position in German see Thiersch (1978).

  3. 3.

    This clause final verbal cluster is the subject of much descriptive and theoretical work (den Besten and Edmondson 1983, Zwart 1996, Vogel and Schmid 2004, Bader and Schmid 2009).

  4. 4.

    There is a class of ditransitive verbs, including for example unterziehen (subject), for which the tests above come out with the opposite pattern of results, suggesting that these verbs project a different (DO above IO) structure.

  5. 5.

    It is also possible, though less frequent, to use a definite singular DP to express a ‘kind’ reading.

  6. 6.

    With the exception of the number name sieben (seven), which reduces to sieb.

  7. 7.

    With the exception of zwanzig (twenty), dreißig (thirty), and siebzig (seventy).

  8. 8.

    Excepting \(n = 1\), in which case the form ein is used (instead of eins – cf. ein und achtzig). If \(n = 7\), either sieben or the reduced sieb may be used.

  9. 9.

    Mal is also a noun, with the meaning of occasion or time.

  10. 10.

    This expression is not the plural of the noun Mal, which is Male. Diachronically, the final marker -s, which also shows up in the Qs höchsten-s, mindesten-s, wenigsten-s, and jeweil-s (see below), can be analyzed as a genitive marker denoting a relation variable (in place of an overt preposition).

  11. 11.

    This decomposition appears valid historically, where kein > deh+ein (Jäger 2007).

  12. 12.

    This expression can be understood under a type reading – every type of sand.

  13. 13.

    In the idiom aller Anfang ist schwer (all beginnings are difficult, lit. all beginning is difficult) alle combines with the deverbal singular noun Anfang (beginning, pl. Anfänge).

  14. 14.

    Alternatively, one could assume the D-projection to be absent, or head movement of the modifying universal Q head into the D-projection.

  15. 15.

    The historical forms are OHG eo-hwedar / io-wedar → MHG ie-weder (Grimm and Grimm 1854–1960).

  16. 16.

    This generalization is due to Manfred Krifka. Other pluralizing feminine classifiers are Tonne (barrel), Kanne (can), Tasse (mug), as well as the old measure nouns Spanne (span) and Elle (yard).

  17. 17.

    HIstorically, lauter was an adjective meaning pure (see Eckardt (2006)).

References

  • Bach, E., E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, and B. Partee (eds.). 1995. Quantification in natural languages, Volume 54 of Studies in linguistics and philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader, M., and T. Schmid. 2009. Verb clusters in colloquial German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12:175–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J., and R. Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4:159–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, J. 1996. Directionality and logical form. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, C. 1990. Die syntaktische Struktur der Nominalphrase im Deutschen. Narr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouma, G., P. Hendriks, and J. Hoeksema. 2007. Focus particles inside prepositional phrases: A comparison of Dutch, English, and German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10:1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brisson, C. 1998. Distributivity, maximality, and floating quantifiers. PhD thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brisson, C. 2003. Plurals, all, and the nonuniformity of collective predication. Linguistics and Philosophy 26:129–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büring, D. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus – the 59th Street Bridge accent. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Büring, D., and K. Hartmann. 2001. On the syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:229–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büring, D., and V. Mittelfeldreport. 1994. In Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation? ed. H. Brigitte, 79–96. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czinglar, C. 2002. Decomposing existence: Evidence from Germanic. In Issues in formal German(ic) typology, eds. W. Abraham and J.-W. Zwart, 85–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hoop, H. 1995. On the characterization of the weak-strong distinction. In Bach et al. (1995), 421–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Besten, H., and J.A. Edmondson. 1983. The verbal complex in continental West Germanic. In On the formal syntax of the West Germania, ed. W. Abraham, 155–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Volume 20 of Linguistic inquiry monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckardt, R. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An inquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, W. 1993. Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation. Volume 35 of Studia grammatica. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, W. 2006. Contrast and movement to the German prefield. In The architecture of focus, eds. V. Molnár and S. Winkler, 235–264. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gil, D. 1995. Universal quantifiers and distributivity. In Bach et al. (1995), 321–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giusti, G. 1991. The syntax of floating alles in German. In Issues in Germanic syntax, eds. W. Abraham, W. Kosmeijer, and E. Reuland, 327–350. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, E. 1993. Syntaktische Strategien zum Ausdruck von Indefinitheit und Partitivität im Deutschen (Standardsprache und Dialekt). In Dialektsyntax, eds. W. Abraham and J. Bayer, 99–115. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, J., and W. Grimm. 1854–1960. Deutsches Wörterbuch. S. Hizel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haspelmath, M. 1995. Diachronic sources of ‘all’ and ‘every’. In Bach et al. (1995), 363–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I., and A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herburger, E. 2000. What counts: Focus and quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. 1980. Lexical decomposition in Montague grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 7:121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. 1983. Fokus und Skalen. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Volume 138 of Linguistische Arbeiten. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, A. 2005. Negation in old high German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24:227–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, A. 2007. ‘No’ changes: On the history of German indefinite determiners in the scope of negation. In Nominal determination: Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence. Number 89 in Studies in language companion series, eds. E. Stark, E. Leiss, and W. Abraham, 141–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallulli, D., and A. Rothmayr. 2008. The syntax and semantics of indefinite determiner doubling constructions in varieties of German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11(2):95–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal methods in the study of language. Volume 136 of Mathematical centre tracts, eds. J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, chapter 8, 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H., and U. Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E.L. 1992. Beyond the Frege boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy 15:199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E.L., and L.S. Moss. 1985. Generalized quantifiers and the expressive power of natural langauges. In Generalized quantifiers in natural language, eds. J.F. van Benthem and A.G. ter Meulen, 73–124. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • König, E. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. 1998. Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29(1):75–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenerz, J. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tubingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leu, T. 2009. The internal syntax of jeder ‘every’. In Linguistic variation yearbook, ed. J. van Craenenbroek, Vol. 9, 153–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretic approach. In Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, eds. R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Löbel, E. 1990. Q as a functional category. In Syntactic phrase structure phenomena in noun phrases and sentences, eds. C. Bhatt, E. Löbel, and C.M. Schmidt, 133–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson, L. 2001. Quantification and the nature of crosslinguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics 9(2):145–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, R., and A. Bale. 2005. Inverse linking. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, Vol. 2, chapter 36, 639–667. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pafel, J. 1994. Zur syntaktischen struktur nominaler quantoren. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 13(2):236–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pafel, J. 1999. Interrogative quantifiers within scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 22:255–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pafel, J. 2005. Quantifier scope in German. Volume 84 of Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics today. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B.H. 1989. Many quantifiers. In Proceedings of ESCOL, eds. J. Powers and K. de Jong, 383–402. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penka, D. 2006. A cross-linguistic perspective on n-words. International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology (ASJU) XLI-2:267–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penka, D., and A. von Stechow. 2001. Negative indefinita unter modalverben. In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, eds. R. Müller and M. Reis, 263–286. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:459–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roehrs, D. to appear. Complex determiners: A case study of German ‘ein jeder’. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safir, K., and T. Stowell. 1988. Binominal ‘each’. In Proceedings of NELS 18, 426–450, Amherst, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seuren, P.A.M. 1991. Präsuppositionen. In Semantik/Semantics – Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, eds. D. Wunderlich and A. von Stechow, 286–318. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiersch, C.L. 1978. Topics in German syntax. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vendler, Z. 1962. Each and every, any and all. Mind 71:145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vikner, S. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, R., and T. Schmid. 2004. Dialectal variation in German 3-verb clusters. A surface-oriented OT account. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7:235–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, M. 2002a. A compositional analysis of anti-quantifiers as quantifiers. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) XII, ed. B. Jackson et al., 322–338. Ithaca, NY:. CLC Publications, Cornell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, M. 2002b. Boys buying two sausages each – On the syntax and semantics of distance distributivity. PhD thesis, Universiteit van Utrecht, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, M. 2003a. Pluractionality and complex quantifier formation. Natural Language Semantics 11:249–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, M. 2003b. Inverse linking without LF-movement. In Proceedings of WECOL 2001, eds. L. Carmichael, C. Hui Huang, and V. Samiian, 463–475. Fresno, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, M. 2011. Quantificational structures in Low German: On the functional structure of DP and the feature content of pronominal quantifiers. Journal of Comparative Germanic Syntax 14(3): 203–240. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-011-9046-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, J.-W. 1996. Verb clusters in continental west germanic dialects. In Microparametric syntax and dialect variation, eds. J.R. Black and V. Motapanyane, 229–258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Manfred Krifka, whose insightful comments have improved this paper considerably.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics and Computation Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Gregory M. Kobele

  2. Institut Für Linguistik, Universität Potsdam, D-14476, Potsdam, Germany

    Malte Zimmermann

Authors
  1. Gregory M. Kobele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Malte Zimmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory M. Kobele .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, Hilgard Avenue 405, Los Angeles, 90095-1543, California, USA

    Edward L. Keenan

  2. , Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, Hilgard Avenue 405, Los Angeles, 90095-1543, California, USA

    Denis Paperno

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kobele, G.M., Zimmermann, M. (2012). Quantification in German. In: Keenan, E., Paperno, D. (eds) Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 90. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2681-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation