Cover not available
Part of
The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast: Theoretical, empirical, and typological approaches
Edited by Christine Dimroth and Stefan Sudhoff
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 249] 2018
► pp. 55–88

Verum focus, sentence mood, and contrast

| University of Wuppertal
Verum focus is a phenomenon which results from accentuation of a specific component (finite verb, complementizer, relative or wh-element) in the left peripheral position of a clause. It invokes the effect of emphasizing the expression of truth of a proposition as Höhle (1988; 1992), who coined the term, characterized the phenomenon. In German, verum focus typically appears in the left periphery in main as well as in embedded clauses. The distribution of the accent at the surface is driven by rather sophisticated conditions which relate the syntactic surface position of the accent to its PF and LF effects in systematic ways.The close connection of the phenomenon with the concepts of truth, contrast, and sentential force calls for a theory which interrelates these notions. This leads to a perspective that connects verum focus to the part of the sentence that spells out the intention (not the intension) of the sentence meaning: sentence mood. The proposed line of reasoning intends to promote the view that verum focus can be derived from the systematic interaction of sentence mood with the regular properties of focus assignment. Since focus assignment relates accent and contrast, ‘truth’ is achieved by verum focus, if the sentence mood function is fulfilled.
Keywords: verum focus, contrast, sentence mood, finiteness, truth
Article outline
  • 1.The phenomenon
  • 2.Höhle’s theoretical reconstructions
    • 2.1Illocution type operator analysis
    • 2.2VERUM as a truth predicate
      • 2.2.1Segmental localization of VERUM
      • 2.2.2Non-segmental localization of VERUM
    • 3.Sentential force and sentence mood
  • 4.Verum focus in discourse situations
  • 5.Verum focus in embedded clauses
    • 5.1Verum focus in the left periphery
    • 5.2Verum effects at the right periphery
  • 6.Deriving the intuition about ‘truth’
  • 7.The sentence mood theory of verum focus
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.02loh
References
Altmann, Hans
1987 Zur Problematik der Konstitution von Satzmodi als Formtypen. In Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik, Jörg Meibauer (ed.), 22–56. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1993 Satzmodus. In Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 1006–1029. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Antomo, Mailin
2012 Abhängige Sätze in einem fragebasierten Diskursmodell. PhD dissertation, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. [URL] (14 December 2017).
Aristoteles
2007 Metaphysik. Schriften zur Ersten Philosophie. Übersetzt und herausgegeben von Franz F. Schwarz. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef
2010 What is verb second? [URL] (16 June 2017).
Bierwisch, Manfred
1980 Semantic structure and illocutionary force. In Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, John F. Searle, Ferenc Kiefer & Manfred Bierwisch (eds), 1–35. Dordrecht: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik
2012 Faktizität, Wahrheit, Erwünschtheit: Negation, Negationsfokus und „Verum“-Fokus im Deutschen. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 137–170.Google Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik & Lohnstein, Horst
2012 Verumfokus im Deutschen: Versuch einer Synthese. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 171–261.Google Scholar
Brandt, Margareta, Reis, Marga, Rosengren, Inger & Zimmermann, Ilse
1992 Satztyp, Satzmodus und Illokution. In Satz und Illokution I, Inger Rosengren (ed.), 1–90. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald
2000 A coherence theory of truth and knowledge. In Epistemology: An Anthology, Ernest Sosa & Jaegwon Kim (eds), 154–163. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka & Bruce, Kim
2010 On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27 (1): 81–118.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
1919[1956] The thought: A logical inquiry. Mind 65(259): 289–311.Google Scholar
1919[1986] Der Gedanke – Eine logische Untersuchung. In Logische Untersuchungen, 3rd edn, 30–53. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
1976 Nachgelassene Schriften und wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
2001 Schriften zur Logik und Sprachphilosophie. Aus dem Nachlass, 4th edn. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans Martin
2001 Are there V2 relative clauses in German? The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3(2): 97–141.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin
1982 Semantic analysis of wh-complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(2): 175–233.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos
1984 On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel
2010 Betonte Modalpartikeln und Verumfokus. In 40 Jahre Partikelforschung, Elke Hentschel & Theo Harden (eds), 119–138. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen
1973 Wahrheitstheorien. In Wirklichkeit und Reflexion: Walter Schulz zum 60. Geburtstag, Helmut Fahrenbach (ed.), 211–265. Pfullingen: Neske.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L.
1976 Questions in Montague English. In Montague Grammar, Barbara H. Partee (ed.), 247–259. New York NY: Academic Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G.
1935 On the logical positivists’ theory of truth. Analysis 2(4): 49–59.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James
1986 The semantics of questions. In Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed.), 361–383. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N.
1982 Explikationen für “normale Betonung” und “normale Wortstellung”. In Satzglieder im Deutschen: Vorschläge zur syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung, Werner Abraham (ed.), 75–153. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1988 Vorwort und Nachwort zu Verumfokus. Sprache und Pragmatik 5(1): 1–7.Google Scholar
1992 Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
1977 Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1): 3–44.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. & Postal, Paul M.
1964 An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2008 Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4): 243–276.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David K.
1970 General semantics. In Montague Grammar, Barbara H. Partee (ed.), 1–50. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst
2000 Satzmodus – kompositionell: Zur Parametrisierung der Modusphrase im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 On clause types and sentential force. Linguistische Berichte 209: 63–86.Google Scholar
2012 Verumfokus – Satzmodus – Wahrheit. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 31–67.Google Scholar
2016 Verum Focus. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 290–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst & Stommel, Hildegard
2009 Verum focus and phases. Linguistic Analysis (Special Issue. Phase Edge Investigations), 35 (1–4): 109–140.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst & Blühdorn, Hardarik
(eds) 2012 Wahrheit – Fokus – Negation. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga
1997 Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Sprache im Fokus: Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, Christa Dürscheid, Karl-Heinz Ramers & Monika Schwarz (eds), 121–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga & Rosengren, Inger
1992 What do Wh-imperatives tell us about Wh-movement. Linguistic Theory and Natural Language 10(1): 79–118.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1996 Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax, Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 63–90. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold & Zwicky, Arnold
1985 Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Timothy F. Shopen (ed.), 155–196. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969 Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. & Vanderveken, Daniel
1985 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Stenius, Erik
1967 Mood and language game. Synthese 17(1): 254–274.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stommel, Hildegard
2011 Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. Marburg: Tectum.Google Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan
2012 Negation der Negation. In Lohnstein & Blühdorn (eds), 105–136.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarski, Alfred
1944 Die semantische Konzeption der Wahrheit und die Grundlagen der Semantik. In Wahrheitstheorien, Gunnar Skirbekk (ed.), 140–188. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert
2006a On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics 32(3): 257–306.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006b Replies to the Comments by Gärtner, Plunze and Zimmermann, Portner, Potts, Reis, and Zaefferer. Theoretical Linguistics 32(3): 377–410.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaefferer, Dietmar
1979 Sprechakttypen in einer Montague-Grammatik: Ein modelltheoretischer Ansatz zur Behandlung illokutionärer Rollen. In Sprechakttheorie und Semantik, Günther Grewendorf (ed.), 386–417. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Matthewson, Lisa
2021. Verum in Gitksan. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 66:1 ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo
Zimmerling, Anton V.
2023. Really: syntactics without semiotics?. Slovo.ru: Baltic accent 14:3 ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 november 2023. 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.