Chapter 7
The scalar operator even and its German equivalents
Pragmatic and syntactic factors determining the use of auch, selbst and sogar in the Europarl corpus
The English scalar additive operator even has a broad distribution, e.g. insofar as it is used in upward- as well as downward-entailing contexts. Other languages, such as German, use a variety of expressions to render the function(s) of even. The question arises what conditions and determines the use of the various operators of German. The present study addresses this question with respect to the particles selbst, sogar and auch as translation equivalents of even in upward-entailing contexts. On the basis of a sample of 300 translation pairs from the Europarl corpus, the influence of four syntactic and three pragmatic variables on the choice of an operator in German is investigated. The results show that the operators are mainly sensitive to two of the pragmatic variables, the presence or absence of overt focus alternatives in the clausal environment, and the size of the set of alternatives. From a syntatic point of view, a clear difference between selbst and sogar is shown, with selbst exhibiting a tendency to attach to higher levels of syntax than sogar. The quantitative findings are interpreted against the background of historical developments, the assumption being that synchronic distributions reflect diachronic developments (‘distributional intertia’).
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1
Rendering (scalar additive) even in German
- 1.2Overview of the study
- 2.Syntactic factors
- 2.1Parameters of variation
- 2.2Annotation and results
- 2.2.1The category of the focus and of the co-constituent
- 2.2.2The syntactic role of the co-constituent and its depth of embedding
- 3.Pragmatic factors
- 3.1Parameters of variation
- 3.2Annotation and results
- 4.Combining syntactic and pragmatic factors
- 5.
A comparison of selbst and sogar
- 5.1Syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic addition and pragmatic cumulativity
- 5.2Notes on the historical developments of sogar and selbst
- 6.Conclusions
-
Notes
-
References
References (39)
Atayan, Vahram and Daniele Moretti
forthcoming).
Flankierende Argumentationsverfahren in Sprachvergleich undÜbersetzung: Eine Studie am Beispiel des französischen Markers même. Beiträge zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung.
Breimann, Leo
2001 Random forests.
Machine Learning 45 (1), 5–32.
Büring, Daniel and Katharina Hartmann
2001 The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 229–281.
Cartoni, Bruno and Thomas Meyer
2012 Extracting directional and comparable corpora from a multilingual corpus for translation studies. In
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Istanbul.
Cohen, Ayala
1980 On the graphical display of the significant components in a two-way contingency table.
Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods A9, 1025–1041.
Croft, William
2000 Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Perspective. Harlow: Longman.
Eckardt, Regine
2001 Reanalysing selbst
.
Natural Language Semantics 6, 371–412.
Friendly, Michael
1982 Graphical methods for categorical data.
SAS User Group International Conference Proceedings, 190–200.
Gast, Volker
2006 The Grammar of Identity. Intensifiers and Reflexives in Germanic Languages. London: Routledge.
Gast, Volker, Lennart Bierkandt, and Christoph Rzymski
2015a Annotating modals with GraphAnno, a configurable lightweight tool for multi-level annotation. In
Proceedings of the Workshop on Models for Modality Annotation, held in conjunction with IWCS 11, 2015, Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 19–28.
Gast, Volker, Lennart Bierkandt, and Christoph Rzymski
2015b Creating and retrieving tense and aspect annotations with GraphAnno, a lightweight tool for multi-level annotation. In
H. Bunt (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Annotation, Tilburg, pp. 23–28. Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication.
Gast, Volker, Lennart Bierkandt, and Christoph Rzymski
2016 Enriching TimeBank: Towards a more precise annotation of temporal relations in a text. In
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC).
Gast, Volker and Johan van der Auwera
2011 Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe.
Language 87 (1), 2–54.
Gast, Volker and Johan van der Auwera
Giannakidou, Anastasia
2011 Negative and positive polarity items. In
K. von Heusinger,
C. Maienborn, and
P. Portner (Eds.),
Semantics, Volume 22.2 of Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK), pp. 1660–1712. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Hoeksema, Jacob
2012 On the natural history of negative polarity items.
Linguistic Analysis 38 (1/2), 3–33.
Hoeksema, Jacob and Hotze Rullmann
Hole, Daniel
2002 Agentive selbst in German. In
S. R. Katz,
G. and
P. Reuter (Eds.),
Proceedings of ‘Sinn und Bedeutung VI’, Osnabrück, pp. 133–150.
Jacobs, Joachim
1983 Fokus und Skalen: Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Karttunen, Fances and Lauri Karttunen
1977 Even questions. In
Proceedings of the 7th meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, pp. 115–34.
Karttunen, Lauri and S. Peters
1979 Conventional implicature in Montague Grammar. In
C.-K. Oh and
D. A. Dinneen (Eds.),
Syntax and semantics, Vol. 11: Presuppositions. New York: Academic Press.
Klein, Dan and Christopher D. Manning
2003 Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In
Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 423–430.
Kluge, Friedrich
1995 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen 50 Volker Gast: Even and its German equivalents Sprache (23., erw. Aufl. ed.). Berlin [u.a.]: Mouton de Gruyter. ed.
Seebold, Elmar.
Koehn, Philipp
2005 Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. Phuket. MT Summit X.
König, Ekkehard
1982 Scalar particles in German and their English equivalents. In
F. Lohnes and
E. Hopkins (Eds.),
The Contrastive Grammar of English and German, pp. 76–101. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.
König, Ekkehard
1989 On the historical development of focus particles. In
H. Weydt (Ed.),
Sprechen mit Partikeln, pp. 318–329. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
König, Ekkehard
1991 The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.
König, Ekkehard
1993 Focus particles. In
J. Jacobs (Ed.),
Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, pp. 978– 987. Mouton de Gruyter.
König, Ekkehard and Peter Siemund
1996
Selbst-Reflektionen. In
G. Harras (Ed.),
Wenn die Semantik arbeitet – Festschrift für Klaus Baumgärtner, pp. 277–302. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
König, Ekkehard, Detlef Stark, and Susanne Requardt
1990 Adver-bien und Partikeln. Ein deutsch-englisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
Ladusaw, William
1979 Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas, Austin.
Primus, Beatrice
1992
Selbst – Variants of a scalar adverb in German.
Linguistische Berichte 4, 54–88.
R Core Team
2015 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Reis, Marga
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.
Rooth, Mats
1985 Association with Focus. Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.
Strobl, C., Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Achim Zeileis, and Torsten Hothorn
2007 Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution.
BMC Bioinformatics 8 (25).
Vandeweghe, Willy
1981 Ook maar X.
Studia Germanica Gandensia 21, 15–56.
Zwarts, Frans
1981 Negatief Polaire Uitdrukkingen I.
GLOT 4, 35–102.
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 other publications
Andrushenko, Olena
2023.
PARTICULARIZING FOCUS MARKERS IN OLD ENGLISH: JUST A CASE OF ADVERB POLYSEMY?.
Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow ► pp. 2 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. 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.