Cover not available
Part of
Particles in German, English, and Beyond
Edited by Remus Gergel, Ingo Reich and Augustin Speyer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 224] 2022
► pp. 25–68

Chapter 2
From up-toning intensifying particle to scalar focus particle

A new developmental path

| University of Tübingen
The paper proposes a new developmental path from up-toning intensifying particle to additive scalar focus particle based on a diachronic corpus analysis of the German focus particles zumal ‘especially’, gar ‘even’, and sogar ‘even’. The meaning shift took place about 1600 and was facilitated by shared morpho-syntactic and semantic properties of the source and target meanings. Critical (ambiguous) and isolating contexts play a crucial role in the study. The data indicate the occurrence of two types of critical contexts, a syntactically motivated one and a semantically motivated one. Furthermore, the new developmental path is argued to follow a general cross-linguistic tendency of additive scalar focus particles to develop from scalar expressions in a broader sense.
Keywords: diachrony, intensifying particle, focus particle, German, critical contexts, isolating contexts, degree semantics, scalarity, gradability
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Stages of meaning change
  • 3.The developmental path up-toning intensifying particle > additive scalar focus particle
    • 3.1Structural properties of intensifying and focus particles
    • 3.2Semantic closeness of intensifying and scalar focus particles
    • 3.3Summary
  • 4.The development of zumal, gar, and sogar in German
    • 4.1The particle zumal ‘especially’
    • 4.2The particle gar ‘even’
    • 4.3The particle sogar ‘even’
  • 5.Scalarity as a source of focus particle meaning
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 16 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.224.02ebe
References (82)
Corpora
Bonner Frühneuhochdeutschkorpus. [URL]>.
COSMAS IIweb [Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System]. [URL].
DDD [Deutsch Diachron Digital]. [URL].
DTA [Deutsches Textarchiv]. [URL].
MHDBDB [Mittelhochdeutsche Begriffsdatenbank]. Universität Salzburg. [URL].
References
Altmann, Hans. 2007. Gradpartikel. In Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten, Ludger Hoffmann (ed.), 357–385. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aulete digital. [o dicionário da língua portuguesa na internet]. [URL].
Axel-Tober, Katrin. 2012. (Nicht-)kanonische Nebensätze im Deutschen. Synchrone und diachrone Aspekte. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barack, Karl A. (ed.). 1863. Des Teufels Netz: satirisch-didaktisches Gedicht aus der ersten Hälfte des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart: Litterarischer Verein.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality and Logical Form: On the Scope of Focusing Particles and Wh-in-Situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beltrama, Andrea. 2016. Bridging the Gap: Intensifiers between Semantic and Social Meaning. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.
BMZ [Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Mit Benutzung des Nachlasses von Georg Friedrich Benecke ausgearbeitet von Wilhelm Müller und Friedrich Zarncke]. Leipzig 1854–1866. [URL].
Bonacchi, Silvia. 2017. What does reduplication intensify? The semantics and pragmatics of reduplicated forms in Italian and their equivalents in German. In Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, Diachronic and Cross-linguistic Perspectives, Maria Napoli & Miriam Ravetto (eds), 289–303. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouma, Gosse, Petra Hendriks & Jack Hoeksema. 2007. Focus particles inside prepositional phrases: A comparison of Dutch, English and German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10(1): 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Katharina Hartmann. 2001. The Syntax and Semantics of Focus-Sensitive Particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19. 229–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Allan M. & Elizabeth F. Loftus. 1975. A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing. Psychological Review 82(6): 407–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Kuthy, Kordula & Arndt Riester. 2014. Alternative semantics, focus domains and contrast. Annotating Corpora with Information Structure ESSLLI 2014, 21 August 2014. [URL]> (8 June 2019).
Demske, Ulrike. 2009. Zur Markierung von Konsekutivität im Deutschen: Diachrone Aspekte. In Koordination und Subordination im Deutschen [Sonderheft der Linguistischen Berichte 16], Veronika Ehrich, Christian Fortmann, Ingo Reich & Marga Reis (eds), 43–66. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
de Vries, Hanna. 2010. Evaluative Degree Modification of Adjectives and Nouns. MA Thesis, Utrecht University.
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization. International Symposium, Potsdam, 17–19 June 1999 [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 103–120. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Konstruktionen und Paradigmen. In Konstruktionsgrammatik. Themenheft der Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, Clemens Knobloch (ed.), 37: 445–468. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DLE [Diccionario de la lengua Española]. [URL].
Drubig, H. Bernhard. 2003. Toward a typology of focus and focus constructions. Linguistics 41(1): 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DWB [Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm]. Leipzig 1854–1961. [URL].
DWDS [Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Das Wortauskunftssystem zur deutschen Sprache in Geschichte und Gegenwart.] Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. [URL].
Eberhardt, Ira. 2017. From a focus particle to a conjunction: Diachronic and synchronic analysis of German zumal. Language 93(2): e66–e96. < DOI logo.Google Scholar
Eberhardt, Ira & Katrin Axel-Tober. (accepted). On the divergent developments of two German causal subjunctions: Syntactic reanalysis and the evolution of causal meaning. In Łukasz Jędrzejowski & Constanze Fleczoreck (eds), Micro- and Macro-variation of Causal Clauses. Synchronic and Diachronic Insights. [Studies in Language Companion Series.]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Eckardt, Regine. 2001. Reanalysing selbst. Natural Language Semantics 9: 371–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization. An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falaus, Anamaria. 2013. Introduction: Alternatives in semantics and pragmatics. In Alternatives in Semantics [Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition], 1–35. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [URL]> (19 March 2019). DOI logo
Filippi-Deswelle, Catherine. 2014. Lexical and grammatical gradability: Surprise and grading, Sapir and Culioli. [URL]> (8 June 2019).
Frey, Werner. 2011. Peripheral adverbial clauses, their licensing and the prefield in German. In Satzverknüpfung – Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion, Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi & Anna Volodina (eds), 41–77. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2017. The scalar operator even and its German equivalents: Pragmatic factors determining the use of auch, selbst and sogar. In Focus on Additivity. Multifaceted Views on Focusing Modifiers, Anna M. De Cesare (ed.), 201–234. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker & Johan van der Auwera. 2011. Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language 87: 2–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke & Kristin Davidse. 2011. The development of intensification scales in noun-intensifying uses of adjectives: Sources, paths and mechanisms of change. English Language and Linguistics 15: 251–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel & Katharina Turgay. 2012. Expressive intensifiers in German: Syntax-semantics mismatches. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, Iñíon Christopher (ed.), 149–166. [URL].
Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind & Language 18: 317–339. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Hansonius Soxo, Petrus. 1586. Entdeckung der grossen Thorheit. Ingolstadt: David Sartorium.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard. 1994. Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. 3rd ed. Berlin/München/Leipzig/Wien/Zürich/New York: Langenscheidt, Verl. Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Thai. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge/ Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus und Skalen: zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. Abtönungsmittel als Illokutionstypmodifikatoren. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 27, 100–111.Google Scholar
Jäger, Marion. 2017. Focus Particles and Extraction. An Experimental Investigation of German and English Focus Particles in Constructions with Leftward Association. PhD dissertation, Tübingen University.
Keller, Rudi & Ilja Kirschbaum. 2000. Bedeutungswandel. Der Deutschunterricht 3: 41–53.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81: 345–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirschbaum, Ilja. 2002. Schrecklich nett und voll verrückt. Muster der Adjektiv-Intensivierung im Deutschen. PhD dissertation, Düsseldorf University.
König, Ekkehard. 1989. On the historical development of focus particles. In Sprechen mit Partikeln, Harald Weydt (ed.), 318–329. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Johan van der Auwera. 1988. Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals, and concessives. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 101–134. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT 8, Dara Strolovitch & Aaron Lawson (eds), 111–128. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 2010. Fokuspartikeln im Althochdeutschen. In Mikrostrukturen und Makrostrukturen im älteren Deutsch vom 9. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert: Text und Syntax. [Berliner Sprachwissenschaftliche Studien 19], Yvon Desportes, Franz Simmler & Claudia Wich-Reif (eds), 103–120. Berlin: Weidler.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 2016. Modification. In Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics, M. Aloni & P. Dekker (eds), 442–466. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melnichuk, Oleksandr et al. 2003. Etimologichny slovnik ukrainskoy movi. Vol. 4. Kiev: Naukova dumka.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2017. Co-occurrence and iteration of intensifiers in Early English. English Text Construction 10(2): 249–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Hans-Georg. 2004. Reduplikationen im Türkischen. Morphologische Untersuchungen. [Turkologica 56]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Matti Rissanen. 2002. Fairly pretty or pretty fair? On the development and grammaticalization of English downtoners. Language Sciences 24(3–4): 359–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED [Oxford English Dictionary]. [URL].
Orenstein, Dina & Yael Greenberg. 2021. Approximation derived from a scalar exclusive particle associating with covert focus: The case of Hebrew be-sax ha-kol. Glossa: Journal of General Linguistics, 6 (1), 5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pasch, Renate, Ursula Brauße, Eva Breindl & Ulrich H. Waßner 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren: Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen, Satzadverbien und Partikeln). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, Wolfgang et al. 1993. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. Electronic version in DWDS. [URL].
Plank, Frans. 1979. Zur Affinität von selbst und auch. In Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache, Harald Weydt (ed.), 269–284. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pleteršnik, Maks. 2006. Slovensko-nemški slovar: tiskana izdaja 1894–1985, 2006. [URL].
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: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga & Inger Rosengren. 1997. A modular approach to the grammar of additive particles: The case of German auch. Journal of Semantics 14: 237–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sant, Charlotte. 2019. ‘Very Monday feeling’: The degree modification of complex nominals, Paper presented at Modification of Complex Predicates (MoCP) , Düsseldorf (23–24 May 2019), 1–6.
Schares, Thomas. 2005. Untersuchungen zu Anzahl, Umfang und Struktur der Artikel der Erstbearbeitung des Deutschen Wörterbuchs von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm. PhD dissertation, Trier University.
Schmidt, Jessica. (this volume). Do intensifiers lose their expressive force over time? A corpus linguistic study.
Sudhoff, Stefan. 2010a. Focus Particles in German: Syntax, Prosody, and Information Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Fokuspartikeln innerhalb von DPn im Deutschen. In 40 Jahre Partikelforschung, Theo Harden & Elke Hentschel (eds), 169–181. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2012. Fokuspartikelinventare des Niederländischen und Deutschen. In Nicht-flektierende Wortarten, Björn Rothstein (ed.), 203–223. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 2006. The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. In Handbook on the History of English, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds), 335–359. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trubachev, O. N. (ed.). 1977. Etimologicheskij Slovar slavjanskih jazykov. 4th ed. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Visconti, Jacqueline. 2005. On the origins of scalar particles in Italian. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(2): 237–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehr, Hans. 1961. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. J. Milton Cowan (ed.). <[URL].
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & I. Marvin Herzog. 1968. Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change. Austin: UT Press.Google Scholar
Zeevat, Henk. 2009. “Only” as a mirative particle. In Focus at the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Arndt Riester & Edgar Onea (eds), 121–140. Stuttgart: Universitätsbibliothek der Universität Stuttgart. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two 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. DOI logo
Eberhardt, Ira & Katrin Axel-Tober
2023. Chapter 10. On the divergent developments of two German causal subjunctions. In Micro- and Macro-variation of Causal Clauses [Studies in Language Companion Series, 231], ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.