Malte Zimmermann

Pluractionality and Complex Quantifier Formation

This paper investigates the effects of (surface) DP-internal quantifying expressions on semantic interpretation. In particular, I investigate two syntactic constructions in which an adjective takes scope out of its embedding DP, thus raising an interesting question for strict compositionality. Regarding the first construction, I follow Larson (1999) and assume that the adjective incorporates into the determiner of its DP, forming a complex quantifier [D+A]. I present new evidence in favor of this analysis. Since Larsons semantic analysis of complex quantifiers [D+A] makes a wrong prediction, I propose an alternative, empirically more adequate analysis that treats D+A compounds as pluractional quantifiers in the sense of Lasersohn (1995). Finally, I turn to the second construction, arguing that – despite superficial similarities to the first construction - it should not be analyzed in terms of complex quantifier formation, but in terms of LF-movement of the adjective to Spec,DP. The discussion suggests that there is more than one way for DP-internal modifiers to take DP-external scope in natural language.

The grammatical expression of focus in West Chadic: Variation and uniformity in and across languages

Abstract The article provides an overview of the grammatical realization of focus in four West Chadic languages (Chadic, Afro-Asiatic). The languages discussed exhibit an intriguing crosslinguistic variation in the realization of focus, both among themselves as well as compared to European intonation languages. They also display language-internal variation in the formal realization of focus. The West Chadic languages differ widely in their ways of expressing focus, which range from syntactic over prosodic to morphological devices. In contrast to European intonation languages, the focus marking systems of the West Chadic languages are inconsistent in that focus is often not grammatically expressed, but these inconsistencies are shown to be systematic. Subject foci (contrastive or not) and contrastive nonsubject foci are always grammatically marked, whereas information focus on nonsubjects need not be marked as such. The absence of formal focus marking supports pragmatic theories of focus in terms of contextual resolution. The special status of focused subjects and contrastive foci is derived from the Contrastive Focus Hypothesis, which requires unexpected foci and unexpected focus contents to be marked as such, together with the assumption that canonical subjects in West Chadic receive a default interpretation as topics. Finally, I discuss certain focus ambiguities which are not attested in intonation languages, nor do they follow on standard accounts of focus marking, but which can be accounted for in terms of constraint interaction in the formal expression of focus.

Quantification in German

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.

Was glaubt EDE, wer der Mörder ist? On D-trees, Embedded Foci, and Indirect Scope Marking

This chapter introduces the notions of discourse moves and D-trees, drawing on Daniel Buring and earlier work by Craige Roberts. It discusses the notion of question-based discourse strategy, which will be of central importance for the discussion of embedded focus accents and wh-scope marking. The chapter briefly recapitulates the discourse-semantic analysis of focus accenting and contrastive topic (CT)-accenting in terms of D-trees and strategies. Focus accents are not restricted to matrix clauses, but can also occur in embedded environments. The chapter gives a brief overview of wh-scope marking and its semantic analysis, following Veneeta Dayal and A. Liptak and Malte Zimmermann. It also puts forwards the discourse-semantic analysis of wh-scope marking constructions as grammaticalised D-trees representing question restriction. The availability and distribution of wh-scope marking questions in a language depends on both structural and diachronic factors. The chapter also discusses a number of predictions made by the analysis. Keywords: A. Liptak; contrastive topic (CT) accent; Craige Roberts; D-trees; Daniel Buring; embedded focus accents; Malte Zimmermann; semantic analysis; Veneeta Dayal; wh-scope marking

I like that damn paper -three comments on christopher potts' The expressive dimension

Abstract 1. Introduction Christopher Potts has put forward a precise formal analysis of the semantics of expressives, which accounts for their characteristic properties quite well, and which will certainly further our understanding of these expressions. In this short reaction, I concentrate on three aspects where – I think – the proposed analysis of expressives is in need of refinement, or where it is in need of complementation. The three aspects concern (i) the suggested non-accessibility of expressive content to the descriptive meaning dimension; (ii) the internal structure of expressive indices and the nature of index-changing operations; (iii) and the semantic behavior of discourse particles in relation to expressives proper.

Wird Schon Stimmen! A Degree Operator Analysis of Schon

The article puts forward a novel analysis of the German modal particle schon as a modal degree operator over propositional content. The proposed analysis offers a uniform perspective on the semantics of modal schon and its aspectual counterpart meaning ‘already’: Both particles are degree operators expressing a scale-based comparison over relevant alternatives. The alternatives are determined by focus in the case of aspectual schon (Krifka 2000), but are restricted to the polar alternatives p and ¬p in the case of modal schon. Semantically, modal schon introduces a presupposition to the effect that the circumstantial conversational background contains more factual evidence in favor of p than in favor of ¬p, thereby making modal schon the not at-issue counterpart of the overt comparative form eher ‘rather’ (Herburger & Rubinstein 2014). The analysis incorporates the basic insights from earlier analyses of modal schon in a novel way, and it also offers new insights as to the underlying workings of modality in natural language as involving propositions rather than possible worlds (Kratzer 1977, 2012).