handout - Personal Webspace for QMUL - Queen Mary, University of ...

The Syntax of Focus Particles in
German Event vs. Result Nominals
Anja Kleemann
Queen Mary, University of London
a.c.kleemann@qmul.ac.uk
CamLing 2006
The aim of this talk is to show that the placement of focus particles within German DPs
gives evidence for different syntactic structures of event and result nominals.
1 Background
1.1 Information Structure
• The theory of information structure is about the relationship between the structure of
sentences and the context in which the sentences are used as units of information.
• Two contrasting elements of information structure are focus and topic. Topic is the pragmatic
relation of aboutness whereas focus is the element that makes an utterance informative.
(Lambrecht 1996)
1.2 Focus Particles
• Focus particles are words like even, also or only that associate with the focus constituent
in their scope.
• Focus sensitive operator only: According to Rooth (1992) focus has a truth conditional
effect in the context of only. It quantifies over contextually given alternatives for the focus
constituent.
(1) a. Context: Mary introduced Bill and Tom to Sue and there were no other introductions
b. Mary introduced Bill to Sue. (true)
c. Mary introduced Tom to Sue. (true)
d. *Mary only introduced Bill to Sue. 1 (false)
2 Focus Particle nur ‘only’ in German DPs
(2) a. [DP . . . nur [AP /CP /DP focus . . . ]]
b. [DP . . . focus nur ]
1 The focus particle is in boldface, the focus constituent in small capitals.
1

2.1 Previously unnoticed Data
• Why is there a grammaticality contrast regarding the focus particle placement between
deverbal event nominals and non-deverbal result nominals?
(3) a. Marys Absage nur de-s FR
Mary-GEN cancellation only the-GEN
ÜH-EN Termin-s ist nicht
early-GEN appointment-GEN is
möglich
possible
‘Mary’s cancellation of only the early appointment is not possible’
not
interpretation: In a scenario in which Mary has several appointments, of which one
is an early appointment, she has to cancel all appointments once she has to cancel
the early appointment. It’s not possible for Mary to cancel the early appointment
only.
b. *Das Programm nur de-s FR
the agenda only the-GEN
ÜH-EN Termin-s fehlt
early-GEN appointment-GEN lacks
intended ‘The agenda of only the early appointment is missing.’
• The placement of nur ‘only’ between the head nominal and the postnominal DP is grammatical
in (3-a) but ungrammatical in (3-b). How to account for the different behaviour
of focus particles within event vs. result nominals?
• Grimshaw (1990) suggests different lexical entries for deverbal event nominals (in her
terms complex event nominals) and non-deverbal result nominals. In event but not result
nominals a lexical process mapping between the underlying verb and its nominalization
assigns to the latter some or all of the lexical-semantic properties of the root. Event
nominals have a semantic Ev (roughly event) argument in their lexical entry that accounts
for their verbal properties.
• Fu, Roeper, and Borer (2001) argue for a syntactic analysis that is based on the assumption
that event and result nominals have different syntactic structures. Deverbal event nominals
(in their terms process nominals) but not non-deverbal result nominals contain part of the
VP extended projection.
2.2 The Ambiguity of Deverbal Nominals
• Deverbal nominals are ambiguous in that they can have either event or result reading.
As event nominals they denote an event; as result nominals they refer to an entity that
is the result of an event. (Examples are Absperrung ‘closing off vs. barrier’, Einstellung
‘employment’ vs. ‘attitude’, Kündigung ‘dismissal’ vs. ‘letter someone gets who has been
made redundant’)
• Non-deverbal nominals can only have result reading. (Examples are Brücke ‘bridge’, Brief
‘letter’, Buch ‘book’)
2

(4) Absage
(deverbal)
✟ ✟✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍
❍
event of letter of
cancellation of sth. cancellation
nur arg.
(5) Programm
(non-deverbal)
✟ ✟✟ ❍❍
❍
agenda ∅
*nur compl.
3 The Syntax of Focus Particles in DPs
*nur compl.
• There are two possible attachment sites for focus particles within DPs. 2
(6) DP
✟❍
✟ ❍
✟ ❍
. . . XP
✟ ✟✟✟
❍❍
❍
❍
nur XP
✟ ✟✟ ❍❍
❍
focused DP . . .
(7) DP
✟ ✟✟ ❍
❍
nur focused DP
3.1 Particle Theory by Büring and Hartmann (2001)
Büring and Hartmann (2001) suggest an adverbial-only analysis according to which focus particles
in German . . .
• adjoin to non-arguments
• adjoin to maximal projections
• c-command the focus
• are as close to the focus as possible
2 The different attachment sites for focus particles are discussed in the literature under the adverbial vs. adnominal analysis, see
e.g. Jacobs (1986), Jacobs (1983), Büring and Hartmann (2001) for an adverbial analysis.
3

(8) focus node
✟ ✟✟✟
❍❍
❍
❍
focus particle focus node
✟ ❍
focus . . .
3.2 Focus Particles don’t adjoin to DPs
(9) a. weil jeder nur Mary liebt
as everyone only Mary loves
‘as everyone loves only Mary.’
b. weil Mary1 jeder nur t1 liebt
as Mary everyone only t1 loves
‘as everyone loves only Mary.’
c. Nur Mary1 liebt jeder t1
only Mary loves everyone
‘Only Mary is loved by everyone.’ NOT: Everyone loves only Mary’
(10) a. *[P P P nur DP ]
b. *[NP N nur DP ]
(11) a. Ich glaube, dass der Bruder (*nur) des Grafen zu Besuch kommt
I think that the brother (*only) the-GEN count-GEN to visit comes
intended: ‘I think that the brother of only the count comes for a visit’
b. Ich glaube, dass der Bruder mit (*nur) Hans zu Besuch kommt
I think that the brother with (*only) Hans to visit comes
intended: ‘I think that the brother with only Hans comes for a visit’
3.3 Particle Theory on DPs
Büring and Hartmann (2001)’ Particle Theory predicts that focus particles within DPs attach
directly to APs and non-argument CPs but not to DPs.
(12) DP
✟ ✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍
❍
det
✟ ✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍
❍
nominal
✟ ✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍
❍
nur focus node
only non-argument
4
focus
argument DP/
non-argument DP

4 The Syntax of Event Nominals
4.1 Adverbs
(13) a. His explanation of the accident thoroughly (did not help him).
b. His detailed explanation of the accident thoroughly (did not help him).
c. *His version of the accident thoroughly (did not help him).
Fu, Roeper, and Borer (2001) observe inter alia that ...
1. adverbs occur in event nominals but not in result nominals, (13-a) vs. (13-c)
2. adverbs and adjectives co-occur in event nominals, (13-b)
4.2 Fu, Roeper and Borer (2001)’s Analysis
• Fu, Roeper, and Borer (2001)’s embedded VP hypothesis: Event nominals include a nominal
projection dominating a VP projection. The verb is raised to a nominal marker over
the subject, object, and adverb. The VP projection accounts for the verbal properties of
event nominals.
(14) DP
✟ ✟✟✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
D
The ✟ ✟✟✟✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
N
✟
explanation
✟✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
PP
VP
of the accident
✟ ✟✟ ❍❍
❍
Adv VP
4.3 Focus Particles
thoroughly
Does Fu, Roeper, and Borer (2001)’s embedded VP hypothesis explain focus particle placement
in event nominals?
(15) a. weil Mary den frühen Termin nur absagt
as Mary the-ACC early appointment only cancels
‘as Mary cancels only the early appointment.’
b. Die Absage des frühen Termins nur ist nicht möglich
the cancellation the-GEN early appointment-GEN only is not possible
‘The cancellation of only the early appointment is not possible.’
• In clauses focus particles attach to VP (15-a)
• Event nominals allow the focus particle to precede the argument (3-a) as well as to occur
low down in the structure (15-b)
• → Focus particles provide more evidence that event nominals contain a VP projection.
5
. . .

4.4 The Syntactic Structure of Event Nominals
• The focus particle nur adjoins to VP within event nominals.
• It moves into the specifier of FP for two reasons:
1. Focus particles preferably precede the focus constituent. 3
2. Event nominals allow either a focus particle or an adverb to be adjoined to the embedded
VP (not both).
(16) DP
✟ ✟✟✟✟✟
❍❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
die
the
✟ ✟✟✟✟✟✟ ❍❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
N
FP
Absage
cancellation
✟❍
❍
❍
❍
✟✟✟✟✟
❍
❍
✟ ❍
nur
FP
only
✟ ✟✟✟✟✟✟
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
DP
VP
des frühen Termins
the early appointment
✟ ✟✟ ❍
❍
❍
Focus Particle VP
. . .
5 Combining the Theories
To sum up, the combination of Büring and Hartmann (2001)’s predictions on the attachment
sites of focus particles in German as well as the embedded VP hypothesis by Fu, Roeper, and
Borer (2001) on the DP-internal VP projection accounts for the focus particle placement in
event vs. result nominals.
6 Conclusions
1. Deverbal event nominals and non-deverbal result nominals have different syntactic structures.
2. Focus particles are further evidence that event nominals contain a verbal projection.
3. Büring and Hartmann (2001)’s Particle Theory accounts for focus particle placement
within DPs.
3 See Wagner and Jaeger (2003) on why German focus particles usually precede the focus constituents.
6

References
Büring, Daniel and Hartmann, Katharina. 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive
particles in german. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:229–281.
Fu, Jingqi, Roeper, Thomas, and Borer, Hagit. 2001. The vp within process nominals: Evidence
from adverbs and the vp anaphor do-so. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
549–582.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. MIT Press.
Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus und Skalen. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im
Deutschen. Niemeyer Tuebingen.
Jacobs, Joachim. 1986. The syntax of focus and adverbials. In W. Abraham and S. de Meij,
eds., Topic, Focus, and Configurationality, 103–128, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge University
Press.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116.
Wagner, Michael and Jaeger, Florian. 2003. Association with focus and linear order in
german. Semantics Archive .
7