@article{Zimmermann2018, author = {Zimmermann, Malte}, title = {Wird Schon Stimmen!}, series = {Journal of semantics}, volume = {35}, journal = {Journal of semantics}, number = {4}, publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0167-5133}, doi = {10.1093/jos/ffy010}, pages = {687 -- 739}, year = {2018}, abstract = {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 analyzed as denoting a degree operator, 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 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).}, language = {en} } @misc{ZimmermannDeVeaughGeissToennisetal.2020, author = {Zimmermann, Malte and De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P. and T{\"o}nnis, Swantje and Onea, Edgar}, title = {(Non-)exhaustivity in focus partitioning across languages}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, volume = {16}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe}, issn = {1866-8364}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-52467}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-524677}, pages = {26}, year = {2020}, abstract = {We present novel experimental evidence on the availability and the status of exhaustivity inferences with focus partitioning in German, English, and Hungarian. Results suggest that German and English focus-background clefts and Hungarian focus share important properties, ({\´E}. Kiss 1998, 1999; Szabolcsi 1994; Percus 1997; Onea \& Beaver 2009). Those constructions are anaphoric devices triggering an existence presupposition. EXH-inferences are not obligatory in such constructions in English, German, or Hungarian, against some previous literature (Percus 1997; B{\"u}ring \& Križ 2013; {\´E}. Kiss 1998), but in line with pragmatic analyses of EXH-inferences in clefts (Horn 1981, 2016; Pollard \& Yasavul 2016). The cross-linguistic differences in the distribution of EXH-inferences are attributed to properties of the Hungarian number marking system.}, language = {en} }