Skip to main content
Log in

Why German Schon and Noch are Still Duals: a Reply to van der Auwera

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper takes up the objections raised in van der Auwera (1993) against the joint analysis of the German particles schon, noch and erst published in Löbner (1989). Central to my analysis is the claim that the particles are organized in duality groups of four to which essentially the same type of analysis applies. Van der Auwera (1993) claims that already/schon, in its basic use, is different from the other three particles in having a more complex meaning which results in an opposition of the particle to finally/endlich. As to the narrow-focus temporal uses he argues that the duality approach is inadequate in including improper members on the one hand, and excluding relevant particles on the other.

The criticism will be refuted. After a recollection of the duality analysis in Section 2, van der Auwera's arguments against the general design of my analysis are dealt with in Section 3. It will be argued that his own analysis of already/schon and its group, as far as it is supported by the data, does not really differ from my approach. In Section 4, I will deal with the claim that finally/endlich contradicts already/schon, which if correct would provide an indirect argument against the duality analysis of schon and noch. I will argue that endlich is set apart from the particles of the schon group by the presence of a non-descriptive, expressive, meaning component. For its descriptive meaning, endlich logically entails schon and belongs to a parallel duality group of its own together with noch immer. The apparent incompatibility of finally/endlich and already/schon can be explained as a conflict between what is foregrounded by each particle, respectively. In Section 5, I will argue that, contrary to van der Auwera's claims, the narrow focus uses of schon and its kin do form proper duality groups. The existence of such uses of noch, not treated in Löbner (1989), does not invalidate the duality analysis of schon and erst. Rather, noch in its relevant narrow-focus use belongs to yet another duality group together with its dual nur noch.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Comrie, B.: 1976, Aspect, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Givón, T.: 1978, ‘Negation in Language: Pragmatics, Function, Ontology’, in P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics. Volume 9. Pragmatics, pp. 69–112, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, J. and W. Grimm: 1854, Deutsches Wörterbuch, S. Hirzel, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herweg, M.: 1991, ‘Two Classical Approaches to Aspect’, Journal of Semantics 8, 363–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. R.: 1989, A Natural History of Negation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • König, E.: 1991, The Meaning of Focus Particles. A Comparative Perspective, Routledge, London, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G.: 1987, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, K.: 1994, Information Structure and Sentence Form, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löbner, S.: 1988, ‘Ansätze zu einer integralen semantischen Theorie von Tempus, Aspekt und Aktionsarten’, in V. Ehrich and H. Vater (eds.), Temporalsemantik, pp. 163–191, Niemeyer, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löbner, S.: 1989, ‘German schon — erst — noch: An Integrated Analysis’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 167–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löbner, S.: 1990, Wahr neben Falsch. Duale Operatoren als die Quantoren natürlicher Sprache, Niemeyer, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löbner, S.: forthcoming, ‘Polarity in Natural Language: Towards an Integrated Theory of Predication, Quantification and Negation in Particular and Characterizing Sentences’, Linguistics and Philosophy.

  • Lyons, J.: 1977, Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J.: 1995, Linguistic Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelis, L. A.: 1992, ‘Aspect and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: The Case of Already’, Lingua 87, 321–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelis, L. A.: 1996, ‘On the Use and Meaning of already’, Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 477–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittwoch, A.: 1993, ‘The Relationship between schon/already and noch/still: A Reply to Löbner’, Natural Language Semantics 2, 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Auwera, J.: 1991, ‘Beyond Duality’, in J. van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbs and Particles of Change and Continuation. (= EUROTYP Working Papers V.2), pp. 131–159, European Science Foundation, Strasbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Auwera, J.: 1993, ‘“Already” and “still”: Beyond Duality’, Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 613–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandeweghe, W.: 1992, Perspektivische evaluatie in het Nederlands. De particles van de AL/NOG/PAS-groep, (= Reeks VI: Bekroonde werken 120), Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal-en Letterkunde, Gent.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Löbner, S. Why German Schon and Noch are Still Duals: a Reply to van der Auwera. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 45–107 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005432806111

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005432806111

Keywords

Navigation