Different Languages Different Sentence Types? On Exclamative Sentences

Language and Linguistics Compass 10/4 (2016): 159–175, 10.1111/lnc3.
12181
Different Languages – Different Sentence Types? On

Exclamative Sentences
Franz d’Avis*
Deutsches Institut, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Fachbereich 05 – Philosophie und Philologie
Abstract
It is not equally easy for all languages to establish an exclamative sentence type. It seems the easiest for
those languages that feature a morphological marking for an exclamative sentence type like Turkish or
Vietnamese. English on the other hand is a language that does not mark exclamative clauses with an easily
identifiable marker but uses certain preferred constructions, which allow us to separate a class of
‘exclamative sentences’ from other sentence types. However, there is another class of languages for which
it is even harder to determine if ‘exclamative sentences’ exist as a sentence type. In those languages, these
sentences share a striking amount of formal properties with sentences used for different speech acts.
German is a case in point, and we will look at the properties of exclamative sentences in this language
in detail.
1. Introduction
The question whether or not there is a sentence type ‘exclamative sentence’ in a language is not
always easy to answer. As opposed to more established sentence types like declarative sentence
or interrogative sentence, there is often a great variety of (sentential) forms that underlie an
exclamative illocution. We can take this as a basis for the identification of an exclamative sen-
tence, i.e. a sentence is an exclamative sentence if it can be used for an exclamation. Such func-
tional descriptions are often the starting point when searching for exclamative forms in a
language. One formulation could be: With an exclamative sentence, a speaker expresses that
the state of affairs described by a proposition given in the sentence is not in accordance with
his expectations about the world. Exclamative utterances often include an emotional attitude
on the part of the speaker, which is often described as surprise; cf. Altmann (1987, 1993a),
Michaelis and Lambrecht (1996), Michaelis (2001) and Roguska (2008). Surprise is an attitude
based on the belief that something unexpected is the case; cf. from a psychological point of view
Reisenzein (2000). We are dealing with unembedded sentences here.
The expression of disappointment with respect to a certain expectation by the speaker can be
related to the degree to which a certain property holds or to the proposition’s being the case
itself.
(1) a. How fast he can play the solo!
b. Dass der ein Instrument spielt!
that he an instrument plays
‘It’s surprising that he plays an instrument’.
In (1a), the speaker expresses his amazement at the degree to which the individual he refers to
can play the solo fast. In (1b), it is the fact that der/he plays an instrument, which is surprising for
the speaker.
© 2016 The Author

Language and Linguistics Compass © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
160 Franz d’Avis
The relevant property can be explicit as in (1a) or implicit as in (2).

(2) What a house he has!
The amazing property of the house in (2) could be its dimension, its facilities or whatever.
The property must be derived from the context.
For some languages, it is easier to establish an exclamative sentence type than for others. It
seems the easiest for languages that feature a morphological marking for an exclamative sentence
type.
In the cross-linguistic survey in Michaelis (2001:1045), we find examples of languages
that possess morphological markers for the exclamative sentence type. Michaelis writes:
‘Exclamations are also characterized by exclamative markers, like the intensifying
postmodifier là in Vietnamese […], and the postclausal exclamative particle ki in Turkish,
[…]’. Her examples are the following.
(3) Vietnamese
Ở đó có bao nhiêulà ngư ở i!
be.at there have how-many INTS people
‘There are so many people there!’
(4) Turkish
Öyle zenga ki!
so rich.3SG.PRES EXCL
‘He is so rich!’
If morphological elements like ki and là function as markers in the above sense, an
exclamative sentence type is easy to establish in those languages.
English on the other hand is a language that does not mark exclamative clauses with an easily
identifiable marker but uses certain preferred constructions that allow us to distinguish
‘exclamative sentences’ from other sentence types. This is especially clear in the area of
wh-clauses. There seem to be more restrictions for exclamative sentences than for interrogative
sentences with respect to the sentence initial wh-phrase. Whereas the wh-phrases what a +noun
and how+adjective are grammatical in exclamatives, wh-phrases like who, what or where are clause
initial only grammatical in interrogatives; cf. Grimshaw (1979).
(5) a. What a nice guy she married!
b. How tall he is!
c. *Who she married!
d. *When she met her husband!
(6) a. *What a nice guy did she marry?
b. How tall is he?
c. Who did she marry?
d. When did she meet her husband?
What a+noun on the other hand is unacceptable in interrogatives; cf. (6a). This behaviour of
who, what, where, etc. is especially peculiar in the light of their grammaticality under exclamative
predicates like to be amazed at or to be surprised at; cf. (7) and cf. Elliot (1974).
(7) a. It’s amazing who she married.
b. You won’t believe what John ate yesterday.
Furthermore, unlike interrogatives, exclamatives do not show subject-auxiliary-inversion in
(5a, b).
© 2016 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 10/4 (2016): 159–175, 10.1111/lnc3.12181
Different Languages – Different Sentence Types? 161
Obenauer (1994) reports another difference concerning preposition stranding in

exclamatives, which seems obligatory, in contrast to interrogatives; cf. (8).
(8) a. *In what a house they live!

b. What a house they live in!
c. In which house do they live?
d. Which house do they live in?
As we can see, languages like English seem to have clear constructional differences that justify
an exclamative sentence type.
However, there is another class of languages for which it is even harder to determine if
‘exclamative sentences’ exist as a sentence type. In those languages, these sentences share a
striking amount of formal properties with sentences used for different speech acts, at least at first
sight and depending on what you consider a formal property. German is a case in point. The
different form types of sentences used as exclamations are often indistinguishable from those
used as declaratives or questions. It is therefore no surprise that there is a continuous discussion
going on about how to correctly analyse exclamativity in these languages: Does it belong to the
usage of certain sentences or can we find a formal equivalent, i.e. a sentence type?
There are in principle two kinds of approaches, which can be called derivational approaches
and correspondence approaches; cf. Reis (1999) and d’Avis (2001).
In derivational approaches, the authors assume that exclamativity belongs to the usage of
sentences; cf. Fries (1988), Rosengren (1992, 1997), d’Avis (2001, 2002) and Roguska
(2008). The main sentence types are declarative, interrogative and imperative sentence with
suitable classification, for instance, with respect to the position of the finite verb. These
approaches assume that there is no exclamative sentence type. Utterances that express an
attitude of surprise are based on sentences that belong to the declarative or to the interrogative
sentence type. That an utterance has to be interpreted as exclamative is explained by the pres-
ence of certain properties that are basically formally irrelevant for the definition of a sentence
type. Intonation is a case in point or the so-called exclamative accent. The authors take different
perspectives on the interplay of these diverse means and try to derive an exclamative interpre-
tation of the utterances under consideration. One of the main points is to explain how the
exclamation comes into being.
Correspondence approaches on the other hand assume that there is an exclamative sentence
type or different more specified exclamative sentence types; cf. Altmann (1987, 1993a), Batliner
(1988), Michaelis and Lambrecht (1996), Michaelis (2001), Näf (1987, 1996), Oppenrieder
(1988), Schwabe (1992), Zaefferer (1983, 1984). Sentences with an exclamative function belong
to the class of exclamative sentences. In contrast to the derivational approaches, most correspon-
dence approaches treat intonational features, most notably the exclamative accent, as formal
features; cf. Altmann (1987, 1993a), Batliner (1988)and Oppenrieder (1988). An explanation of
the relationship between the given formal features and the exclamative function is not in the
foreground. The basic idea is that a certain combination of formal features corresponds conven-
tionally to a certain function, the single elements having no meaning on their own. In this sense,
these are construction grammar analyses of sentence types; cf. Goldberg (2006).
What both kinds of approaches agree upon is that there are certain sentences that can appear
in exclamative utterances, and that these sentences have certain properties that can be described
in detail. Such sentences that are used to express the speaker’s attitude of surprise we will call
‘exclamative sentence’ or ‘exclamative’.1
162 Franz d’Avis
2. Exclamative Form Types in German

The following properties of a sentence are often considered when describing sentences that are
used in exclamations; cf. Altmann (1993a) and Rosengren (1992). We will go into details when
dealing with the various form types.
(i) Position of the finite verb: In German, three positions of the finite verb are distinguished: verb
first (V1), verb second (V2) and verb last (VL).2 In exclamative sentences, we find all three.
(ii) Intonation: One of the main features of exclamative sentences with respect to intonation is
the presence of the so-called exclamative accent. The position of the exclamative accent will
be indicated by upper case. Altmann (1993a, 1993b) assumes that it is a non-focal accent.
Experiments show that it can easily be distinguished from contrast accents or other focussing
accents. Its particular properties are greater maxima with respect to the basic frequency,
greater length and possibly a higher intensity; cf. Oppenrieder (1987, 1989)and Batliner
(1988). While correspondence approaches classify the exclamative accent as a formal ele-
ment without meaning, exponents of derivational approaches try to link it with certain
functions, for instance, the emotional involvement of the speaker; cf. Rosengren (1997).
There is an ongoing discussion about how to correctly interpret the exclamative accent’s sta-
tus. The main question is whether intonation should be interpreted as a formal feature for estab-
lishing sentence types or whether it is part of the usage of sentences and thus not a formal
element. A derivational approach has to motivate the exclamative accent and may even find a
semantic correlate, whereas for a constructional approach, it seems easier to cope with it.
(iii) Modal particles: As for modal particles in exclamative sentences, we find aber, aber auch,
vielleicht and doch. In V2-exclamatives without a wh-phrase, the particle ja can occur. Given
that modal particles are not necessary, they cannot be analysed as obligatory for establishing
an exclamative sentence type.
(iv) Wh-phrases: In German, we find exclamative sentences with and without wh-phrases. In
addition, they can show the final verb in second or last position.
Dass/that-exclamative sentences
Dass/that-exclamatives belong to the class of independent verb-final-sentences (VL-sentences).
They show the finite verb in the position that is common for embedded clauses, but it can be
shown that they are genuinely independent sentences; cf. Oppenrieder (1989).
(Upper case = exclamative accent.)
(9) Dass DIE Geige spielt!
that she violin plays
‘(Wow!) She plays the violin!’
We find the modal particles aber auch and possibly doch; cf. Altmann (1993a:1026).
(10) Dass DER aber auch/?doch seinen Hund küsst!
that he PART PART his dog kisses
‘(Wow!) He kisses his dog!’
But modal particles are not obligatory.
Degree-elements are typical for dass-exclamatives and they often bear the exclamative accent.
(11) Dass der SO krumme Beine hat!
that he so bent legs has
‘(Wow!) He has such bent legs!’
In (11), for example, the deviation from the speaker’s normal expectations relates to the
degree to which the referent’s legs are bent. However, the exclamative accent can also be placed
on another element, for instance, Beine/legs. Inherently gradable elements are typical in
dass-exclamatives, but not obligatory. Consider (12).
(12) Dass der verHEIratet ist!
that he married is
‘(Wow!) He is married!’
What is unexpected for the speaker in this example is the existence of the state of affairs,
namely, that der/he is married and not unmarried. This is an important point with respect to
exclamatives in general. It is often assumed that an exclamative sentence must include a gradable
element, and that what is unexpected for the speaker is the degree to which something holds.
Dass-exclamatives show that this is not the only possibility.
Dass-exclamatives typically feature a demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of the midfield
(the area between the complementizer and the verbal complex), which often bears the
exclamative accent; cf. Altmann (1993b:34). Altmann claims that the exclamative accent in this
position has no focal properties, that it is not related to information structure. The following
examples conf lict with this claim.
If focus has to do with establishing a relationship to a set of alternatives (Rooth 1985, 1992;
Jacobs 1988), the following examples show that the relevant sets of alternatives change with the
position of the exclamative accent.
(13) A: De r Karl hat dem Friedrich verraten, dass Heinz gelogen hat.
the Karl has the Friedrich revealed that Heinz lied has
‘Karl revealed to Friedrich that Heinz lied’.
B: (i) Dass DER dem das verraten hat!
(ii) Dass der DEM das verraten hat!
(iii) Dass der dem DAS verraten hat!
that he to-him this revealed has
‘(Wow!) He revealed it to him!’
The different sets of alternatives are related to the speaker’s expectations. With the
exclamative accent on the subject pronoun (der/he), the speaker expresses his amazement about
the fact that it was Karl and not someone else from the set of alternatives who revealed the lying.
With the exclamative accent on the dative object (dem/to-him), the speaker expresses his amaze-
ment about the fact that Karl revealed it to Friedrich and not to someone else from the set of
alternatives, someone much rather expected than Friedrich. An analogous analysis holds for
the accent on the accusative pronoun. This shows that the exclamative accent can have
focus-related properties.
The complementizer dass is the only complementizer element that can introduce an
exclamative sentence. Adverbial complementizers like weil/because, obwohl/although, wenn/if
and ob/whether never start an exclamative sentence. The dass-exclamative shows a certain vari-
ation: we can find it with or without a modal particle. The speaker’s astonishment can be related
to an explicitly given gradable element or to the existence of the state of affairs itself. The posi-
tion of the exclamative accent is variable, whereupon it can also be related to focus.
2.2. Verb-first (V1) exclamative sentences
Another class of exclamatives are certain sentences with the finite verb in first position; cf.
Altmann (1993a: 1026), s. (14).
164 Franz d’Avis
(14) Hat DER aber eine schöne Gitarre!

has he PART a nice guitar
‘What a nice guitar he has!’
The speaker expresses that the guitar of the referent of der/he is nice to a degree that he, the
speaker, did not expect. The position of the finite verb is before the middle-field and there is no
prefield.
As modal particles, we find aber/vielleicht/aber auch; cf. (15), which are not obligatory. An
exclamative accent, on the other hand, seems obligatory. We often find it in a position at the
beginning of the middle-field on a demonstrative pronoun.
(15) Hat DER vielleicht/aber /aber auch ein großes Haus!
has he PART /PART /PART a big house
‘What a big house he has!’
In V1-exclamative sentences, the attitude of surprise relates to a certain explicitly or implicitly
given property. Although the gradable adjective groß/big is not explicitly given in (16), this
sentence can – in an appropriate context – be understood as (15).
(16) Hat DER ein house!
has he a house
‘What a big house he has!’
However, the attitude of surprise cannot refer to the existence of the state of affairs. The
V1-exclamative sentence is, compared to the dass-exclamative, more restricted. The attitude
of amazement is aimed at a gradable property that can be given explicitly or implicitly.
2.3. Verb second (V2) exclamative sentences
V2-sentences like (17) exemplify the next class of exclamatives.
(17) DER hat aber eine schöne Gitarre!
he has PART a nice guitar
In the prefield, we normally find a definite expression. The exclamative accent is usually
placed on the element in the prefield, a gradable element at the end of the middlefield or on
the main verb, cf. Oppenrieder (1987:167f.), see (18).
(18) a. DER hat aber eine schöne Gitarre!
b. Der hat aber eine SCHÖne Gitarre!
c. Der ist aber EINgebildet!
he is PART vain
’How vain he is!’
As modal particles, we find aber, aber auch, vielleicht and, as opposed to V1-exclamatives, the
particle ja. This is important because V1- and V2-exclamatives often look just like variants with-
out a difference in meaning.
(19) a. DAS ist aber ein schnelles Spiel!

that is PART a fast game
‘What a fast game this is!’
b. Ist DAS aber ein schnelles Spiel!
is that PART a fast game
‘What a fast game this is!’
The modal particle ja, however, can appear in V2-exclamatives; cf. (20).
(20) a. DER ist ja riesig!
he is PART huge
‘How huge he is!’
b. *Ist DER ja riesig!
he is PART huge
The important point is that, in connection with the particle ja, we find different interpreta-
tions with respect to the target of the speaker’s amazement, that is, related to the degree of a
certain property or to the existence of the state of affairs.
Typically for V2-exclamatives, the attitude of surprise is related to the degree to which a
certain predicate holds, for instance groß/big in (21).
(21) DER ist aber /aber auch /vielleicht /ja groß!
he is PART /PART /PART /PART big
’How big he is!’
The exclamative accent can be placed on the demonstrative in the prefield or on the predi-
cate, (21), being more natural with aber/aber auch/vielleicht.
(22) a. Der ist aber/aber auch/vielleicht GROSS!
b. Der ist ja GROSS!
With the exclamative accent on the predicate, the sentence with the particle ja, (22b), differs
from (22a) in that it has two readings: one where the degree of being tall is unexpected and one
where the state of affairs is unexpected, that he is tall at all.
There are three things to consider: (i) the position of the exclamative accent can inf luence
possible interpretations; (ii) the particles are not just illocutionary force indicating devices, but
can inf luence the semantic interpretation of the sentence; and (iii) V2- and V1-exclamatives
are not just variants, they differ, since only in V2-exclamatives the existence of the state of affairs
can be the surprising element. We can say that V2-exclamative sentences are less restricted com-
pared to V1-exclamatives.
2.4. Exclamative sentences with wh-phrases
So far, we have talked about German exclamative sentences without a wh-phrase. There are
also exclamatives that start with a wh-phrase. The position of the finite verb is either verb final
(VL) or verb second (V2).
(23) Wen DER alles eingeladen hat! (VL)
whom he all invited has
’Amazing, which people/how many people he invited!’
(24) Wen hat DER alles eingeladen! (V2)
whom has he all invited
166 Franz d’Avis
’Amazing, which people/how many people he invited!’

The normal position for the finite verb is the final one in embedded wh-clauses. Embedded
wh-clauses with verb second are ungrammatical. Interestingly, there seem to be no differences
in meaning or function between the two unembedded variants; cf. Altmann (1993a:1027). The
position of the final verb, on the other hand, does not help us differentiate between
exclamatives und questions. This is different in English. In English, a wh-clause used as an
exclamation does not show subject-aux inversion; cf. (25).
(25) a. How tall he is!/*?
b. How tall is he*!/?
One might ask why root exclamations behave this way. With respect to embedded word
order vs. root word order, the question could be rephrased: Why can English root-wh-clauses
that look like embedded ones; cf. (25a), only be used as exclamations? The relative position of
subject and finite verb is per se not a universal feature of clauses used as exclamations. In
German, on the other hand, wh-clauses with embedded word order, that is verb-final clauses,
are used as questions and as exclamations, and that is also the case for wh-verb-second clauses.
We find a set of modal particles, which we mostly know from other exclamative sentences,
namely, aber auch, auch, aber and doch. In addition, we find quantificational expressions like alles/
all, immer/always and überall/everywere. Whereas neither modal particles nor quantificational
expressions are obligatory, the exclamative accent seems to be obligatory. With an exclamative,
a speaker expresses that a certain property holds to a higher degree than expected. In many cases,
we find a gradable element, but even in cases where no gradable element is explicitly given, the
wh-exclamative is interpreted with respect to a certain degree; cf. (26).
(26) Was hat DIE für ein Haus!
what has she for a house
‘What a house she has!’
A speaker might have expected the house to be smaller, less attractive, etc. He expresses that a
certain property of the house has an unexpected degree, with the property given by the context.
The scale could even refer to negative features: What a house she has! It’s a real dump.
In German, a wh-exclamative sentence can start with most of the wh-expressions an inter-
rogative sentence can begin with. This is notably different in languages like English.
We find:
(i) Wh-pronouns:
(27) Wen DIE geheiratet hat!
whom she married has
‘It’s amazing who she has married!’
(ii) Inflected welch- + nominal complement:
(28) Welche TOLle Frau der aber auch geheiratet hat!
which great woman he PART married has
‘It’s amazing what a great woman he has married!’
(iii) Was für ein + nominal complement, was and für+nominal expression can be separated:
(29) a. Was für einen TOLlen Mann die doch geheiratet hat!
what for a great man she PART married has
‘It’s amazing what a great man she has married!’
b. Was hat DIE für einen tollen Mann geheiratet!

what has she for a great man married
‘It’s amazing what a great man she has married!’
(iv) Adverbial wh-expressions: wo, wann, wie, etc.:
(30) Wo DIE überall hinfährt!
Where she everywhere goes
‘All the places she goes!’
(v) Wie/how+adjective:
(31) Wie GROSS die ist!
how tall she is
‘How tall she is!’
(vi) Uninflected welch + nominal complement:
(32) Welch TOLle Kinder die hat!
which great children she has
‘What great children she has!’
(vii) Wie/how and was/what in a degree interpretation, separated from or without an adjective:
(33) a. Wie/was DIE groß ist!
how/what she tall is
‘How tall she is!’
b. Wie/was ist DIE gerannt!
how/what is she run
‘How fast she ran!’
Out of these seven classes, only the last two constructions do not occur in wh-interrogative
sentences. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but these constructions could be interpreted
as evidence for an exclamative sentence type; see the analyses on wie/how in Schwabe (1992)and
d’Avis (2001) and on was/what in Corver (1990)and d’Avis (2000).
Other elements we do not find in wh-phrases starting a wh-question are intensifiers like
überaus/very.
(34) Wie überaus GROSS Maria ist!
how very large Mary is
‘How very large Mary is!’
(35) *Wie überaus groß ist Maria denn?
how very large is Mary PART
In wh-exclamatives, we also find the particle nicht/not, often in combination with the quan-
tificational element alles/all; cf. (69).3
(36) Wen DIE nicht alles kennt!
who she not all knows
‘Amazing, the people she knows!’
In cases like (36), nicht/not seems to have no inf luence on the meaning of the sentence.
168 Franz d’Avis
The speaker expresses his or her amazement about the set of people the referent of die/she
knows. The reason for the amazement could be the size of the set, its formation or only certain
remarkable members. The meaning is the same as in the version without the negation; cf. (37).
(37) Wen DIE alles kennt!
who she all knows
‘Amazing, the people she knows!’
See for these cases the analyses in Rosengren (1992, 1997), d’Avis (2001) and Roguska
(2008).
There are few differences between wh-exclamatives and wh-interrogatives with respect to
possible wh-words/phrases. However, there are strong similarities, for instance, wh-movement,
partial wh-movement and constructions with multiple wh-phrases.
Wh-exclamatives allow movement of the wh-phrase out of an embedded clause; cf. (38a), as
do wh-interrogatives; cf. (38b).
(38) a. Wen DER glaubt, dass Maria geheiratet hat!
who he believes that Mary married has
‘Amazing, who he believes that Mary has married!’
b. Wen glaubst du, dass Maria geheiratet hat?
who believe you that Mary married has
‘Who do you believe that Mary has married?’
Wh-exclamatives allow partial wh-movement; cf. (39a), as do wh-interrogatives; cf. (39b).
(39) a. Was DER glaubt, wen Maria geheiratet hat!
what he believes who Mary married has
‘It’s amazing, who he believes that Mary has married!’
b. Was glaubst du, wen Maria geheiratet hat?
what believe you who Mary married has
‘Who do you believe that Mary has married?’
Wh-interrogatives can show multiple wh-phrases; cf. (40a). This is also possible in wh-
exclamatives; cf. (40b).
(40) a. Wen hat der Chef wohin geschickt?
who has the boss where sent
‘Who did the boss sent where?’
b. Wen DER heute wohin geschickt hat!
who he today where sent has
‘Amazing, who he sent where today!’
The relation between wh-exclamatives and wh-interrogatives is often discussed in the liter-
ature, and it is in fact an important one, particularly when it comes to the question of sentence
types.
There are different possibilities to analyse the data. One group assumes that there is indeed a
sentence type ‘wh-exclamative sentence’ with a certain semantic meaning. This meaning is dif-
ferent from the meaning of wh-sentences that are the basis for questions. The relevant elements
like degree-was/what, degree-wie/how, separated from the adjective, the intensifier überaus/very
in wh-phrases are lexically marked so that they are only compatible with exclamative sentences.
They can even be seen as exclamative markers. This view seems to underlie approaches like
Grimshaw (1979), Näf (1987, 1996), Altmann (1987, 1993a) and Schwabe (1992). In such an
approach, the distribution of the abovementioned elements follows immediately. A sentence
of the type ‘wh-exclamative’ differs at least semantically from a wh-interrogative sentence; cf.
also Zanuttini and Portner (2003). What remains unexplained is the obvious parallelism be-
tween wh-sentences in exclamative and interrogative contexts that do not have particular
distinguishing elements.
According to the other main approach argued for in the literature, wh-exclamatives and wh-
interrogatives have the same underlying sentence type; cf. Rosengren (1992, 1997), and the
same underlying semantics; cf. d’Avis (2001, 2002) and Roguska (2008). The challenge for ap-
proaches of this kind is to explain why certain elements like the abovementioned degree-was/
what, degree-wie/how, überaus/very in wh-phrases do only appear in exclamative contexts.
A problem for both approaches is cases where the quantificational particle alles/all is in the
scope of the negation nicht/not. This is only possible in exclamatives.4 For this problem, see
Roguska (2008), Rosengren (1992), and, more generally, for the relation between exclamation
and negation, Portner and Zanuttini (2000).
3. Tests for Exclamatives
Zanuttini and Portner (2003) assign three properties to exclamatives and show how tests based
on these properties can help identify exclamative sentences.
(i) The first property is factivity (see also Grimshaw 1979and Michaelis and Lambrecht 1996
inter alia). The tests that correlate with this property are shown in (41) and (42).
Exclamatives can only be embedded under factive predicates; cf. (41).
(41) Mary knows/thinks/wonders how very cute he is. (Zanuttini and Portner 2003: (12))
When exclamatives are embedded under a verb like know or realize in the first person, present
tense with negation, the sentence is ungrammatical; cf. (42).
(42) I don’t know/realize how very cute he is.

The explanation for (42) is that denying the speaker’s knowledge is in conf lict with the
factive presupposition of the exclamative.
(ii) The second property, called ‘scalar implicature’, relates to the intuition that in the interpre-
tation of an exclamative, a contextually given scale is involved, in the sense that the propo-
sition it denotes is ranked on a high position with respect to its alternatives. Examples like
(43) show that a property’s high degree can be expressed by an utterance of an exclamative.
(43) ??How very cute he is! – though not extremely cute. (Zanuttini and Portner 2003: (14))
The second part seems to contradict the exclamative utterance. This property also explains
the grammaticality judgments in (44).
(44) a. *It isn’t amazing how very cute he is!
b. It is amazing how very cute he is!
c. Isn’t it amazing how very cute he is?
d. Is it amazing how very cute he is?
170 Franz d’Avis
Zanuttini and Portner (2003) explain this distribution by stating a contradiction between the
scalar implicature of the embedded clause with the matrix negation in (44a) and between the
implicature and the questioning of amazingness in (44d).
(iii) The third property discussed by Zanuttini and Portner (2003) is the behaviour of
exclamatives, interrogatives and declaratives in question–answer pairs. Interrogatives are
used for questions, whereas exclamatives cannot be used that way; cf. Zanuttini and Portner
(2003: (17), (18)).
(45) A: How tall is he? B: Seven feet.

(46) A: How very tall he is! B: #Seven feet.
We can take B’s reply as an answer to A’s question in (45); B gives the requested information.
The same reply in (46) is inappropriate; A did not request this information.
In contrast to declaratives, exclamatives cannot be used as answers. This is shown in (47); cf.
Zanuttini and Portner (2003: (21)).
(47) A: How tall is Tony’s child? B: #How very tall he is!
With respect to the degree of the child’s tallness, the exclamative cannot serve as an answer
here, even though B (also) expresses that Tony’s child is tall to an extreme degree.
In what follows, we will apply this set of tests to the classes of sentences that have been iden-
tified in the literature as exclamatives in German: (a) dass-exclamatives, (b) V1-exclamatives, (c)
V2-exclamatives, (d) wh-VL-exclamatives, and (e) wh-V2-exclamatives. As we will see, not ev-
ery sentence passes all the tests.
(i’) The test for factivity that Zanuttini and Portner (2003) use involves the question of how
our putative exclamatives behave with respect to embedding under certain matrix constellations
(see above). This test is, if at all, only applicable to types (a) and (d), marginally to type (c). Wh-
V2- and V1-clauses cannot be embedded as arguments. Above this, exclamatives lose one of
their defining features when embedded, namely, the exclamative accent. Thus, this test is not
generally applicable to our proposed class of exclamative sentences. We cannot test for factivity
with the help of this test, but we can at least check if the proposition of the exclamative is
presupposed by the speaker or asserted. To reject a presupposition is more costly than to reject
an assertion and has to be done differently. We can follow the idea of Shanon (1976) and
operationalize this point as follows. Non-acceptance of an asserted proposition can be commu-
nicated with a simple no. The same is true for German. If A says Maria spielt Geige/Mary plays the
violin, B can reply nein, meaning, no she does not. In order to reject a presupposed proposition,
however, one has to do more. Take the denotation of an embedded clause, for instance, with
a factive predicate like bedauern/regret (Heinz bedauert, dass Maria Geige spielt/Heinz regrets that
Mary plays the violin). You have to say something like Augenblick, Maria spielt doch gar nicht
Geige/Wait a moment, Mary does not play the violine. If we apply this test to our class of
exclamatives, we get the following picture.
i. dass-exclamatives:
(48) A Dass DIE Geige spielt!
B #Nein (das tut sie nicht)/ ‘No (she does not)’.
C Augenblick, sie spielt doch gar nicht Geige. / ‘Wait a moment, she does not play the violine’.
ii. V1-exclamatives:
(49) A: Ist DER blöd!

B: ?Nein (das ist er nicht). / ‘No (he is not)’.
C: #Augenblick, der ist doch gar nicht blöd. / ‘Wait a moment, he is not dumb’.
iii. V2-exclamatives:
(50) A DER ist aber blöd!
B Nein (das ist er nicht). / ‘No (he is not)’.
C #Augenblick, der ist doch gar nicht blöd. / ‘Wait a moment, he is not dumb’.
iv. wh-VL-exclamatives:
(51) A: Wen DER alles eingeladen hat!
B: #Nein (das hat er nicht). / ‘No (he did not)’.
C: Augenblick, er hat doch gar niemanden eingeladen. / ‘Wait a moment, he did not invite
anyone’.
v. wh-V2-exclamatives:
(52) A: Wen hat DER alles eingeladen!
B: #Nein (das hat er nicht). / ‘No (he did not)’.
C: Augenblick, er hat doch gar niemanden eingeladen. / ‘Wait a moment, he did not invite
anyone’.
The test shows that V1-/V2-exclamatives do not presuppose the relevant proposition,
whereas dass- and wh-exclamatives do.
(ii’) Scalar implicature, the expression of a high rank on a scale. This can be shown for most of
our exclamatives, but not for dass-exclamatives, if we follow the test in Zanuttini and Portner
(2003). The reason is that scalar implicatures are always linked to the existence of a degree ele-
ment in the sentence, which is not necessary for dass-exclamatives.
(53) a. Dass DIE Geige spielt! – (not applicable)
b. Ist DER blöd! – #Aber nicht besonders blöd. / ‘But not extremely dumb’.
c. DER ist aber blöd! – #Aber nicht besonders blöd. / ‘But not extremely dumb’.
d. Wen DER alles eingeladen hat! – #Aber nicht besonders viele. / ‘But not extremely many’.
e. Wen hat DER alles eingeladen! – #Aber nicht besonders viele. / ‘But not extremely many’.
(iii’) The next test shows whether our class of exclamatives patterns with interrogatives with
respect to question–answer pairs: Can they be used for questions? This test is only relevant for
V1- and wh-exclamatives.
(54) a. A: Ist der blöd? B: Ja (das ist er). / ‘Yes (he is)’.
a’. A: Ist DER blöd! B: #Ja (das ist er). / ‘Yes (he is)’.
b. A: Wen der wohl alles eingeladen hat? B: Heinz, Maria,…
b’. A: Wen DER alles eingeladen hat! B: #Heinz, Maria,…
c. A: Wen hat der alles eingeladen? B: Heinz, Maria,…
c’. A: Wen hat DER alles eingeladen! B: #Heinz, Maria,…
Here, German V1- and wh-exclamatives pattern with analogous English cases. B’s reply in
(54a’) is not an answer but more likely a kind of approval, see Zanuttini and Portner
(2003:47) for related cases.
The last test shows if exclamatives can be used as answers to questions like declaratives.
(55) a. A: Spielt sie Geige? B: #Dass DIE Geige spielt!
172 Franz d’Avis
‘Does she play the violine?’

b. A: Wie ist er denn so? B: #Ist DER blöd!
‘How is he like?’
c. A: Wie ist er denn so? B: #DER ist aber blöd!
‘How is he like?’
d. A: Wen hat er denn eingeladen? B: #Wen DER alles eingeladen hat!
‘Who did he invite?’
e. A: Wen hat er denn eingeladen? B: #Wen hat DER alles eingeladen!
None of the exclamatives can be used as answers.

The tests we applied do not concur with the classes of exclamatives we find in German. But
what all the sentences have in common is that a certain state of affairs is considered unusual/not
normal by the speaker. This relation with the speaker’s expectation is a recurring element in the
analysis of exclamatives. Zanuttini and Portner (2003) relate it to a meaning component they
call widening. The basic idea is that, by the utterance of a wh-exclamative, a contextually given
domain is expanded to include an additional value for the wh-operator, which can be
interpreted as ‘being a source of surprise or amazement’, Zanuttini and Portner (2003: 58.)5
Other approaches interpret this effect as dividing the contextually given domain into elements
that are normal and elements that are suprising, for instance, Roguska (2008) and d’Avis (2001,
2013).
4. Conclusion
It is not equally easy for all languages to establish an exclamative sentence type. There are
languages with exclamative markers like Turkish or Vietnamese, and there are languages
like English that allow only certain marked constructions for exclamative utterances. In
languages like German, the connection between sentences that are used for exclamations
and other sentence types is even tighter. Although intonation and exclamative accent are
not hard to identify for a hearer, they are still widely discussed in the literature. The
ongoing discussion focuses on the question whether these means should be interpreted
as formal, and thus leading us to an exclamative sentence type, or whether they belong
to the usage of sentences, whereby exclamations employ declarative and interrogative
sentence types. This leads also to the question of the classification of sentences types into
main and secondary types. For German, one could argue that exclamatives are a kind of
secondary sentence type, but even if this was the case, such a classification does not have
to apply to other languages. Related to the first question is the following one: We know
that different languages employ different means to establish an exclamative sentence type,
but it is not so obvious in what way these means are related to the internal structure of the
sentence type system of a single language and if they should be analysed as necessary and
sufficient within a feature theory, or rather within a prototype theory of sentence types; cf.
Panther and Köpcke (2008). Finally, there is the question of the interrelationship between
form and function. Although a lot of research has been done on sentence types, especially
on German, this relationship is not really clear, i.e. we have no general agreement on the
relation between sentence type, sentence mood and illocution; cf. Meibauer, Steinbach
and Altmann (2013)). An answer to this last question seems specifically important for
exclamative sentences.
Short Biography
Franz d’Avis is Academic Lecturer for Germanic Linguistics at the University of Mainz. He
studied German Philology, Linguistics, Computer science and Music at the Universities
Gießen, Tübingen and Edinburgh. d’Avis received his Dr. Phil. (1998) in German Linguistics
from the University of Tübingen for his work on wh-exclamatives in German. 1999-2007
he worked as Assistant Professor at the University of Lund and as Associate Professor and
Researcher at the University of Gothenburg, where he received his Swedish Docent qualifica-
tion. Since 2008, he teaches at the University of Mainz, where he received his Habilitation in
German Linguistics (2014). d’Avis works mainly on the syntax-semantic-pragmatic interface.
His current research centers on the questions of how subjective normalcy conceptions of inter-
locutors enter into the semantics and pragmatic use conditions of linguistic constructions and
how the effect of normalcy conceptions can be employed for the analysis and explanation of
linguistic phenomena.
Notes
* Correspondence address: Franz d’Avis, Deutsches Institut, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Fachbereich
05 – Philosophie und Philologie, Mainz, D-55099, Germany. E-mail: davisf@uni-mainz.de
1
But cf. Zanuttini and Portner (2003) for a challenge of this view.
2
A linear analysis of clauses in German uses basically the following slots:
(i) prefield/left bracket/middle-field/right bracket/final field
In V1- and V2-clauses, the finite verb is positioned in ‘left bracket’, in VL-clauses in ‘right bracket’. Not all positions are
available for every kind of clause. In V1-clauses, for example, there is nor prefield.
3
For this alles; cf. Reis (1992).
4
See the contrast between (i) and (ii).
(i) Wen hat DER nicht alles eingeladen!

whom has he not all invited
‘Amazing, which people/how many people he invited!’
(ii) *Wen hat der nicht alles eingeladen?

whom has he not all invited
5
However, the utterance of an exclamative does not necessarily expand the contextually given domain. If we discuss the
drinking habits of a friend and we come to the conclusion that he does not only drink beer, wine and gin but even Stroh
80 (abv 80%), one of the interlocutors could utter: The things, he drinks! thereby expressing that drinking Stroh 80 is not
something he considers normal. The point is that the domain is not expanded but divided into things that, in the eyes of
the speaker, are normal, expected or not.
Works Cited
Altmann, H.. 1987. Zur Problematik der Konstitution von Satzmodi als Formtypen. Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und
Pragmatik, hg. J. Meibauer, 22–56. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
——Altmann, H. (hg.). 1988. Intonationsforschungen. Tübingen: Niemeyer (= Linguistische Arbeiten 200).
—— 1993a. Satzmodus. Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, hgg. J. Jacobs, A. Stechow,
W. von Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (HSK 9.1) 1006–1029. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
174 Franz d’Avis
——. 1993b. Fokus-Hintergrund-Gliederung und Satzmodus. Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, hg. M. Reis, S.
1–37. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
——Altmann, H., A. Batliner, and W. Oppenrieder (hgg). 1989. Zur Intonation von Modus und Fokus im Deutschen.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Batliner, A. 1988. Der Exklamativ: Mehr als Aussage oder doch nur mehr oder weniger Aussage? Experimente zur Rolle von
Höhe und Position des F0-Gipfels, hg. H. Altmann, 243–271. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Corver, N. 1990. The syntax of left branch extractions. Dissertation, Katholische Universität Brabant.
d’Avis, F.J.. 2000. On the wh-expletive was in German. Wh-scopemarking, ed. by U. Lutz, G. Müller and A. von Stechow,
131–155. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
——. 2001. Über w-Exklamativsätze im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
——. 2002. On the interpretation of wh-clauses in exclamative environments. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 5–31.
d’Avis, F. 2013. Exklamativsatz. Satztypen des Deutschen, hgg. J. Meibauer, M. Steinbach and H. Altmann, 177–201. Berlin/
Boston: de Gruyter.
Elliott, D. E. 1974. Toward a grammar of exclamatives. Foundations of Language 11. 231–246.
Fries, N. 1988. Ist Pragmatik schwer! – Über sogenannte‚ Exklamativsätze‘im Deutschen. Deutsche Sprache 16. 193–205.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grimshaw, J. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 279–326.
Jacobs, J. 1988. Fokus-Hintergrund-Gliederung und Grammatik. hg. H. Altmann, 89–134.
Meibauer, J. (hg.). 1987. Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
——. 2013. Kontroversen in der Forschung zu Satztypen und Satzmodus. Satztypen des Deutschen, ed. by J. Meibauer,
M. Steinbach and H. Altmann. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
Michaelis, L. 2001. Exclamative constructions. Language typology and language universals, ed. by M. Haspelmath, E. König,
W. Österreicher and W. Raible (=HSK 20.1) 1038–1050. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Michaelis, Laura A., and Knud Lambrecht. 1996. The exclamative sentence type in English. Conceptual structure, discourse and
language, ed. by A. Goldberg, 375–389. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Näf, A. 1987. Gibt es Exklamativsätze? hg. J. Meibauer, 140–160.
——. 1996. Die w-Exklamativsätze im Deutschen – zugleich ein Plädoyer für eine Rehabilitierung der Empirie in der
Sprachwissenschaft. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 24. 135–152.
Obenauer, H.G. 1994. Aspects de la Syntaxe A-Barre. Thèse de Doctorat d‘Etat, Université de Paris VIII.
Oppenrieder, W. 1987. Aussagesätze im Deutschen, hg. Meibauer, 161–189.
——. 1988. Intonation und Identifikation. Kategorisierungstests zur kontextfreien Identifikation von Satzmodi,
hg. H. Altmann, 153–168.
——. 1989. Selbständige Verb-Letzt-Sätze: Ihr Platz im Satzmodussystem und ihre intonatorische Kennzeichnung. hgg.
Altmann, Batliner and Oppenrieder, 163–244.
Panther, K.-U., and K.M. Köpcke. 2008. A prototype approach to sentences and sentence types. Annual Review of Cognitive
Linguistics 6. 83–112.
Portner, P. and R. Zanuttini. 2000. The force of negation in Wh exclamatives and interrogatives. Negation and Polarity.
Syntactic and Semantic Perspectives, ed. by L. Horn and Y. Kato, 193–231. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reis, M. 1992. The category of invariant alles in wh-clauses. Who Climbs the Grammar-Tree, hg. Rosemarie Tracy, 465–492.
——. 1999. On sentence types in German. An enquiry into the relationship between grammar and pragmatics.
Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 4. 195–236.
Reisenzein, Rainer. 2000. The subjective experience of surprise. The message within: the role of subjective experience in social
cognition and behavior, ed. by H. Bless and J.P. Forgas, 262–279. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Roguska, M. 2008. Exklamation und Negation. Berlin: Logos Verlag.
Rooth, M. 1985. Association with focus. PhD thesis, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
——. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.
Rosengren, I. 1992. Zur Grammatik und Pragmatik der Exklamation. Satz und Illokution, Bd. 1, hg. I. Rosengren, 263–306.
——. 1997. Expressive sentence types – a contradiction in terms. The case of exclamation. Modality in Germanic languages.
Historical and comparative perspectives, ed. by T. Swan and O. J. Westvik (=Trends in Linguistics. Studies and
Monographs 99) 151–184. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schwabe, K. 1992. Doch eine grammatische Kategorie “Exklamativ”?. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und
Kommunikationsforschung 45(1) 17–29.
Shanon, B. 1976. On the two kinds of presuppositions in natural language. Foundations of Language 14. 247–249.
Zaefferer, D. 1983. The semantics of non-declaratives: investigating German exclamatories. Meaning, use, and
interpretation of language, hgg. R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze and A. v. Stechow, 466–490. Berlin, New York: Walter
de Gruyter.
Zaefferer, D. 1984. Frageausdrücke und Fragen im Deutschen. Zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. München: Fink.
Zanuttini, R. and P. Portner. 2003. Exclamative clauses: at the syntax- semantics interface. Language 79. 39–81.
Further Reading
Abels, K. 2007. Deriving selectional properties of ‘exclamative’ predicates. Interfaces and interface conditions, ed. by A. Späth
(Language, Context & Cognition, Vol. 6, ed. by A. Steube) 115–140. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
——. 2010. Factivity in exclamatives is a presupposition. Studia Linguistica 64(1) 141–157.
Bennis, H. 1998. Exclamatives. Linguistics in the Netherlands, ed. by R. van Bezooijen and R. Kager, 27–40. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Castroviejo-Miro, E. and M. Schwager. 2008. Amazing DPs. Proceedings of SALT 18. CLC Publications.
Elliot, D. E. 1971. The grammar of emotive and exclamatory sentences in English. Working Papers in Linguistics 8, Ohio
State University, viii–111.
Gonzalez Rodriguez, R. 2007. Reconstruction and scope in exclamative sentences. Coreference, modality, and focus, ed. by
L. Eguren and O. Fernández-Soriano (=Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 111) 89–112. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Grewendorf, G., and D. Zaefferer. 1991. Theorien der Satzmodi. Semantik. Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen
Forschung, hgg. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (=HSK 6) 270–286. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Grohmann, K. K. 2000. Null Modals in Germanic (and Romance): Infinitival Exclamatives. Modal verbs in Germanic and
romance languages, ed. by J. van der Auwera and P. Dendale, 43–61. Belgian journal of linguistics 14.
Huddleston, R. 1993a. On exclamatory-inversion sentences in English. Lingua 90. 259–269.
——. 1993b. Remarks on the construction:you won’t believe who Ed has married. Lingua 91. 175–184.
Krause, H. and N. Ruge (hgg). 2004. Das war echt spitze! Zur Exklamation im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
McCawley, N. 1973. Boy! Is syntax easy! CLS 9. 369–377.
Rett, Jessica. 2011. Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 34. 411–442.
Zaefferer, D. 1991. Weiß wer was? Wer weiß was? Wer was weiß… w-Interrogative und andere w-Konstruktionen im
Deutschen. Fragesätze und Fragen. Referate anläßlich der Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Saarbrücken
1990, hgg. M. Reis and I. Rosengren, 77–94. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Zanuttini, R. and P. Portner. 2000. The characterization of exclamative clauses in Paduan. Language 76. 123–132.

Different Languages Different Sentence Types? On Exclamative Sentences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Different Languages Different Sentence Types? On Exclamative Sentences

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Different Languages Different Sentence Types? On Exclamative Sentences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language and Linguistics Compass 10/4 (2016): 159–175, 10.1111/lnc3.

Different Languages – Different Sentence Types? On

© 2016 The Author

The relevant property can be explicit as in (1a) or implicit as in (2).

Obenauer (1994) reports another difference concerning preposition stranding in

(8) a. *In what a house they live!

2. Exclamative Form Types in German

(14) Hat DER aber eine schöne Gitarre!

(19) a. DAS ist aber ein schnelles Spiel!

’Amazing, which people/how many people he invited!’

b. Was hat DIE für einen tollen Mann geheiratet!

(42) I don’t know/realize how very cute he is.

(45) A: How tall is he? B: Seven feet.

(49) A: Ist DER blöd!

‘Does she play the violine?’

None of the exclamatives can be used as answers.

(i) Wen hat DER nicht alles eingeladen!

(ii) *Wen hat der nicht alles eingeladen?

You might also like