Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 27:3 (2020) ► pp.340–372

More than just a modal particle

The enclitic =q’al in Sanzhi Dargwa

| Friedrich Schiller Universität Jena

Modal particles have been intensively studied in German and a few other European languages, but investigations of modal particles from little-known languages are rare. This paper examines in detail the morphosyntactic and the semantic properties of the Sanzhi Dargwa (Nakh-Daghestanian) modal particle =q’al. It is shown that the particle possesses the morphosyntactic properties that are commonly assumed for modal particles. The particle is then analyzed as presupposition trigger that interacts with focus and marks clauses as declarative sentences. It triggers two presuppositions, namely uncontroversiality and contrast/correction. Furthermore, it can express finiteness. The analysis suggests that accounting for modal particles as grammatical rather than lexical items with head status seems promising for further research.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Setting the stage
  • 3.The enclitic =q’al
    • 3.1Meaning and function
    • 3.2Morphosyntactic properties
  • 4.Previous accounts of cognates of the Sanzhi particle in other Dargwa varieties
  • 5.The many functions of =q’al
    • 5.1Is =q’al a marker of shared knowledge?
    • 5.2Is =q’al an adversative particle?
    • 5.3The impact of =q’al on information structure
    • 5.4Interim summary and open questions
  • 6.Cross-linguistic parallels and implications for the study of modal particles
  • 7.Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 4 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.17011.for
References
Abdullaev, Zapir G., Alburi A. Abdulsalamov, Magomed-Said M. Musaev & S. Sapijaxanum M. Temirbulatova
2014 Sovremenij darginskij jazyk. Makhachkala: IJaLi DNC RAN.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner
1991a Introduction. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic, and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German, 1–10. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991b Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about? In Werner Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic, and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German, 203–252. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Discourse marker = discourse particle = thetical = modal particle? A futile comparison. In Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds.), 241–280.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Eva Wuite
1984 Kontrastive Partikelforschung unter lexikographischem Gesichtspunkt: Exempel am Deutsch-Finnischen. Folia Linguistica Europaea 181. 155–193.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira
1988 Retrieving propositions from context: Why and how. Journal of Pragmatics 121. 567–600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Discourse markers and form-function correlations. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 223–259.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Volker Struckmeier
(eds.) 2017 Discourse particles: Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Berg, Helma van den
2001 Dargi folktales: Oral stories from the Caucasus with an introduction to Dargi grammar. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.Google Scholar
Boeg Thomsen, Ditte
2017 Children’s felicitous use of intersubjective particles evidences sensitivity to constellations of perspectives. Glossa 2(1). 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina B.
2009 Implementing delayed actions. In Jack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 326–353. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonnot, Christine & C. B. Kodzasov
1998 Semantičeskoe var’irovanie diskursivnyx slov i ego vlijanie na linearizaciju i intonirovanie (Na primere častic ŽE i VED’). In Katja Kiseleva & Denis Paillard (eds.), Diskursivnye Slova Russkogo Jazyka: Opyt Kontekstno-Semantičeskogo Opisanija, 382–443. Moscow: Metatekst.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2012 Light negation and conventional implicatures. Paper presented at Information, discourse structure and levels of meaning, Barcelona, 25–26 October 2012.
Christopher, Nadežda
2016 The Kazakh particle ğoj: the first full description. Paper presented at Information structure and discourse in the minority languages of the Russian Federation. London, SOAS, 2–3 December 2016.
Degand, Liesbeth, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea
2013a Modal particles and discourse markers: Two sides of the same coin? In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), 1–18.Google Scholar
(eds.) 2013b Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2013 Same same but different: Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), 19–45.Google Scholar
Döring, Sophia & Sophie Repp
2019 The modal particles ja and doch and their interaction with discourse structure: Corpus and experimental evidence. In Sam Featherston, Robin Hörnig, Sophie von Wietersheim & Susanne Winkler (eds.), Experiments in focus: Information structure and semantic processing. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina
2019 Moods of Mehweb. In Michael Daniel, Nina Dobrushina & Dmitry Ganenkov (eds.), The Mehweb language: Essays on phonology, morphology and syntax, 117–165. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus
2010 A unified account of the semantics of discourse particles. Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2010: The 11th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue. 132–138.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus & Malte Zimmermann
2012 Stressed out! Accented discourse particles: The case of DOCH. In Ana Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 161, vol.11, 225–238. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Feldman, Anna
2001 Discourse markers: Accessing ‘hearer-old’ information: The case of Russian že . The LACUS forum 271. 187–201.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Shinichiro Ishihara
(eds.) 2016 The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foolen, Ad.
2013 Niederländisch toch und Deutsch doch: Gleich oder doch nicht ganz? Linguistik online 131. 85–102.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana
2016 Floating agreement and information structure: The case of Sanzhi Dargwa. Studies in Language 401. 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020  A grammar of Sanzhi Dargwa . Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker
2008 Modal particles and context updating: The functions of German ja, doch, wohl and etwa . In Heinz Vater & Ole Letnes (eds.), Modalverben und Grammatikalisierung, 153–177. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick
2010[published in 2014] German doch: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 461. 163–177.Google Scholar
2016 Information structure and discourse particles. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), 336–359. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel
2017 Modal particles ≠ modal particles (= modal particles): Differences between German modal particles and how to deal with them semantically. In Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds.), 144–172.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1978 Conditionals are topics. Language 541. 564–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard
1988 Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Yael Ziv
1998a Discourse markers: Introduction. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 1–12.Google Scholar
(eds.) 1998b Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalinina, Elena & Nina R. Sumbatova
2007 Clause structure and verbal forms in Nakh-Daghestanian. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness, 183–249. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Karagjosova, Elena
2004 The meaning and function of German modal particles. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes PhD thesis.Google Scholar
2012 Conjunct adverb doch and the notion of contrast. Linguistics 50(1). 27–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin
2002 Focus in Daghestanian word order typology. Linguistic Typology 61. 289–316.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2011 Grammar for adjusting assumptions: The Estonian enclitic -gi/-ki in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 43(12). 2879–2896. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1997 Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik 1361. 57–75.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Susanne Requardt
1991 A relevance-theoretic approach to the analysis of modal particles in German. Multilingua 101. 63–77.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2000 Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liefländer-Koistinen, Luise
1989 Zum deutschen doch und finnischen -han. Beobachtungen zur Übersetzbarkeit der deutschen Abtönungspartikel. In Harald Weydt (ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln, 185–195. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Maisak, Timur
2010 Predicate topicalization in East Caucasian languages. Paper presented at the SWL 4 Conference , 23–26 September 2010, Lyon.
Malchukov, Andrej L.
2004 Towards a semantic typology of adversative and contrast marking. Journal of Semantics 211. 177–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCoy, Svetlana
2003 Connecting information structure and discourse structure through “Kontrast”: The case of colloquial Russian particles -TO, ŽE, and VED’ . Journal of Logic, Language and Information 121. 319–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nekula, Malek
1996 System der Partikeln im Deutschen und Tschechischen: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Abtönungspartikeln. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parrott, Lillian
1997 Discourse organization and inference: The usage of the Russian particles že and ved’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Pasch, Renate, Ursula Brauße, Eva Breindl & Ulrich H. Waßner
2003 Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren: Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen, Satzadverbien und Partikeln). Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher
2007 The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 331. 165–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rathmayr, Renate
1985 Die russischen Partikeln als Pragmalexeme. München: Sagner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Repp, Sophie
2016 Contrast: Dissecting an elusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), 270–289.Google Scholar
Rinas, Karsten
2006 Die Abtönungspartikeln «doch» und «ja». Semantik, Idiomatisierung, Kombinationen, tschechische Äquivalente. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R.
2009 Constituent questions and argument-focus constructions: Some data from the North-Caucasian languages. In Johannes Helmbrecht, Yoko Nisima, Yong-Min Shin, Stavros Skopeteas & Elisabeth Verhoeven (eds.), Form and function in language research: Papers in honour of Christian Lehmann, 313–328. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R. & Yury A. Lander
2014 Darginskij govor selenija Tanty: Grammatičeskij očerk, voprosy sintaksisa. Moscow: JaSK.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R. & Rasul O. Mutalov
2003 A grammar of Icari Dargwa. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Szulc-Brzozowska, Magdalena
2010 Zur semantisch-pragmatischen Erweiterung der Abtönungsfunktion bei polnischen Modalpartikeln aus kontrastiver Sicht (Deutsch-Polnisch). Linguistik Online 441. 19–28.Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei
2001 From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 443–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temirbulatova, Sapijaxanum M.
2004 Xajdagskij dialekt darginskogo jayzka. Makhachkala: IJaLi DNC RAN.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria
1989 Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weydt, Harald & Klaas-Hinrich Ehlers
1987 Partikel-Bibliographie: Internationale Sprachenforschung zu Partikeln und Interjektionen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Zeevat, Henk, & Elena Karagjosova
2009 History and grammaticalisation of doch/toch . ZAS Papers in Linguistics. 135–152.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte
2008 Discourse particles in the left periphery. In Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives, 200–231. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
2011 Discourse particles. In Klaus v. Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. vol. 21, 2012–2038. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar