Cover not available
Part of
The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast: Theoretical, empirical, and typological approaches
Edited by Christine Dimroth and Stefan Sudhoff
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 249] 2018
► pp. 129–172

Biased declarative questions in Swedish and German

Negation meets modal particles (νäl and doch wohl)

| Humboldt University Berlin
| University of Cologne
This paper investigates a class of biased questions with declarative syntax in Swedish and German that differ in their bias from the familiar class of declarative questions: rejecting questions (RQs), which may occur with or without negation. We provide a semantic-pragmatic analysis of RQs and show for negative RQs that the negation is non-propositional. We analyze the non-propositional negation as the speech-act modifying operator falsum (Repp 2009a, 2013). In both languages, falsum interacts with modal particles whose meanings relate to contrast and the epistemic state of the speaker. We propose that the illocutionary operator in RQs is rejectq, which is an operator that comes with presuppositions that are the source of the particular bias of RQs.
Keywords: non-propositional negation, question bias, modal particles, illocutionary operator, negative polarity item
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Question bias
  • 3.Bias in rejecting questions
  • 4.Rejecting questions in German
    • 4.1The meaning of the modal particles doch and wohl in isolation
    • 4.2Combining doch and wohl
    • 4.3Proposal for German rejecting questions
  • 5.Rejecting questions in Swedish
    • 5.1Fronted negation
    • 5.2The modal particle νäl
    • 5.3Combining fronted negation and modal particles
    • 5.4Experiment on the interaction of negation and the modal particle väl in Swedish negative rejecting questions
      • 5.4.1Method
      • 5.4.2Results
      • 5.4.3Discussion
  • 6.Proposal
    • 6.1Polarity-sensitive items in rejecting questions: Evidence for non-propositional negation
    • 6.2 rejectq and falsum: Illocutionary operators in rejection questions
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.05see
References (80)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1986. Die Bedeutungsgenese von Modalpartikeln. Die bedeutungskonstituierenden Variablen: Kontrastdomäne und Kontext. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 27: 1–44.Google Scholar
. 1991. Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about? In Discourse Particles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 203–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Swedish modal particles in a contrastive perspective. Language Sciences 18(1): 393–427.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The Swedish modal particle ‘väl’ in a contrastive perspective. Nordic Journal of English Studies 14(1): 174–200.Google Scholar
Alm, Maria. 2012. Why not Swedish modal particles? In Discourse & Grammar: A Festschrift for Valéria Molnár, Johan Brandtler, David Håkansson, Stefan Hubert & Eva Klingvall (eds), 29–52. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Asbach-Schnitker, Brigitte. 1977. Die Satzpartikel ‘wohl’. In Aspekte der Modalpartikeln, Harald Weydt (ed.), 38–62. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Beun, Robbert-Jan. 2000. Context and form: Declarative or interrogative, that is the question. In Abduction, Belief, and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics [Natural Language Processing 1], Harry Bunt & William Black (eds), 311–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borkin, Ann. 1971. Polarity items in questions. Chicago Linguistic Socierty 7: 53–62.Google Scholar
Brandt, Willy. 1989. Erinnerungen. Berlin: Propyläen-Verlag.Google Scholar
Brandtler, Johan & Håkansson, David. 2012. Negation, contrast, and the Swedish prefield. In Discourse & Grammar: A Festschrift for Valéria Molnár, Johan Brandtler, David Håkansson, Stefan Hubert & Eva Klingvall (eds),75–91. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
. 2014. Not on the edge. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17(2): 97–128.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1994. Mittelfeldreport V. In Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation?, Brigitta Haftka (ed.), 79–96. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Gunlogson, Christine. 2000. Aren’t positive and negative polar questions the same? Ms, UCSC/UCLA.Google Scholar
Christensen, Ken Ramshøj. 2005. Interfaces: Negation-syntax-brain. PhD dissertation, University of Aarhus.Google Scholar
Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen. 2015. ordinal – Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2015-6-28. <[URL]> (1 October 2016).
Cohen, Ariel. 2007. Incredulity questions. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Ron Artstein, Laure Vieu (eds), 133-140. Trento: University of Trento.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 1999. Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Monika. 1979. Wohl. Linguistische Studien, Reihe A. Arbeitsberichte 60: 101–140.Google Scholar
. 1985. Epistemische Bedeutung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Domaneschi, Filippo, Romero, Maribel & Braun, Bettina. 2017. Bias in polar questions: Evidence from English and German production experiments. Glossa 2(1): 1–28.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Döring, Sophia. 2016. Modal Particles, Discourse Structure and Common Ground Management. Theoretical and Empirical Aspects. PhD dissertation, Humboldt University Berlin.Google Scholar
Döring, Sophia & Repp, Sophie. To appear. The modal particles ‘ja’ and ‘doch’ and their interaction with discourse structure: Corpus and experimental evidence. In Information Structure and Semantic Processing, Sam Featherston, Robin Hörnig, Sophie von Wietersheim & Susanne Winkler (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter.
von Essen, Otto. 1966. Allgemeine und angewandte Phonetik. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina. 2017. Reportative evidentials and modal subordination. Lingua 186–187: 55–67.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gårding, Eva. 1979. Sentence intonation in Swedish. Phonetica 36(3): 207–215.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Gyuris, Beáta. 2017. On delimiting the space of bias profiles for polar interrogatives. Linguistische Berichte 251: 293–316.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2008. Modal particles and context updating – the functions of German ‘ja’, ‘doch’, ‘wohl’ and ‘etwa’. In Modalverben und Grammatikalisierung, Heinz Vater & Ole Letnes (eds), 153–177. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2011. Negative and positive polarity items. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 1660–1712. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick. 2014a. German ‘doch’: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 46 (1): 163–177.Google Scholar
. 2014b. Optative markers as communicative cues. Natural Language Semantics 22(1): 89–115.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gunlogson, Christine. 2003. True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives as Questions in English. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2008. A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22: 101–136.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta. 2017. New perspectives on bias in polar questions: A study of Hungarian ‘-e’. International Review of Pragmatics 9(1): 1–50.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haumann, Dagmar & Letnes, Ole. 2012. German ‘wohl’: An evidential? In Covert Patterns of Modality, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 202–237. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 487–535. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 1988. Vorwort und Nachwort zu Verumfokus. Sprache und Pragmatik 5(1): 1–7.Google Scholar
1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, David. 2003. Hesitation and interrogative Swedish intonation. Phonum 9: 185–188.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1991. On the semantics of modal particles. In Discourse Particles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 141–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit & Landman, Fred. 1990. Polarity sensitive any and free choice any. In Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, Part I, Martin Stokhof & Leen Torenvliet (eds), 227–252. Amsterdam: ITLI Publications.Google Scholar
Karagjosova, Elena. 2004. The Meaning and Function of German Modal Particles. PhD dissertation, Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Magdalena & Kaufmann, Stefan. 2012. Epistemic particles and performativity. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 22: 208–225.
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25(3–4): 209–257.Google Scholar
. 2015. Bias in commitment space semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25: 328–345.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Papers from the Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistics Society 17: 164–171.
Lindner, Katrin. 1991. ’Wir sind ja doch alte Bekannte’ The use of German ‘ja’ and ‘doch’ as modal particles. In Discourse Particles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 163–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan. 2007. Initial clausal negation – A Nordic areal feature. In Linguistics Festival, Andreas Ammann (ed.), 31–58. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst. 2012. Verumfokus – Satzmodus – Wahrheit. In Wahrheit – Fokus – Negation, Horst Lohnstein & Hardarik Blühdorn (eds), 31–67. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
. 2016. Verum Focus. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 290–313. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Modicom, Pierre-Yves. 2012. Shared knowledge and epistemic reductionism: Covert semantics of German modal particles. In Covert Patterns of Modality, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 281–311. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Müller, Sonja. 2017a. Combining ‘ja’ and ‘doch’: A case of discourse structural iconicity. In Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics, Joseph Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 225–254. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2017b. Redundancy effects in discourse: On the modal particle combinations ‘halt eben’ and ‘eben halt’ in German. In Pragmatics at its Interfaces, Stavros Assimakopoulos (ed.), 225–254. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Öhlschläger, Günther. 1989. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Modalverben im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Østbø Munch, Christine. 2013. North Germanic Negation: A Microcomparative Perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Østbø, Christine Bjerkan & Garbacz, Piotr. 2014. Doubling of negation. Nordic Atlas of Language Structures 1. <[URL]> (1 October 2016).
Petersson, David. 2008. Inte, nog och visst i mittfält och fundament. Nordlund 29: 111–153.Google Scholar
Petrone, Caterina & Niebuhr, Oliver. 2014. On the intonation of German intonation questions: The role of the prenuclear region. Language and Speech 57(1): 108–146.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2006. ¬(A&B). Gapping, negation and speech act operators. Research on Language and Computation 4(4): 397–423.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009a. Negation in Gapping. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. Topics and corrections. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, SinSpeC. Working Papers of the SFB 732, Arndt Riester & Torgrim Solstad (eds), 399–414. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
. 2013. Common ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and VERUM. In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning, Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 231–274. Leiden: Brill.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-hye. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 609–658.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, Robert & Šafářová, Marie. 2003. On polar questions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13: 292–309.
Šafářová, Marie. 2006. Rises and Falls: Studies in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Intonation. PhD dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
van der Sandt, Rob. 1991. Denial. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 27(2): 331–344.Google Scholar
Scherf, Nathalie. 2017. The syntax of Swedish modal particles. In Discourse Particles. Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics, Joseph Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 78–99. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. In preparation. Swedish Modal Particles. Analyses of ‘ju’, ‘väl’, ‘nog’, ‘visst’. PhD dissertation, Humboldt University Berlin.
Seeliger, Heiko. 2015. “Surely that’s not a negative declarative question?” Polar discourses in Swedish, German and English. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19, Eva Csipak & Hedde Zeijlstra (eds), 591–609. Göttingen: LinG.Google Scholar
. In preparation. Negation, Modal Particles and Bias in Questions with Declarative Syntax. PhD dissertation, Humboldt Unviersity Berlin.
Seeliger, Heiko & Repp, Sophie. 2017. On the intonation of Swedish rejections and rejecting questions. In Nordic Prosody. Proceedings of the XXIIth conference, Trondheim 2016, Wim A. van Dommelen & Jacques Koreman (eds), 135–146. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada. 2013. Biased polar questions in English and Japanese. In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning, Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 275–296. Leiden: Brill.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trawiński, Beata & Soehn, Jan-Philipp. 2008. A multilingual database of polarity items. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC‘08), Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis & Daniel Tapias (eds): ELRA. <[URL]> (1 September 2017).
Trinh, Tue. 2014. How to ask the obvious – A presuppositional account of evidential bias in English yes/no questions. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 71: 227–249.Google Scholar
Ulvestad, Bjarne. 1975. ‘Nicht’ im Vorfeld. Sprache der Gegenwart 34(2): 373–392.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2013. Not in the first place. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(3): 865–900.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2004. Zum Wohl: Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren. Linguistische Berichte 199: 253–286.Google Scholar
. 2011. Discourse particles. In Handbook of Semantics [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft HSK 33.2], Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds), 2011–2038. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Trotzke, Andreas
2023. Non-Canonical Questions, DOI logo
Alamillo, Asela Reig
2022.  ¿A poco así dices? Biased interrogatives with ¿A poco (no)…? in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context 19:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Reig Alamillo, Asela
2024. Interrogativas con qué y qué no en español de México: la codificación de grado epistémico. Cuadernos de Lingüística de El Colegio de México 11 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.