Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New perspectives
Edited by Chiara Fedriani and Andrea Sansó
[Studies in Language Companion Series 186] 2017
► pp. 171–202

Chapter 6
Modal particles and Verum focus

New corollaries

| University of Vienna | Ludwig Maximilian University Munich

The paper pursues two goals: first, comparing the behavior of speech act adverbials with modal particles, and second, the kinship of verum focus and modal particles with respect to their function in discourse. I explore the main difference between German(ic) grammatical modal particles and lexical discourse markers in other, non-Germanic, languages: By using modal particles in a core-grammatical sentence p, the speaker’s utterance of p sets up a thematic common ground with the further disposition that this temporarily final common ground is to be negotiated (agreed upon or challenged and, upon the addressee’s reaction, changed) with the addressee. Lexical correspondents to modal particles do not establish such a common ground and, therefore, do not invite, in an implicit fashion, the addressee’s appropriate reaction to the common ground. It is claimed that this type of grammatical modal particle is typically endorsed by v2-Vlast of German (and Dutch).

Article outline
  • 1.Speculations on the interactive character of modal particles and Verum focus
    • 1.1A word on the notion of verum focus
    • 1.2Applications and empirical links of vf
  • 2.On the specific relation between vf, sentence type, and mp-selection
    • 2.1Verum focus on grammatical components
    • 2.2Verum focus and sentence type
  • 3.First generalizations on the data sets
  • 4. mps in dependent sentences
  • 5.Focused mp : The mp-differential
    • 5.1The spellout of dialogical mp-intervention
    • 5.2A caveat: Pitch stress on mp need not be vf
    • 5.3 Nur and bloß as mp-synonyms?
  • 6.Modal particles as parameters of textual or discursive cohesion
    • 6.1Sentence typing
  • 7.Synthesis on ilp-slp and theticity: mps trigger topicality & stage level predicates
    • 7.1The theticity constraint
    • 7.2 mps have stronger illocutive force than modal adverbials
    • 7.3Generalizations on IL-SL distributions and mp-license
  • 8.Summary and conclusions: The inceptive questions
    • 8.1Main argument
    • 8.2Methodology of mp-interpretation
    • 8.3Criteria of mp-interpretability
    • 8.4Typological conclusion: the syntactic specificity and uniqueness of mps as opposed to epistemic adverbials
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.186.07abr
References
Abraham, Werner
1995/2013 Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Tübingen: Narr-Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2012a (Inter)subjectification or foreign consciousness/other’s mind alignment as synchronic and diachronic concepts of change? Conceptualizations and data fidelity. In Covert Patterns of Modality, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 24–78. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
2012b Sprecherdeixis und Merkmaldistributionsdifferential deutscher Modalitätselemente. Deutsche Sprache. Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 40: 72–95.Google Scholar
2013 Zur grammatischen Grundlegung von Modalität – semantisch-syntaktische Affinitäten zu nominaler Referenz, Aspekt und Quantifikation. In Funktionen von Modalität [Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen/LIT 55], Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 25–76. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Strong modality and truth disposability in syntactic subordination: What is the locus of the phase edge validating modal adverbials? Studia Linguistica 69(3): 119–159.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Trotzke, Andreas
2015 The derivation and interpretation of left peripheral discourse particles. In Discourse-oriented Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 226], Josef Bayer, Rainer Hinterhölzl & Andreas Trotzke (eds), 13–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brentano, Franz
1874/1924 Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. (English translation: Brentano, Franz 1973 Psychology from an Empirical Point of View, translated by Antos C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell & Linda L. McAlister. New York NY: Humanities Press).Google Scholar
Brünjes, Lena
2014 Das Paradigma Deutscher Modalpartikeln: Dialoggrammatische Funktion Und Paradigmeninterne Oppositionen. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl
1934 Sprachtheorie. Jena: Gustav Fischer. (English translation: 2011 Theorie of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins).Google Scholar
Bühring, Daniel
2004 Focus suppositions. Theoretical Linguistics 30(1): 65–76.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna
2011 German and Italian modal particles and clause structure. The Linguistic Review 28: 493–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Starke, Michal
1999 The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N.
1977 Reference to kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1993 A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–294.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco
2011 Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen [Studia Grammatica 73]. Berlin: Akademie-verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald
1967 The logical form of action sentences. In The Logic of Decision and Action, Nicolas Rescher (ed.), 81–95. Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly
1988 Bare plural subjects and the stage/individual contrast. In Genericity in Natural Language. Proceedings of the 1988 Tübingen Conference, Manfred Krifka (ed.). Tübingen.Google Scholar
1992 Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2006 Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 403–425. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Fischer, Kerstin
1998 Zur diskursiven und modalen Funktion der Partikeln aber, auch, doch und ja in Instruktionsdialogen. Linguistica 38: 75–99.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Smirnova, Elena
(eds) 2010 Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 49]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds) 2011 Modalität und Evidentialität [FOKUS 37]. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel & Castroviejo Miró, Elena
2011 The dimensions of VERUM. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 143–165. Paris: CSSP.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1995 Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality. Some observations on German modals. In Modality in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 32], Joan L. Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds), 17–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman
1982 Explikationen für 'normale Betonung' und 'normale Wortstellung. In Satzglieder im Deutschen, Werner Abraham (ed.), 75–154. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1992 Über Verum Fokus in Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 60: 20–45.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim
(ed.) 1992 Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard
2001 Topic-comment structure and the contrast between stage level and individual level predicates. Journal of Semantics 18(2): 83–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, Sebastian
2014: Interpretation selbständiger Sätze im Diskurs. Syntax und Intonation in Interaktion. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, Sebastian & Struckmeier, Volker
2015 When insubordination is an artefact (of sentence type theories). Talk and handout, SLE Leiden.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther & Heine, Bernd
2015 Sentence Grammar vs. Thetical Grammar. Two Competing Domains? Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1972 The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William
1994 Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV, Mandy Harvey & Lynn Santelmann (eds), 220–229. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth
2012 Aspectual patterns of covert coding of modality in Gothic. In Covert Patterns of Modality, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 175–201. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel
2008 Definiteness effects and the role of the coda in existential constructions. In Essays on Nominal Determination. From Morphology to Discourse Management [Studies in Language Companion Series 99], Henrik Hoeg-Müller & Alex Klinge (eds), 131–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst
2000 Satzmodus – kompositionell. Zur Parametrisierung der Modusphrase im Deutschen [Studia Grammatica 49]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
2007 On clause types and sentential force. Linguistische Berichte 209: 63–86.Google Scholar
2012 Verumfokus – Satzmodus – Wahrheit. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 18: 2–37. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
2014 Verum focus. In Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 1–29. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst & Stommel, Hildegard
2009 Verum focus and phases. Linguistic Analysis 35(1–4): 100–140. [Special issue Phase Edge Investigations, Phoevos Panageotidis & Kleanthes Grohmann (eds)].Google Scholar
Longa, Victor M., Lorenzo, Guillermo & Rigau, Gemma
1998 Subject clitics and clitic recycling. Locative sentences in some Iberian Romance languages. Journal of Linguistics 34(1): 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisnitzer, Benjamin
2012 Modality in the Romance languages: Modal verbs and modal particles. In Theory of Mind Elements and Modality across Languages, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-Hye
2004 On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 609–658. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1987 The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker
2014 Ja doch wohl C. Modal particles in German as C-related elements. Studia Linguistica 68(1): 16–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas
2015 DP-internal discourse particles, expressive content, and illocutionary force. Grazer Linguistische Studien 83: 91–104.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert
2004 Zur Strukturbedeutung von Interrogativsätzen. Linguistische Berichte 199: 313–350.Google Scholar
2013 An analysis of prosodic F-effects in interrogatives: Prosody, syntax and semantics. Lingua 124: 131–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte
2004 Zum 'Wohl': Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren. Linguistische Berichte 199: 253–286.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Averina, Anna Viktorovna
2018. MODAL VERBS OF GERMAN AS A PHENOMENON OF THE MAIN CLAUSE. Philology. Theory & Practice :2 ► pp. 270 ff. DOI logo
Catasso, Nicholas
2021. Some notes on central causal clauses in Venetian. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 57:4 ► pp. 519 ff. DOI logo
Modicom, Pierre-Yves
2022. Chapter 10. Modal particles in questions and wh-sensitivity. In Particles in German, English, and Beyond [Studies in Language Companion Series, 224], ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
Okamoto, Junji
2020. Perception description, report and thetic statements. In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262], ► pp. 352 ff. DOI logo
Oshanova, Ekaterina
2023. PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF MODALIZED CONSTRUCTIONS IN DIFFERENT STRUCTURAL LANGUAGES. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University 476:6 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 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.