Cover not available
Part of
Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles
Edited by Pierre-Yves Modicom and Olivier Duplâtre
[Studies in Language Companion Series 213] 2020
► pp. 195–222

Chapter 8
Discourse particles in thetic judgments, in dependent sentences, and in non-finite phrases

| University of Vienna
I survey the discourse effects and conditions of selection of the German modal (discourse) particles on the basis of different questions that have always been in the focus of analytical descriptions (cf. Whitt 2015), which, however, can be formulated more clearly today. Special attention will be paid to the dimension of the Common Ground that mediates between the prior context and the current utterance or speaker and addressee and, depending on the individual modal particle morpheme, allows for negotiation of the question under discussion. Special focus is laid on the restrictions under which modal particles appear in dependent sentences.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Waltereit’s objection
  • 2.Modal particles in subordinate clauses
  • 3.MP in specific subordinate sentences
  • 4.Prosody as MP-selector
  • 5.MP-immobility
  • 6.MP in nonfinite constructions: Clause syntax or speech act felicity?
  • 7.MP and scene-setting
  • 8.Generalizations
  • 9.Discourse particle or modal particle?
  • 10.MP as CG-manipulators
  • 11.CG and speech act requirements for individual MPs
  • 12.About-topic
  • 13.Conclusion: Do you speak an epistemic or an MP-language?
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.213.08abr
References (38)
References
Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth. 2006. Personal and impersonal passives: Definite vs. indefinite diatheses. Transactions of the Philological Society 104: 230–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Introduction. In Modes of Modality. Modality, Typology, and Universal Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 149], Elisabeth Leiss & Werner Abraham (eds), 1–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner. 1990. Zur heterogenen Entfaltung der Modalpartikel im Ahd. und Mhd. In Neuere Forschungen zur historischen Syntax des Deutschen, Anne Betten & Claudia Maria Riehl (eds), 124–138. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. The grammaticalization of the German modal particles. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 223–380. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. Die deutschen Entsprechungen zu omdat und want: Nur weil und denn? In Addenda. Artikelen voor Ad Foolen, Sander Lestrade, Peter de Swart & Lotte Hogeweg (eds), 1–12. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
. 2016b. Was bedeutet Subordination mit V2 im Deutschen und Niederländischen: Omdat und want ebenso wie weil und denn? Leuvense Bijdragen 99–100: 122–132. Special issue Sprache in Raum und Geschichte, System und Kultur. Festschrift für Luk Draaye, K. Feyaerts, G. Brône, S. Schoonjans & G. Stuyckens.Google Scholar
. 2016c. Zum grundsätzlichen Unterschied von Ereignissubjunction (de re) und Prämissensubjunction (de dicto) im Westgermanischen. Glottotheory 7(2): 113–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Modalpartikel und Mirativeffekte. In Grammatische Funktionen aus Sicht der japanischen und deutschen Germanistik, Shin Tanaka, Elisabeth Leiss, Werner Abraham & Yasuhiro Fujinawa (eds), 76–108. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
. 2019. Modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bech, Gunnar. 1955. Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum, Band I, 2nd ed. 1983 [Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernas Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Meddelser 35, no. 2]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Sprache. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Vol IV. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Benincá, Paola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2, Ludigi Rizzi (ed.), 52–75. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik. 2013. Review of Marco Coniglio 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln. Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen [Studia Grammatica 73], Akademie Verlag, Berlin. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik LXXX: 206–209.Google Scholar
Brentano, Franz. 1874/1924. Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. (English translation: Brentano, Franz. 1973. Psychology from an Empirical Point of View. Translated by Antos C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell & Linda L. McAlister)Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cognogla, Federica. 2013. Syntactic Variation and Verb Second: A German Dialect in Northern Italy [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 201]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2008. Subordination, coordination: Form, semantics, pragmatics. In Subordination and Coordination Strategies in North Asian Languages, [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 300], Edward J. Vajda (ed.), 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2008. Asymmetric events, subordination, and grammatical categories. In Asymmetric Events [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 11], Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 151–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Is there really a syntactic category of subordination? In Contexts of Subordination – Cognitive, Typological and Discourse Perspectives [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 249], Laura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski, Helena Sorva (eds), 73–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonja. 2016. Subordination in cross-linguistic perspective. (1) Some traditional assumptions about subordination. Ms, University of Pavia.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of Topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Generalizations across Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner & Pittner, Karin. 1998. Zur Positionierung der Adverbiale im deutschen Mittelfeld. Linguistische Berichte 176: 489–534.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans Martin. 2017. Root infinitivals and modal particles. An interim report. Discourse Particles, Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 115–143. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 1992. Tense and to in Layamon. Folia Linguistica Historica 13(1–2): 133–142.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2011. (Non)Veridicality and mood choice: Subjunctive, polarity, and time. In Tense across Languages, Renate Musan & Monika Rathert (eds), 59–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haberland, Hartmut. 2006. Thetic-categorical distinction. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, Keith Brown (ed.), 676–677. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle 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
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Subordination in cognitive grammar. In Asymmetric Events [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 11], Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), 137–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Sonja. 2014. Modalpartikel [Kurze Einführungen in die germanistische Linguistik 17]. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Shin. 2017. Suche nach latenter Invarianz bei genetisch fremden Sprachen am Beispiel Deutsch-Japanisch. In Grammatische Functionen aus Sicht der japanischen und deutschen Germanistik, Shin Tanaka, Elisabeth Leiss, Werner Abraham & Yasuhiro Fujinawa (eds), 59–74. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Weydt, Harald. 1989. Partikelfunktionen und Gestalterkennen. In Sprechen mit Partikeln. Internationaler Kongreß über Sprachpartikeln 4.-8. August 1987, Harald Weydt (ed.). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2015. Review of Lena Brünjes, Das Paradigma deutscher Modalpartikeln: Dialoggrammatische Funktion und paradigmeninterne Oppositionen. Journal of Pragmatics 76: 181–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zybatov, Lew. 1990. Was die Partikeln bedeuten. Eine kontrastive Analyse Russisch-Deutsch. München: Otto Sagner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar