Introduction
What can information-structural categories tell us about discourse
particles?
Article outline
- 1.Discourse particles and information structure: Preliminary definitions
- 2.Information-structural aspects of the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of
discourse particles
- 2.1Givenness and newness in the syntax and semantics of German discourse
particles
- 2.2Common Ground Management and speech act specification as loci for
information-structural strategies
- 2.3A cross-linguistic view: Equivalence and interactions between particles and
information-structural strategies
- 2.4Particle placement, polyfunctionality and the role of information
structure in the emergence and specialization of discourse
particles
- 3.“Epistemic authority”, “engagement” and “enimitives”: Information-structural approaches in the face of the newest
typological research on particle semantics
- 3.1Engagement, epistemic authority, egophoricity
- 3.2“Enimitives”
- 4.The contributions in this volume
- 5.Conclusion
-
Note
-
References
References (76)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1991. The
grammaticization of the German modal
particles. In Approaches
to Grammaticalization, Vol. II: Types of Grammatical
Markers [Typological Studies in Language
19], Elisabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 331–380. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Abraham, Werner. 2012. Illocutive
force is speaker and information source
concern. What type of syntax does the
representation of speaker deixis
require? In Abraham & Leiss (eds), 109–146.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Abraham, Werner. 2017. Modal
particles and Verum focus: New
corollaries. In Fedriani & Sansó (eds), 171–202.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth. 2012. Introduction:
Theory of Mind elements across
languages. In Abraham & Leiss (eds), 1–36.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth (eds). 2012. Modality
and Theory of Mind Elements across
Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Adams, James Noel. 1994. Wackernagel’s
law and the position of unstressed personal pronouns in classical
Latin. Transactions of the
Philological
Society 92(2): 103–178. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Anderson, Stephen R. 1993. Wackernagel’s
revenge: Clitics, morphology, and the syntax of second
position. Language 69(1): 68–98. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bayer, Josef & Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2011. Discourse
particles, clause structure, and question
types. The Linguistic
Review 28: 449–491. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beeching, Kate & Detges, Ulrich (eds). 2014. Discourse
Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic
Investigations of Language Use and Language
Change. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2019. The
frequency and distribution of modal particles in spoken
Swedish. Talk at
the 52nd meeting of Societas Linguistica
Europaea, Leipzig.
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic
Constraints on
Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bonnot, Christine. 1986. La
particule že marqueur de
thème. In Les
particules énonciatives en russe
contemporain 1, 125–151. Paris: Université Paris VII.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bonnot, Christine. 1990. La
particule to et la polémique cachée en russe
moderne: À propos du statut énonciatif du
thème. Revue des Études
Slaves 62(1): 67–75. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bonnot, Christine. 2015. Deixis,
intersubjectivité et thématisation. La particule énonciative
–to en russe
contemporain. Faits de
Langues 45: 11–34. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bonnot, Christine & Bottineau, Tatiana. 2012. Lorsque
la marque du conditionnel est une particule mobile: Le cas du
russe. Faits de
Langue 40: 189–196. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On
D-trees, beans, and
B-accent. Linguistics and
Philosophy 26: 511–545. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness,
contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of
view. In Subject
and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 25–55. New York NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Coniglio, Marco. 2008. Modal
particles in Italian. University of
Venice Working Papers in
Linguistics 18: 91–129.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. Same
same but different: Modal particles, discourse markers and the art
(and purpose) of
categorization. In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 19–45.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Egg, Markus & Mursell, Johannes. 2016. The
syntax and semantics of discourse
particles. In Discourse
particles: Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and
Semantics, Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 15–48. Berlin: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Endo, Yoshio. 2012. Illocutionary
force and modal particles in the syntax of
Japanese. In Abraham & Leiss (eds), 405–424.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, Nicholas, Bergqvist, Henrik & San Roque, Lila. 2018. The
grammar of engagement. Language and
Cognition 10: 110–170. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fernandez-Vest, Marie-Madeleine Jocelyne. 1994. Les
particules énonciatives dans la construction du
discours. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fischer, Kerstin. 2007. Grounding
and common ground: Modal particles and their translation
equivalents. In Lexical
Markers of Common Grounds, Anita Fetzer & Kerstin Fischer (eds), 47–66. Amsterdam: Elsevier.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Floyd, Simeon, Norcliffe, Elisabeth & San Roque, Lila (eds). 2018. Egophoricity [Typological
Studies in Language
118]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fraser, Bruce. 2001. The
clause start in Ancient Greek: Focus and the second
position. Glotta 77: 138–177.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gast, Volker. 2006. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grosz, Patrick. 2016. Information
structure and discourse
particles. In The
Oxford Handbook of Information
Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 336–358. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grzech, Karolina. 2016a. Discourse
Enclitics in Tena Kichwa: A Corpus-based Account of Information
Structure and Epistemic Meaning. PhD
dissertation, SOAS, University of London.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grzech, Karolina. 2016b. The
non-evidential meaning of the Tena Kichwa ‘direct
evidential’. Special issue
of York Papers in
Linguistics 3: 73–94.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2015. Use-conditional
Meaning. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1967. Notes
in transitivity and theme in English,
2. Journal of
Linguistics 3(2): 199–244. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hancil, Sylvie, Haselow, Alexander & Post, Margje (eds). 2015. Final
Particles. Berlin: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hargreaves, David. 2018. Am
I blue? Privileged access constraints in Kathmandu
Newar. In Floyd, Norcliffe & San Roque (eds), 79–107.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haselow, Alexander. 2015. Left
vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: The case of
anyway. In New
Directions in Grammaticalization
Research [Studies in Language Companion
Series 166], Andrew D. M. Smith, Graeme Trousdale & Richard Waltereit (eds), 157–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hentschel, Elke. 1986. Funktion
und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. Ja, doch, halt und
eben. Tübingen: Niemeyer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Izutsu, Katsunobu & Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita. 2013. From
discourse markers to modal/final particles: What the position
reveals about the
continuum. In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 217–235.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacobs, Joachim. 1991. On
the semantics of modal
particles. In Discourse
Particles. Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the
Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles
in German [Pragmatics & Beyond New
Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 141–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The
Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative
Perspective. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
König, Ekkehard. 1997. Zur
Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen
der Relevanztheorie. In special
issue Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache
III. Aspekte der Modalität im Deutschen – auch in kontrastiver
Sicht, Friedhelm Debus & Oddleif Leirbukt (eds). Germanistische
Linguistik 136: 67–75.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic
notions of information
structure. Acta Linguistica
Hungarica 55: 243–276. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krivonossov, Alexey. 1977. Die
modalen Partikeln in der deutschen
Gegenwartssprache. Göppingen: Kümmerle.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 2005. Focusing
on the matter of topic: A study of wa and
ga in
Japanese. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 14: 1–58. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kwon, Min-Jae. 2005. Modalpartikeln
und Satzmodus: Untersuchungen zur Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik der
deutschen Modalpartikeln. PhD
dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2012. Epistemicity,
evidentiality and Theory of
Mind. In Abraham & Leiss (eds), 109–146.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Métrich, René, Faucher, Eugène & Courdier, Gilbert (eds). 1999. Les
invariables difficiles: Dictionnaire allemand-français des
particules, connecteurs, interjections et autres mots de la
communication, Vol. 2:
bald-geradezu. Nancy: Nouveaux Cahiers d’Allemand.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Métrich, René, Faucher, Eugène & Courdier, Gilbert (eds). 2002. Les
invariables difficiles: Dictionnaire allemand-français des
particules, connecteurs, interjections et autres mots de la
communication, Vol. 3: gern-nur
so. Nancy: Nouveaux Cahiers d’Allemand.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Modicom, Pierre-Yves. 2012. The
epistemological treatment of information and the interpersonal
distribution of belief in language: German modal particles and the
typological
challenge. In Abraham & Leiss (eds), 361–382. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Molnár, Valéria. 1998. On
the syntax, phonology, semantics and pragmatics of the so-called
“contrastive topic” in Hungarian and
German. Acta Linguistica
Hungarica 45: 89–166. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Molnár, Valéria. 2002. Contrast –
From a contrastive
perspective. In Information
Structure in a Cross-Linguistic
Perspective, Hilde Hasselgård, Stig Johansson, Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds), 147–161. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Paillard, Denis. 2017. Scène
énonciative et types de marqueurs
discursifs. Langages 207: 17–32. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Padučeva, Edita. 1987. La
particule že: Sémantique, syntaxe et
prosodie. In Les
particules énonciatives en russe
contemporain 3, 1–44. Paris: Université Paris VII.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panov, Vladimir. 2018. Defining
the area of (sentence-)final particles in
Asia. Talk at
the 51st meeting of Societas Linguistica
Europaea in Tallinn.
Panov, Vladimir. 2019. The
markers of uncontroversial information in
Europe. Talk at
the 52nd meeting of Societas Linguistica
Europaea in Leipzig.
Prince, Ellen. 2002. The
ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and
information-status. In Discourse
Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising
Text [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series
16], William S. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 293–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Repp, Sophie. 2013. Common
ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and
verum. In Beyond
Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional
Meaning, Daniel Gutzmann & Hansmartin Gärtner (eds), 231–274. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schoonjans, Steven. 2013. Modal
particles: Problems in defining a
category. In Degand, Bert & Pietrandrea (eds), 133–161.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schoonjans, Steven. 2014. Oui,
il y a des particules de démodulation en
français. Cognitextes 11. <[URL]> ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2017. Shared
vs. primary epistemic authority in
Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru. Open
Linguistics 3: 178–218. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shinzato, Rumiko. 2017. Grammaticalization
of pragmatic markers, discourse markers and modal markers in
Japanese. In Fedriani & Sansò (eds), 305–333.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Squartini, Mario. 2017. Italian
non-canonical negations as modal particles: Information state,
polarity and
mirativity. In Fedriani & Sansò (eds), 203–228.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thijs, Kees. 2017. The
Attic particle μήν: Intersubjectivity, contrast and
polysemy. Journal of Greek
Linguistics 17: 73–112. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Revisiting
subjectification and
intersubjectification. In Subjectification,
Intersubjectification and
Grammaticalization, Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 29–70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Trotzke, Andreas & Turco, Giuseppina. 2015. The
grammatical reflexes of emphasis: Evidence from German
wh-questions. Lingua 168: 37–56. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Waltereit, Richard. 2006. Abtönung:
Zur Pragmatik und historischen Semantik von Modalpartikeln und ihren
funktionalen Äquivalenten in romanischen
Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Waltereit, Richard & Detges, Ulrich. 2007. Different
functions, different histories. Modal particles and discourse
markers from a diachronic point of
view. Catalan Journal of
Linguistics 6: 61–80. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Weydt, Harald. 1969. Abtönungspartikel:
Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen
Entsprechungen. Bad Homburg: Gehlen.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan (eds). 2013. Meaning
and
Relevance. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Discourse
particles in the left
periphery. In Dislocated
Elements in Discourse. Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic
Perspectives, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 200–231. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.