Cover not available

Article published In: Evolutionary Linguistic Theory: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Modal particles as test case for multi-layer approaches to commitment and assertion

 | Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3
Published online: 26 February 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00062.mod
Abstract
This article discusses the controversial classification of “modal particles” (MPs) in German linguistics, debating whether they are truly “modal” or primarily contribute to illocutionary force. It explores particles like wohl and ja to show that both have to be regarded as modal egophorics. The analysis builds on Frege’s hierarchy of propositional operations, arguing that MPs function as judgment specifiers rather than direct contributors to epistemic stance. The article also discusses existing multi-layered models of commitment, going back to Frege. Despite their frequent lack of consideration for the intersubjective nature of epistemic judgments, Fregean approaches help describe the fine structure behind epistemic commitment. It is showed that MPs intervene as specifiers of what Frege and Krifka call a judgment. Throughout the paper, particular attention is paid to retroactions between the various layers of assertion, which can give rise to the impression that MPs are located higher than their actual place in the functional hierarchy. It is claimed that these effects are due to pragmatic implications inhibiting the felicity conditions of some theoretically possible combinations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: From illocutionary force to Modal particles
  • 2.MP sensitivity to illocutionary types and the question of egophoricity
    • 2.1German wohl, the interrogative flip and the egophoric hypothesis
    • 2.2Egophorics and logophorics
  • 3.Thought, judgment, assertion: Frege’s hierarchy and the decomposition of sentence moods
    • 3.1Frege’s typology of subordinate clauses
    • 3.2The location of the act of judgment
    • 3.3From judgment to commitments
  • 4.Situational anchoring
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (52)
References
Abraham, W. (2010). Diskurspartikeln zwischen Modalität, Modus und Fremdbewussteins-Abgleich (Theory of Mind). In Th. Harden & E. Hentschel (Eds.), Forty Years of Particle Research (p. 33–70). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Traces of Bühler’s semiotic legacy in modern linguistics. In W. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind elements across languages (p. 211–250). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Deutsche Modalpartikel in Nichthauptsatz- und Infinitkonstruktionen. Studia Germanica Gedanensia, (41), 17–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020a). Modality in Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020b). Discourse particles in thetic judgments, in dependent sentences, and in non-finite phrases. In P.-Y. Modicom & O. Duplâtre (Eds.), Information-structural perspectives on discourse particles (p. 195–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abraham, W. & Leiss, E. (2012). Introduction: Theory of Mind elements across languages. In W. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind elements across languages (p. 1–36). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergqvist, H. (2020). Swedish modal particles as markers of engagement: Evidence from distribution and frequency. Folia Linguistica 541, 21. 469–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Egophoricity and Perspective: A View From Spoken Swedish. Frontiers in Communication 61, 627144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergqvist, H., Grzech, K. & Schultze-Berndt, E. (Eds.) (2020). Knowing in interaction: Empirical approaches to epistemicity and intersubjectivity in langage. Folia Linguistica 54 (2), 281–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergqvist, H. & Kittilä, S. (Eds.) (2019). Evidentiality, egophoricity and engagement. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena/Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coniglio, M. (2011). Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln. Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doherty, M. (1985). Epistemische Bedeutung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faller, M. (2024). The interrogative flip with illocutionary evidentials. Folia Linguistica 59 (1), 175–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1892/2008). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. In G. Patzig (Ed.): Frege. Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung (p. 23–46). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1918/2003). Der Gedanke". In G. Patzig (Ed.): Frege. Logische Untersuchungen (p. 35–62). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gast, V. (2008). Modal particles and context updating: The functions of German ‘ja’, ‘doch’, ‘wohl’ and ‘etwa’. In H. Vater & O. Letnes (Eds.), Modalverben und Grammatikalisierung (p. 153–177). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givon, T. (1994). Irrealis and the Subjunctive. Studies in Language 18(2), 265–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gosselin, L. (2010). Les modalités en français: La validation des représentations. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). De l’opposition modus / dictum à la distinction entre modalités extrinsèques et modalités intrinsèques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 2015, CX-11, 1–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosz, P. (2015). Information structure and discourse particles. In C. Féry & Sh. Ishihara (Eds), The Oxford handbook of information structure (p. 336–358). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grzech, K. & Bergqvist, H. (Eds.) (2025). Expanding the Boundaries of Epistemicity: Epistemic Modality, Evidentiality, and Beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutzmann, D. (2011). Ob einer wohl recht hat? Two sentence mode theories for German in comparison, Deutsche Sprache 39.11, 65–84.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Use-conditional meaning. Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Modal particles =/= modal particles (=modal particles). In J. Bayer & V. Struckmeier (eds.), Discourse Particles. Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics (p. 144–172). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hargreaves, D. (2018). “Am I blue?:” Privileged access constraints in Kathmandu Newar. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds), Egophoricity (p. 79–107). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. (1991). On the semantics of modal particles. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Discourse Particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German (p. 141–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, E. (1997). Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik 1361, 57–75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 337–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, K. (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 551, 243–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (2023). Layers of assertive clauses: Propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. In J. Hartmann & A. Wöllstein (Eds.), Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich / Propositional arguments in cross-linguistic research (p. 116–183). Tübingen: Narr. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leiss, E. (2012). Epistemicity, evidentiality and Theory of Mind. In W. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind elements across languages (p. 39–66). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lohnstein, H. (2000). Satzmodus — kompositionell. Zur Parametrisierung der Modusphrase im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2011). What is assertion? In J. Brown & H. Cappelen (Eds.), Assertion. New philosophical essays (p. 79–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marty, A. (1918). Über subjektlose Sätze und das Verhältnis der Grammatik zu Logik und Psychologie. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Modicom, P.-Y. (2016). L’énoncé et son double: recherches sur le marquage de l’altérité énonciative en allemand. PhD thesis, U. Paris-Sorbonne.
(2018). Modalpartikeln, Urteilsakt und Satzmodus. In S. Zeman & E. Leiss (Eds.), Zukunft der Grammatik und Grammatik der Zukunft. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Werner Abraham (p. 291–310). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2012). The distribution of knowledge in (un)acceptable questions. In W. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages (p. 147–210). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ormelius-Sandblom, E. (1997). The modal particle schon: Its syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. In T. Swan & O. J. Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives (p. 75–132). Berlin, Den Haag: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panov, V. (2020). The marking of uncontroversial information in Europe: presenting the enimitive. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 52 (1), 1–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27, 1, 53–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
San Roque, L., Floyd, S. & Norcliffe, E. (2017). Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua 186–1871, 120–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Egophoricity: An introduction. In S. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.), Egophoricity (p. 1–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1964). Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria 30, 2, 96–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thurmair, M. (1989). Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Berlin, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. (2006). On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics 32.31, 257–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waltereit, R. (2006). Abtönung: Zur Pragmatik und historischen Semantik von Modalpartikeln und ihren funktionalen Äquivalenten in romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weydt, H. (1969). Abtönungspartikel: Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen Entsprechungen. Bad Homburg: Gehlen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmermann, M. (2004). Zum ‘Wohl’: Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren, Linguistische Berichte 1991, 253–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue