Cover not available

Article published In: Functions of Language
Vol. 27:3 (2020) ► pp.340–372

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

More than just a modal particle

The enclitic =q’al in Sanzhi Dargwa

 | Friedrich Schiller Universität Jena
Published online: 4 June 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.17011.for
Abstract
Modal particles have been intensively studied in German and a few other European languages, but investigations of modal particles from little-known languages are rare. This paper examines in detail the morphosyntactic and the semantic properties of the Sanzhi Dargwa (Nakh-Daghestanian) modal particle =q’al. It is shown that the particle possesses the morphosyntactic properties that are commonly assumed for modal particles. The particle is then analyzed as presupposition trigger that interacts with focus and marks clauses as declarative sentences. It triggers two presuppositions, namely uncontroversiality and contrast/correction. Furthermore, it can express finiteness. The analysis suggests that accounting for modal particles as grammatical rather than lexical items with head status seems promising for further research.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Setting the stage
  • 3.The enclitic =q’al
    • 3.1Meaning and function
    • 3.2Morphosyntactic properties
  • 4.Previous accounts of cognates of the Sanzhi particle in other Dargwa varieties
  • 5.The many functions of =q’al
    • 5.1Is =q’al a marker of shared knowledge?
    • 5.2Is =q’al an adversative particle?
    • 5.3The impact of =q’al on information structure
    • 5.4Interim summary and open questions
  • 6.Cross-linguistic parallels and implications for the study of modal particles
  • 7.Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (64)
References
Abdullaev, Zapir G., Alburi A. Abdulsalamov, Magomed-Said M. Musaev & S. Sapijaxanum M. Temirbulatova. 2014. Sovremenij darginskij jazyk. Makhachkala: IJaLi DNC RAN.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner. 1991a. Introduction. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic, and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German, 1–10. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991b. Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about? In Werner Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic, and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German, 203–252. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Discourse marker = discourse particle = thetical = modal particle? A futile comparison. In Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds.), 241–280.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Eva Wuite. 1984. Kontrastive Partikelforschung unter lexikographischem Gesichtspunkt: Exempel am Deutsch-Finnischen. Folia Linguistica Europaea 181. 155–193.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1988. Retrieving propositions from context: Why and how. Journal of Pragmatics 121. 567–600. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Discourse markers and form-function correlations. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 223–259.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Volker Struckmeier (eds.). 2017. Discourse particles: Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berg, Helma van den. 2001. Dargi folktales: Oral stories from the Caucasus with an introduction to Dargi grammar. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boeg Thomsen, Ditte. 2017. Children’s felicitous use of intersubjective particles evidences sensitivity to constellations of perspectives. Glossa 2(1). 1–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. 2009. Implementing delayed actions. In Jack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 326–353. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonnot, Christine & C. B. Kodzasov. 1998. Semantičeskoe var’irovanie diskursivnyx slov i ego vlijanie na linearizaciju i intonirovanie (Na primere častic ŽE i VED’). In Katja Kiseleva & Denis Paillard (eds.), Diskursivnye Slova Russkogo Jazyka: Opyt Kontekstno-Semantičeskogo Opisanija, 382–443. Moscow: Metatekst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2012. Light negation and conventional implicatures. Paper presented at Information, discourse structure and levels of meaning, Barcelona, 25–26 October 2012.
Christopher, Nadežda. 2016. The Kazakh particle ğoj: the first full description. Paper presented at Information structure and discourse in the minority languages of the Russian Federation. London, SOAS, 2–3 December 2016.
Degand, Liesbeth, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea. 2013a. Modal particles and discourse markers: Two sides of the same coin? In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), 1–18.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds.). 2013b. Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. Same same but different: Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), 19–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Döring, Sophia & Sophie Repp. 2019. The modal particles ja and doch and their interaction with discourse structure: Corpus and experimental evidence. In Sam Featherston, Robin Hörnig, Sophie von Wietersheim & Susanne Winkler (eds.), Experiments in focus: Information structure and semantic processing. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina. 2019. Moods of Mehweb. In Michael Daniel, Nina Dobrushina & Dmitry Ganenkov (eds.), The Mehweb language: Essays on phonology, morphology and syntax, 117–165. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egg, Markus. 2010. A unified account of the semantics of discourse particles. Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2010: The 11th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue. 132–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egg, Markus & Malte Zimmermann. 2012. Stressed out! Accented discourse particles: The case of DOCH. In Ana Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 161, vol.11, 225–238. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, Anna. 2001. Discourse markers: Accessing ‘hearer-old’ information: The case of Russian že. The LACUS forum 271. 187–201.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.). 2016. The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 2013. Niederländisch toch und Deutsch doch: Gleich oder doch nicht ganz? Linguistik online 131. 85–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. A grammar of Sanzhi Dargwa. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2008. Modal particles and context updating: The functions of German ja, doch, wohl and etwa. In Heinz Vater & Ole Letnes (eds.), Modalverben und Grammatikalisierung, 153–177. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick. 2010[published in 2014]. German doch: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 461. 163–177.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Information structure and discourse particles. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), 336–359. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2017. Modal particles ≠ modal particles (= modal particles): Differences between German modal particles and how to deal with them semantically. In Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds.), 144–172.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 541. 564–589. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard. 1988. Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Yael Ziv. 1998a. Discourse markers: Introduction. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 1–12.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds.). 1998b. Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kalinina, Elena & Nina R. Sumbatova. 2007. Clause structure and verbal forms in Nakh-Daghestanian. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness, 183–249. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karagjosova, Elena. 2004. The meaning and function of German modal particles. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes PhD thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Conjunct adverb doch and the notion of contrast. Linguistics 50(1). 27–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin. 2002. Focus in Daghestanian word order typology. Linguistic Typology 61. 289–316.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2011. Grammar for adjusting assumptions: The Estonian enclitic -gi/-ki in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 43(12). 2879–2896. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 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
König, Ekkehard & Susanne Requardt. 1991. A relevance-theoretic approach to the analysis of modal particles in German. Multilingua 101. 63–77.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liefländer-Koistinen, Luise. 1989. Zum deutschen doch und finnischen -han. Beobachtungen zur Übersetzbarkeit der deutschen Abtönungspartikel. In Harald Weydt (ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln, 185–195. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maisak, Timur. 2010. Predicate topicalization in East Caucasian languages. Paper presented at the SWL 4 Conference, 23–26 September 2010, Lyon.
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2004. Towards a semantic typology of adversative and contrast marking. Journal of Semantics 211. 177–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCoy, Svetlana. 2003. Connecting information structure and discourse structure through “Kontrast”: The case of colloquial Russian particles -TO, ŽE, and VED’. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 121. 319–335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nekula, Malek. 1996. System der Partikeln im Deutschen und Tschechischen: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Abtönungspartikeln. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parrott, Lillian. 1997. Discourse organization and inference: The usage of the Russian particles že and ved’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PhD Thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pasch, Renate, Ursula Brauße, Eva Breindl & Ulrich H. Waßner. 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren: Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen, Satzadverbien und Partikeln). Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 331. 165–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rathmayr, Renate. 1985. Die russischen Partikeln als Pragmalexeme. München: Sagner. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2016. Contrast: Dissecting an elusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), 270–289.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rinas, Karsten. 2006. Die Abtönungspartikeln «doch» und «ja». Semantik, Idiomatisierung, Kombinationen, tschechische Äquivalente. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R. 2009. Constituent questions and argument-focus constructions: Some data from the North-Caucasian languages. In Johannes Helmbrecht, Yoko Nisima, Yong-Min Shin, Stavros Skopeteas & Elisabeth Verhoeven (eds.), Form and function in language research: Papers in honour of Christian Lehmann, 313–328. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R. & Yury A. Lander. 2014. Darginskij govor selenija Tanty: Grammatičeskij očerk, voprosy sintaksisa. Moscow: JaSK.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R. & Rasul O. Mutalov. 2003. A grammar of Icari Dargwa. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szulc-Brzozowska, Magdalena. 2010. Zur semantisch-pragmatischen Erweiterung der Abtönungsfunktion bei polnischen Modalpartikeln aus kontrastiver Sicht (Deutsch-Polnisch). Linguistik Online 441. 19–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2001. From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 443–464. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Temirbulatova, Sapijaxanum M. 2004. Xajdagskij dialekt darginskogo jayzka. Makhachkala: IJaLi DNC RAN.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weydt, Harald & Klaas-Hinrich Ehlers. 1987. Partikel-Bibliographie: Internationale Sprachenforschung zu Partikeln und Interjektionen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeevat, Henk, & Elena Karagjosova. 2009. History and grammaticalisation of doch/toch. ZAS Papers in Linguistics. 135–152.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Discourse particles in the left periphery. In Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives, 200–231. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Discourse particles. In Klaus v. Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. vol. 21, 2012–2038. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Shirtz, Shahar
2023. Siuslaw final-consonant reduplication and the anti-mirative domain. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 76:4 ► pp. 471 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue