Cover not available

In: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

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

Chapter 6
Modal particles and Verum focus

New corollaries

 | University of Vienna | Ludwig Maximilian University Munich
Published online: 13 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.186.07abr
Abstract
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
References (49)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1995/2013. Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Tübingen: Narr-Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012b. Sprecherdeixis und Merkmaldistributionsdifferential deutscher Modalitätselemente. Deutsche Sprache. Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 40: 72–95.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Brünjes, Lena. 2014. Das Paradigma Deutscher Modalpartikeln: Dialoggrammatische Funktion Und Paradigmeninterne Oppositionen. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Jena: Gustav Fischer. (English translation: 2011. Theorie of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühring, Daniel. 2004. Focus suppositions. Theoretical Linguistics 30(1): 65–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2011. German and Italian modal particles and clause structure. The Linguistic Review 28: 493–531. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–294.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen [Studia Grammatica 73]. Berlin: Akademie-verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds). 2011. Modalität und Evidentialität [FOKUS 37]. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman. 1982. Explikationen für 'normale Betonung' und 'normale Wortstellung. In Satzglieder im Deutschen, Werner Abraham (ed.), 75–154. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Über Verum Fokus in Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 60: 20–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim (ed.). 1992. Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2001. Topic-comment structure and the contrast between stage level and individual level predicates. Journal of Semantics 18(2): 83–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaiser, Sebastian. 2014: Interpretation selbständiger Sätze im Diskurs. Syntax und Intonation in Interaktion. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaiser, Sebastian & Struckmeier, Volker. 2015. When insubordination is an artefact (of sentence type theories). Talk and handout, SLE Leiden.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther & Heine, Bernd. 2015. Sentence Grammar vs. Thetical Grammar. Two Competing Domains? Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst. 2000. Satzmodus – kompositionell. Zur Parametrisierung der Modusphrase im Deutschen [Studia Grammatica 49]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. On clause types and sentential force. Linguistische Berichte 209: 63–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Verumfokus – Satzmodus – Wahrheit. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 18: 2–37. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Verum focus. In Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 1–29. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-Hye. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 609–658. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker. 2014. Ja doch wohl C. Modal particles in German as C-related elements. Studia Linguistica 68(1): 16–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas. 2015. DP-internal discourse particles, expressive content, and illocutionary force. Grazer Linguistische Studien 83: 91–104.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2004. Zur Strukturbedeutung von Interrogativsätzen. Linguistische Berichte 199: 313–350.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. An analysis of prosodic F-effects in interrogatives: Prosody, syntax and semantics. Lingua 124: 131–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2004. Zum 'Wohl': Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren. Linguistische Berichte 199: 253–286.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Oshanova, Ekaterina
2023. PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF MODALIZED CONSTRUCTIONS IN DIFFERENT STRUCTURAL LANGUAGES. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University 476:6 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Modicom, Pierre-Yves
2022. 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
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 & Olivier Duplâtre
2020. Introduction. In Information-structural perspectives on discourse particles [Studies in Language Companion Series, 213], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Okamoto, Junji
2020. Perception description, report and thetic statements. In Thetics and Categoricals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 262], ► pp. 351 ff. DOI logo
Averina, Anna Viktorovna
2018. MODAL VERBS OF GERMAN AS A PHENOMENON OF THE MAIN CLAUSE. Philology. Theory & Practice :2 ► pp. 270 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 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