Article published In:
On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre
Edited by Kerstin Fischer and Kiki Nikiforidou
[Constructions and Frames 7:2] 2015
► pp. 218257
References (54)
Abraham, W
(1991) The grammaticalization of the German modal particles. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. II1. (pp. 331–380). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antonopoulou, E., & Nikiforidou, K
(2011) Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 2594–2609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Autenrieth, T
(2002) Heterosemie und Grammatikalisierung bei Modalpartikeln. Eine synchrone und diachrone Studie anhand von „eben“, „halt“, „e(cher)t“, „einfach“, „schlicht“ und „glatt“. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brünjes, L
(2014) Das Paradigma deutscher Modalpartikeln. Dialoggrammatische Funktion und paradigmeninterne Opposition. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bühler, K
(1989 [1934]) Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: UTB.Google Scholar
(1990 [1934]) Theory of language: The representational function of language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G
(1991) Deixis und Textsorten im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997) Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999a) Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999b) Die dialogische Bedeutungskomponente von Modalpartikeln. In B. Naumann (Ed.), Dialogue analysis and the mass media. Proceedings of the International Conference , Erlangen, April 2-3, 1998 (pp. 187–199). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
(2002) A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006a) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions. Special Vol. 11. [URL].Google Scholar
(2006b) Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 403–425). Amsterdam [etc.]: Elsevier.Google Scholar
(2008) The catalytic function of constructional restrictions in grammaticalization. In E. Verhoeven, S. Skopeteas, Y.-M. Shin, Y. Nishina, & J. Helmbrecht (Eds.), Studies on grammaticalization (pp. 219–240). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009) Konstruktionen und Paradigmen. ZGL, 371, 445–468.Google Scholar
(2010) On some problem areas in grammaticalization theory. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (pp. 17–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics, 491, 365–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) “Same same but different” – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In L. Degand, B. Cornillie, & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description (pp. 19–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a) Review of: Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale, Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUD. PBB: Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 1371, 108–121.Google Scholar
(2015b) Grammar needs context – grammar feeds context. Plenary talk held at the 14th International Pragmatics Conference , Antwerp, Belgium, 26-31 July 2015.
Diewald, G., & Ferraresi, G
(2008) Semantic, syntactic and constructional restrictions in the diachronic rise of modal particles in German. A corpus-based study on the formation of a grammaticalization channel. In E. Seoane & M.J. López-Couso (Eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization (pp. 77–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G., & Fischer, K
(1998) Zur diskursiven und modalen Funktion der Partikeln aber, auch, doch und ja in Instruktionsdialogen. Linguistica, 381, 75–99.Google Scholar
Diewald, G., Kresić, M., & Smirnova, E
(2009) The grammaticalization channels of evidentials and modal particles. Integration in textual structures as a common feature. In M. Mosegaard Hansen & J. Visconti (Eds.), Diachronic semantics and pragmatics (pp. 193–213). Amsterdam [u. a.]: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[DWB]
Deutsches Wörterbuch. Jakob und Wilhelm Grimm. 33 Bde1. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1854 ff. [Nachdruck München 1984].
Eckardt, R
(2012) Particles as speaker indexicals in free indirect discourse. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung, 2(2011)/1(2012), 109–119.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F
(1991) Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Narrog, H
(Eds.) (2011) Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helbig, G
(1994) Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. 3. durchges. Auflage. Leipzig: Langenscheidt Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Helbig, G., & Buscha, J
(2002) Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Berlin/München: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar
Hentschel, E
(1986) Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, E., & Weydt, H
(2002) Die Wortart “Partikel”. In A.D. Cruse, F. Hundsnurscher, M. Job, & P.R. Lutzeier (Eds.), Lexikologie. Internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen. 1. Halbband (pp. 646–653). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.J., & Traugott, E.C
(2003) Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ickler, T
(1994) Zur Bedeutung der sogenannten “Modalpartikeln”. Sprachwissenschaft, 191, 374–404.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R
(1971 [1957]) Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected writings, Vol. II: Word and language (pp. 130–147). The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Keil, M
(1990) Analyse von Partikeln für ein sprachverstehendes System – am Beispiel telefonischer Zugauskunftsdialoge. Magisterarbeit in der Philosophischen Fakultät II (Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften) der Universität Erlangen. [typoscript].Google Scholar
Koch, P
(1999) Court records and cartoons. Reflections of spontaneous dialogue in early Romance texts. In A. Jucker, G. Fritz, & A. Lebsanft (Eds.), Historical dialogue analysis (pp. 399–429). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W
(2011) Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania. Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch 2. Auflage. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kwon, M.-J
(2005) Modalpartikeln und Satzmodus. Untersuchungen zur Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik der deutschen Modalpartikeln [Diss. München].Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, F
(1991) Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language, 671, 475–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1985) Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Stanford . June 24-6, 1983 (pp. 109–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
(2002) Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp. 1–27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C
(1985) Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e stile, 201, 303–318.Google Scholar
(1995 [1982]) Thoughts on grammaticalization. Revised and expanded version. First published edition. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J
(1994) Modaler Kontrast und konzeptuelle Verschiebung. Studien zur Syntax und Semantik deutscher Modalpartikeln. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Möllering, M
(2004) The acquisition of German modal particles. A corpus-based approach. Bern [etc.]: Lang.Google Scholar
Molnár, A
(1998) Über die Grammatikalisierung von Modalpartikeln am Beispiel von eben und wohl . Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik, 81, 51–70.Google Scholar
(2002) Die Grammatikalisierung deutscher Modalpartikeln. Fallstudien. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang.Google Scholar
Paul, H
(2002) Deutsches Wörterbuch. Bedeutungsgeschichte und Aufbau unseres Wortschatzes. 10., überarb. und erw. Auflage von Helmut Henne, Heidrun Kämper und Georg Objartel. Tübingen: Niemeyer [1. edition 1897].Google Scholar
Persson, G
(1988) Homonymy, polysemy and heterosemy: The types of lexical ambiguity in English. In K. Hyldgaard-Jensen & A. Zettersten (Eds.), Symposium on lexicography III: Proceedings of the third international symposium on lexicography , May 14-16, 1986, at the University of Copenhagen (pp. 269–80). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Sweetser, E
(1988) Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 141, 389–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, M
(1989) Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C
(1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 651, 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUD. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., Strecker, B., [ et al.].
(1997) Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, Vol. 31. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by 9 other publications

Marmaridou, Sophia
2023. Sociopragmatics and Context. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context,  pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Cognola, Federica, Manuela Caterina Moroni & Ermenegildo Bidese
2022. Chapter 8. A comparative study of German auch and Italian anche. In Particles in German, English, and Beyond [Studies in Language Companion Series, 224],  pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Matsumoto, Yoshiko & Shoichi Iwasaki
2022. Multiplicity in grammar: Modes, genres and Speaker's knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 198  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bressem, Jana & Claudia Wegener
2021. Handling talk. Gesture 20:2  pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Smirnova, Elena
2021. Horizontal links within and between paradigms. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32],  pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Diewald, Gabriele
2020. Paradigms lost – paradigms regained. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 278 ff. DOI logo
Alm, Maria, Janina Behr & Kerstin Fischer
2018. Modal particles and sentence type restrictions: A construction grammar perspective. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 DOI logo
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2018. Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3  pp. 543 ff. DOI logo
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2021. Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in ‘stage directions’. Journal of Pragmatics 173  pp. 189 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 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.