Cover not available
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. 218–257

Modal particles in different communicative types

 | German Department of Leibniz Universität, Hannover
The distribution and frequency of individual heterosemes of a hyperlemma in basic communicative types, which are distinguished according to their primary expression of dialogicity (i.e. their factual communicative immediacy/distance), is shown to be dependent on the interplay of i) the heteroseme’s basic word class function, ii) its degree of grammaticalization, and iii) the presence of secondary (embedded or simulated) communicative situations (i.e. conceptual immediacy/distance) in the linguistic material. The items investigated are denn ‘then’, ruhig ‘quiet’, ‘silent’, ‘peaceful’ and vielleicht ‘maybe’ in German, which as hyperlemmas incorporate a number of distinct heterosemes (denn, for example, is used as conjunction, comparative particle, modal particle etc.). The focus of this corpus-based investigation is on the modal particle functions of the three hyperlemmas. The corpora used are distinguished according to primary degree of communicative immediacy/distance.
Keywords: heterosemy, conjunction, modal particle, dialogic/monologic communicative type, embedding, conceptual communicative immediacy/distance, grammaticalization, indexical relation, simulation
Published online: 24 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.03die
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 (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Deppermann, Arnulf, Alexandra Gubina, Katharina König & Martin Pfeiffer
2024. Request for confirmation sequences in German. Open Linguistics 10:1 DOI logo
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. 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. 277 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 january 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.