Article published in:
Functions of Language
Vol. 27:3 (2020) ► pp. 340372
References

References

Abdullaev, Zapir G., Alburi A. Abdulsalamov, Magomed-Said M. Musaev & S. Sapijaxanum M. Temirbulatova
2014Sovremenij darginskij jazyk. Makhachkala: IJaLi DNC RAN.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner
1991aIntroduction. 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991bDiscourse 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Discourse marker = discourse particle = thetical = modal particle? A futile comparison. In Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds.), 241–280.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Eva Wuite
1984Kontrastive Partikelforschung unter lexikographischem Gesichtspunkt: Exempel am Deutsch-Finnischen. Folia Linguistica Europaea 18. 155–193.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira
1988Retrieving propositions from context: Why and how. Journal of Pragmatics 12. 567–600. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998Discourse markers and form-function correlations. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 223–259.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Volker Struckmeier
(eds.) 2017Discourse particles: Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Berg, Helma van den
2001Dargi folktales: Oral stories from the Caucasus with an introduction to Dargi grammar. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.Google Scholar
Boeg Thomsen, Ditte
2017Children’s felicitous use of intersubjective particles evidences sensitivity to constellations of perspectives. Glossa 2(1). 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina B.
2009Implementing delayed actions. In Jack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 326–353. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bonnot, Christine & C. B. Kodzasov
1998Semantičeskoe 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
Büring, Daniel
2012Light negation and conventional implicatures. Paper presented at Information, discourse structure and levels of meaning, Barcelona, 25–26 October 2012.
Christopher, Nadežda
2016The 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
2013aModal particles and discourse markers: Two sides of the same coin? In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), 1–18.Google Scholar
(eds.) 2013bDiscourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2013Same 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
Döring, Sophia & Sophie Repp
2019The 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina
2019Moods 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
Egg, Markus
2010A 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
Egg, Markus & Malte Zimmermann
2012Stressed out! Accented discourse particles: The case of DOCH. In Ana Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, vol.1, 225–238. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Feldman, Anna
2001Discourse markers: Accessing ‘hearer-old’ information: The case of Russian že . The LACUS forum 27. 187–201.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Shinichiro Ishihara
(eds.) 2016The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foolen, Ad.
2013Niederländisch toch und Deutsch doch: Gleich oder doch nicht ganz? Linguistik online 13. 85–102.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana
2016Floating agreement and information structure: The case of Sanzhi Dargwa. Studies in Language 40. 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020 A grammar of Sanzhi Dargwa . Berlin: Language Science Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker
2008Modal 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
Grosz, Patrick
2010[published in 2014] German doch: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 46. 163–177.Google Scholar
2016Information structure and discourse particles. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), 336–359. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel
2017Modal 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
Haiman, John
1978Conditionals are topics. Language 54. 564–589. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard
1988Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Yael Ziv
1998aDiscourse markers: Introduction. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 1–12.Google Scholar
(eds.) 1998bDiscourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kalinina, Elena & Nina R. Sumbatova
2007Clause structure and verbal forms in Nakh-Daghestanian. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness, 183–249. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Karagjosova, Elena
2004The meaning and function of German modal particles. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes PhD thesis.Google Scholar
2012Conjunct adverb doch and the notion of contrast. Linguistics 50(1). 27–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin
2002Focus in Daghestanian word order typology. Linguistic Typology 6. 289–316.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2011Grammar for adjusting assumptions: The Estonian enclitic -gi/-ki in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 43(12). 2879–2896. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1997Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik 136. 57–75.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Susanne Requardt
1991A relevance-theoretic approach to the analysis of modal particles in German. Multilingua 10. 63–77.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2000Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liefländer-Koistinen, Luise
1989Zum deutschen doch und finnischen -han. Beobachtungen zur Übersetzbarkeit der deutschen Abtönungspartikel. In Harald Weydt (ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln, 185–195. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Maisak, Timur
2010Predicate topicalization in East Caucasian languages. Paper presented at the SWL 4 Conference , 23–26 September 2010, Lyon.
Malchukov, Andrej L.
2004Towards a semantic typology of adversative and contrast marking. Journal of Semantics 21. 177–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, Svetlana
2003Connecting information structure and discourse structure through “Kontrast”: The case of colloquial Russian particles -TO, ŽE, and VED’ . Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12. 319–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nekula, Malek
1996System der Partikeln im Deutschen und Tschechischen: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Abtönungspartikeln. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parrott, Lillian
1997Discourse organization and inference: The usage of the Russian particles že and ved’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Pasch, Renate, Ursula Brauße, Eva Breindl & Ulrich H. Waßner
2003Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren: Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen, Satzadverbien und Partikeln). Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher
2007The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 165–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rathmayr, Renate
1985Die russischen Partikeln als Pragmalexeme. München: Sagner. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Repp, Sophie
2016Contrast: Dissecting an elusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), 270–289.Google Scholar
Rinas, Karsten
2006Die Abtönungspartikeln «doch» und «ja». Semantik, Idiomatisierung, Kombinationen, tschechische Äquivalente. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R.
2009Constituent 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
Sumbatova, Nina R. & Yury A. Lander
2014Darginskij govor selenija Tanty: Grammatičeskij očerk, voprosy sintaksisa. Moscow: JaSK.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R. & Rasul O. Mutalov
2003A grammar of Icari Dargwa. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Szulc-Brzozowska, Magdalena
2010Zur semantisch-pragmatischen Erweiterung der Abtönungsfunktion bei polnischen Modalpartikeln aus kontrastiver Sicht (Deutsch-Polnisch). Linguistik Online 44. 19–28.Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei
2001From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 443–464. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Temirbulatova, Sapijaxanum M.
2004Xajdagskij dialekt darginskogo jayzka. Makhachkala: IJaLi DNC RAN.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria
1989Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weydt, Harald & Klaas-Hinrich Ehlers
1987Partikel-Bibliographie: Internationale Sprachenforschung zu Partikeln und Interjektionen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Zeevat, Henk, & Elena Karagjosova
2009History and grammaticalisation of doch/toch . ZAS Papers in Linguistics. 135–152.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte
2008Discourse 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
2011Discourse particles. In Klaus v. Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. vol. 2, 2012–2038. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar