Cover not available
Article published In:
Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 4:2 (2023) ► pp.195–227

The modal particle elicitation test

| University of Münster
German modal particles (MPs) show semantic, pragmatic, and syntactic peculiarities which make them specifically interesting for research on language processing. However, so far, there are no tests available that reliably elicit MPs in order to study their production in different groups of speakers. This paper presents the Modal Particle Elicitation Test – MoPET. Based on simple contexts and black and white drawings, it is the first test that elicits a wide range of MPs by incorporating the semantic, pragmatic, and syntactic peculiarities of MPs. The goal of this paper is to evaluate whether the test reliably elicits MPs in adult German L1 speakers, in order to use it for research on different speakers (e.g., patients and L1/L2 learners) in the future. Results of a pilot study with 27 adult native speakers of German demonstrate that the test reliably elicits a wide range of nineteen different MPs and a wide range of different sentence types that are strongly interconnected with the use of MPs. Crucially, each of the twelve critical scenes of the test elicited at least one MP, and each participant produced at least one MP, which also makes the test suitable for diagnostic purposes.
Keywords: modal particles, elicitation, production, contexts, pictures
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background on modal particles
    • 2.1Semantic, pragmatic, and syntactic peculiarities of MPs
    • 2.2Existing tests in particle research and why they don’t meet the needs
      • 2.2.1Selection tests
      • 2.2.2Elicitation tests
  • 3.The Modal Particle Elicitation Test (MoPET)
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials
      • 3.2.1The story
      • 3.2.2The pictures and the written context
      • 3.2.3The story completions (critical scenes)
    • 3.3Procedure
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.21018.rei
References (38)
References
Alm, M., Behr, J., & Fischer, K. (2018). Modal particles and sentence type restrictions: A construction grammar perspective. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 3 1, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, J. (2012). From modal particle to interrogative marker: A study of German denn. In L. Brugè, A. Cardinaletti, G. Giusti, N. Munaro & C. Poletto (Eds.), Functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 11–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). German particles in a modular grammar: Neurolinguistic evidence. In Abraham, W. (Ed.), Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. 253–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benazzo, S. & Dimroth, C. (2015). Addditive particles in Romance and Germanic languages: Are they really similar? Linguistik Online, 71 1, 9–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonvin, A. & Dimroth, C. (2016). Additive linking in second language discourse: Lexical, syntactic and discourse organizational choices in intermediate and advanced learners of L2 German with L1 French. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique 18 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimroth, C. (2006). The Finite Story. Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
(2007). Zweitspracherwerb bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede. In T. Anstatt (Ed.), Mehrsprachigkeit bei Kindern und Erwachsenen. Tübingen: Narr-Francke, 115–137.Google Scholar
Dimroth, C., Andorno, C., Benazzo, S., & Verhagen, J. (2010). Given claims about new topics. How Romance and Germanic speakers link changed and maintained information in narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42 1, 3328–3344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimroth, C. (2012). Videoclips zur Elizitation von Erzählungen: Methodische Überlegungen und einige Ergebnisse am Beispiel der Finite Story. In B. Arenholz (Ed.), Einblicke in die Zweitspracherwerbsforschung und ihre methodischen Verfahren. Berlin: De Gruyter, 77–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimroth, C. & Benazzo, S. (2018). Developing strategies for encoding additive and contrastive relations in French and German child narratives. In M. Garcia & M. Uth (Eds.), Focus realization and interpretation in Romance and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 313–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörre, L., Czypionka, A., Trotzke, A., & Bayer, J. (2018). The Processing of German Modal Particles and their Counterparts. Linguistische Berichte, 255 1, 313–346.Google Scholar
Dörre, L. & Trotzke, A. (2019). The Processing of Secondary Meaning: An Experimental Comparison of Focus- and Modal Particles in wh-questions. In D. Gutzmann & K. Turgay (Eds.), Secondary Content – The Semantics and Pragmatics of Side Issues. Leiden: Brill, 143–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörre, L. (unpublished manuscript). Sprachtagebuch von Marie-Louise.
Fischer, K. (2007). Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation equivalents. In A. Fetzer & K. Fischer (Eds.), Lexical markers of common grounds. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 47–66.Google Scholar
Grosz, P. (2014). Optative markers as communicative cues. Natural Language Semantics, 22 1, 89–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Information Structure and Discourse Particles. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara (Eds.), Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, D. (2013). Expressives and beyond. An introduction to varieties of use-conditional meaning. In D. Gutzmann & H.-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning. Leiden: Brill. 1–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helbig, G. (1988). Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. Leipzig: Verlag Exzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Hentschel, E. (1986). Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Partikelprofile literarischer Texte. In T. Harden & E. Hentschel (Eds.), 40 Jahre Partikelforschung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. 97–118.Google Scholar
Hogeweg, L., de Hoop, H., Ramachers, S., van der Silk, F., & Wottrich, V. (2016). The L2 acquisition of the German particle doch . International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54 1, 201–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Husso, A. (1981). Zum Gebrauch von Abtönungspartikeln bei Ausländern. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Partikeln und Deutschunterricht: Abtönungspartikeln für Lerner des Deutschen. Heidelberg: Groos. 81–99.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. (1986). Abtönungsmittel als Illokutionstypmodifikatoren. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 27 1, 100–111.Google Scholar
König, E. (1997). Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik, 136 1, 57–75.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1999). Beyond ouch and oops. How descriptive and expressive meaning interact. Cornell Conference on Theories of Context Dependency.
Leiner, D. J. (2014). SoSci Survey (Version 2.6.00-i).Google Scholar
Montag, M. (2014). Die Abtöungspartikeln im DaF-Unterricht – Zur Effektivität der methodischen Vermittlung von Partikelbedeutungen. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2014). Modalpartikeln. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Reimer, L. & Dimroth, C. (2021). Added alternatives in spoken interaction: A corpus study on German ‘auch’. Languages, 6 1, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Repp, S. (2013). Common ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and VERUM. In D. Gutzmann & H.-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Beyond Expressives – Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning. Leiden: Brill. 231–274.Google Scholar
Rost-Roth, M. (1999). Der (Nicht-)Erwerb der Modalpartikeln. Eine Fallstudie zum Partikelerwerb einer italienischen Deutschlernerin im Vergleich mit anderen Lernervarietäten. In N. Dittmar & A. Ramat (Eds.), Grammatica e discorso. Studi sull’acquisizione dell’italiano e del tedesco, Tübingen: Stauffenburg. 165–209.Google Scholar
Schoonjans, S. (2022). Schwierige Wörtchen leicht übersetzt! Modalpartikeln und sinnverwandte Ausdrücke im Deutschen, Englischen, Niederländischen und Französischen. Wien: Böhlau Verlag.Google Scholar
Thurmair, M. (1989). Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Satztyp und Modalpartikeln. In J. Meibauer, M. Steinbach & H. Altmann (Eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. 627–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, A., Bidese, E., & Moroni, M. C. (2020). German discourse particles in the second language classroom. Teasing apart learning problems at the syntax-pragmatics interface. Pedagogical Linguistics, 1 1, 184–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weydt, H. (1969). Abtönungspartikeln. Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen Entsprechungen. Bad Homburg v.d.H.: Gehlen.Google Scholar
(2006). What are particles good for? In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 205–218.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, M. (2011). Discourse particles. In P. Portner, C. Maienborn & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 2011–2038.Google Scholar