Cover not available
Part of
Modes of Modality: Modality, typology, and universal grammar
Edited by Elisabeth Leiss and Werner Abraham
[Studies in Language Companion Series 149] 2014
► pp. 263–290

Modal particles in rationale clauses and related constructions

| Universität Tübingen
This paper discusses the connection between sentential modality (e.g. the modality introduced by a modal auxiliary such as may or must) and the force of an utterance. This connection is explored with a focus on the German particles ruhig/bloß/JA, which typically occur in modalized declaratives and in imperatives, indicating a connection between the two types of utterances. This paper poses the question of how to account for such particles in rationale clauses, which cannot be trivially analyzed as modalized declaratives or imperatives. I pursue a uniform analysis of ruhig/bloß/JA as ‘modal modifiers’ (in the spirit of Grosz 2010, 2011), which increase the strength of a modal utterance; I argue that rationale clauses (on a par with imperatives) contain a covert modal that is best characterized as an existential modal with a modal choice function, in the spirit of Rullmann et al. (2008).
Published online: 24 January 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.149.09gro
References (42)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1991. Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about? In Discourse Particles. Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12] Werner Abraham (ed.), 203–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Covert patterns of modality in typological comparison. In Covert modality, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 386–439. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Altmann, Hans. 1987. Zur Problematik der Konstitution von Satzmodi als Formtypen. In Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik, Jörg Meibauer (ed.), 22–56. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Satzmodus. In Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 1006–1029. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2000. Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Brandt, Margareta, Reis, Marga, Rosengren, Inger & Zimmermann, Ilse. 1992. Satztyp, Satzmodus und Illokution. In Satz und Illokution Bd. 1, Inger Rosengren (ed.), 1–90. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2009. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. PhD dissertation, University of Venice / Humboldt-Universität, Berlin. Published as: Coniglio, Marco. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Ehrich, Veronika. 2001. Was nicht müssen undnicht können (nicht) bedeuten können: Zum Skopus der Negation bei den Modalverben des Deutschen. In Modalität und Modalverben des Deutschen, Reimar Müller & Marga Reis (eds),148–176. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Faraci, Robert A. 1974. Aspects of the Grammar of Infinitives and for-Phrases. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donca F. 1988. On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 27–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Patrick. 2009. Modal particles redux: Ruhig, bloß and JA: A case study in modal matching. Ms, semantics generals paper, MIT.Google Scholar
. 2010. Grading modality: A new approach to modal concord and its relatives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14: 185–201.Google Scholar
. 2011. German particles, modality, and the semantics of imperatives. In Proceedings of NELS 39: 323–336.Google Scholar
Hackl, Martin & Nissenbaum, Jon. 2012. A modal ambiguity In for-infinitival relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 20: 59–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Elke. 1986. Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. „Ja“, „doch“, „halt“ und „eben“. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huettner, Alison. 1989. Adjunct Infinitives in English. PhD dissertation, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1991. On the semantics of modal particles. In Discourse Particles, Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 141–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2012. Interpreting Imperatives. New York NY: Springer. (Revised version of doctoral dissertation, submitted and defended 2006 under the name of Magdalena Schwager, University of Frankfurt). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klinedinst, Nathan 2006. Plurality and Possibility. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
. 2007. Plurals, possibilities, and conjunctive disjunction. In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 19, Richard Breheny & Nikolaos Velegrakis (eds), 261–284. London: University College London.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, Worlds, and Contexts, Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (eds),38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1991. Modality. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (ed.), 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control. Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Manzini, Rita M. 1983. On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 421–446.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 1994. Modaler Kontrast und konzeptuelle Verschiebung: Studien zur Syntax und Semantik deutscher Modalpartikeln. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nissenbaum, Jon. 2005a. Kissing Pedro Martinez: (Existential) Anankastic conditionals and rationale clauses. In Proceedings of SALT 15, 134–151. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
. 2005b. States, events and VP structure: Evidence from purposive adjuncts. Handout for NELS 36, UMass/Amherst, October 28–30.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2005. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Proceedings of SALT 14, 235–252. New York NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
. 2007. Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 15: 351–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Scales of probability. Ms, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
. 2009. Modality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2012. Permission and choice. In Discourse and grammar. From sentence types to lexical categories, Günther Grewendorf & Thomas Ede Zimmermann (eds), 43–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rapp, Irene. 2012. Wenn man versucht, JA nichts Falsches zu sagen – Modalpartikeln in Komplementsätzen. Ms, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 267–310.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze, Matthewson, Lisa & Davis, Henry. 2008. Modals as distributive indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 16: 317–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sæbø, Kjell J. 2001. Necessary conditions in a natural language. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, Caroline Féry & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 427–449. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Schwager, Magdalena. 2006. Interpreting Imperatives. PhD dissertation, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
. 2010. Modality and speech acts: Troubled by German ruhig . In Logic, Language and Meaning. 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, December 16–18, 2009. Revised Selected Papers, Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tiktu de Jager & Katrin Schulz (eds), 416–425. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1974. Rule Ordering in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2004. Discourse particles in the left periphery. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35: 543–566.Google Scholar
. 2011. Discourse particles. In Semantics [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 33(2)], Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn & Klaus von Heusinger (eds), 2011–2038. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Dąbkowski, Maksymilian & Scott AnderBois
2023. Rationale and Precautioning Clauses: Insights from A’ingae. Journal of Semantics 40:2-3 ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo
Iatridou, Sabine
2021. Negation-Licensed Commands. Linguistic Inquiry 52:3 ► pp. 519 ff. DOI logo
Naumov, Ilya
2018. The First-Person Singular Imperative in Chukchi. SSRN Electronic Journal DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.