Article published in:
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.149.09gro
References

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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Elke
1986 Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. „Ja“, „doch“, „halt“ und „eben“. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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). CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, Maria
1989 Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle 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

Cited by 1 other publications

Naumov, Ilya
2018. The First-Person Singular Imperative in Chukchi. SSRN Electronic Journal Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 may 2021. 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.