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. 291316
References (41)
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
. 2010. Diskurspartikel zwischen Modalität, Modus und Fremdbewusstseinsabgleich. In 40 Jahre Partikelforschung, Theo Harden & Elke Hentschel (eds), 33–77. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2012a. Satzabhängigkeit und Fremdbewusstseinsabgleich. In Discourse and Grammar: A Festschrift in Honor of Valéria Molnár, Johan Brandtler; David Håkansson; Stefan Huber & Eva Klingvall (eds), 1–27. Lund: University of Lund.Google Scholar
. 2012b. Sprecherdeixis und Merkmaldistributionsdifferential deutscher Modalitätselemente. Deutsche Sprache 2012(1): 72–95.Google Scholar
. 2012c. Strong modality and truth disposability in syntactic subordination: What is the locus of the phase edge validating modal adverbials? (to appear 2014 In Studia Linguistica).Google Scholar
Antomo, Mailin & Steinbach, Markus. 2010. Desintegration und Interpretation: Weil-V2-Sätze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29: 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asbach-Schnitker, Brigitte. 1977. Die Satzpartikel wohl: Eine Untersuchung ihrer Verwendungsbedingungen im Deutschen und ihrer Wiedergabemöglichkeiten im Englischen. In Aspekte der Modalpartikeln: Studien zur deutschen Abtönung, Harald Weydt (ed.), 38–61. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen [Studia Grammatica 73]. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. Causal relations. Journal of Philosophy 64: 691–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Christopher, Potts, Christopher & Speas, Margaret. 2007. The pragmatic values of evidential sentences. In Proceedings of SALT 17, Masayuki Gibson & Tova Friedman (eds), 71–88. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik, NF 100: 25–50.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2011. Peripheral adverbial clauses, their licensing and the prefield in German. In Satzverknüpfung: Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion, Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi & Anna Volodina (eds), 41–77. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick. To appear. German ‘doch’: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 46. Chicago IL: University of Chicago.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18: 317–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua 120: 628–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The syntax of MCP: Deriving the truncation account. In Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 113–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2000. Adverb placement – convergence of structure and licensing. Theoretical Linguistics 26: 95–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The Syntax of German. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2005. Embedded root phenomena. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax 2, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 174–209. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4): 465–497.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2012. Embedding speech acts. In Recursion in language and cognition, Tom Roeper & Margaret Speas (eds).Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1974. Syntactic amalgams. CLS 10: 321–344.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 2004. Sentence-final adverbs and ‘scope.’ In Proceedings of NELS 34, Keir Moulton & Matthew Wolf (eds), 23–43. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard & Sawada, Miyuki. 2012. Root transformations and quantificational structure. In Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 47–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 1994. Modaler Kontrast und konzeptuelle Verschiebung: Studien zur Syntax und Semantik deutscher Modalpartikeln [Linguistische Arbeiten 314]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 1999. Adverbiale im Deutschen: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung und Interpretation. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1997. Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Christa Dürscheid, Karl Heinz Ramers & Monika Schwarz (eds), Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, 121–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
. 2006. Is German V-to-C movement really semantically motivated? Some empirical problems. Theoretical Linguistics 32(3): 369–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2007. Expressive presuppositions. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 237–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swanson, Eric. 2006. Interactions with Context. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 1991. Causal and purposive clauses. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 6], Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 623–631. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanderveken, Daniel. 1990. Meaning and Speech Acts, Vol. 1: Principles of Language Use. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2004. Zum ‘Wohl’: Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren. Linguistische Berichte 199: 253–286.Google Scholar
. 2008. Discourse particles in the left periphery. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 200–231. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2011. Discourse particles. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 33.2], Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds), 2011–2038. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Angantýsson, Ásgrímur & Łukasz Jędrzejowski
2023. Chapter 7. Layers of subordinate clauses. In Micro- and Macro-variation of Causal Clauses [Studies in Language Companion Series, 231],  pp. 184 ff. DOI logo
Frey, Werner
2023. Chapter 3. Types of German causal clauses and their syntactic-semantic layers. In Micro- and Macro-variation of Causal Clauses [Studies in Language Companion Series, 231],  pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Tan, Jennifer & Johannes Mursell
2018. Chapter 9. Embedding evidence in Tagalog and German. In Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality [Studies in Language Companion Series, 197],  pp. 185 ff. 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.