Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New perspectives
Edited by Chiara Fedriani and Andrea Sansó
[Studies in Language Companion Series 186] 2017
► pp. 229–254

Chapter 8
A format for the description of German modal particles and their functional equivalents in Croatian and English

 | University of Zadar
 | University of Zadar
 | Leibniz University Hannover
This paper presents a format for a cross-linguistic, corpus-based description of the formal features and the function of modal particles (hereafter: abbreviated as MPs) and their equivalents in German, Croatian and English. We define the word category of MPs for the Croatian language and propose a shared, pragmatic function of these particles in a cross-linguistic perspective. The starting point for the comparative analysis is the pragmatic function of German MPs, i.e. a specific discourse grammatical function which consists in anchoring the utterance in an assumed dialogic setting as the second turn, thus being set off from discourse marking elements as well as from text-connective elements in the narrow sense (cf. Diewald 2007, 2013; Diewald et al. 2009, see also Sections 1 and 2.1.2). Particle meanings are described in terms of the speaker’s assumptions about a state of affairs in the context of the communication (cf. Kresić & Batinić 2014). The proposed method for the lexicographic description of particle meanings in a cross-linguistic perspective encompasses their central features on the levels of morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics.
Keywords: modal particles, contrastive analysis, corpus analysis, basic meaning, sentence types
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Modal particles in a cross-linguistic perspective
    • 2.1German and Croatian modal particles
      • 2.1.1Formal properties
      • 2.1.2Functional properties
    • 2.2Functional equivalents of MPs in Croatian and English
  • 3.A format for the description of modal particles and their functional equivalents in a cross-linguistic perspective
    • 3.1Precursors
    • 3.2The descriptive format: The example of German bloβ and its equivalents
  • 4.Outlook: Where do we go from here?
  • Notes
  • References
  • Cited corpora
Published online: 13 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.186.09kre
References (47)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1990. Zur heterogenen Entfaltung der Modalpartikel im Ahd. und Mhd. In Neuere Forschungen zur historischen Syntax des Deutschen. Referate der Internationalen Fachkonferenz Eichstätt 1989, Anne Betten (ed.), 124–138. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Swedish modal particles in a contrastive perspective. Language Sciences 18: 393–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic Languages. Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Olaf Jansen Westvik & Toril Swan (eds), 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Autenrieth, Tanja. 2002. Heterosemie und Grammatikalisierung bei Modalpartikeln. Eine synchrone und diachrone Studie anhand von „ eben“, „halt“, „e(cher)t“, „einfach“, „schlicht“ und „glatt“. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barić, Eugenija, Lončarić, Mijo, Malić, Dragica, Pavešić, Slavko, Peti, Mirko, Zečević, Vesna & Znika, Marija. 1997. Hrvatska gramatika, 2nd edn. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.Google Scholar
Batinić, Mia, Kresić, Marijana & Pavić Pintarić, Anita. 2015. The intensifying function of modal particles and modal elements in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Rasprave: Časopis Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 41(1): 1–27. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje.Google Scholar
Brünjes, Lena. 2014. Das Paradigma deutscher Modalpartikeln. Dialoggrammatische Funktion und paradigmeninterne Oppositionen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bußmann, Hadumod. 2002. Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft, 3rd edn. Stuttgart. Kröner.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 1997. Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Die Entwicklung der Modalpartikel aber: ein typischer Grammatikalisierungsweg der Modalpartikeln. In Internationale Tendenzen der Syntaktik, Semantik und Pragmatik. Akten des 32. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Kassel 1997 [Linguistik International 1], Hans Otto Spillmann & Ingo Warnke (eds), 83–91. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 403–426. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2007. Abtönungspartikel. In Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten, Ludger Hoffmann (ed.), 117–141. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele, Kresić, Marijana & Smirnova, Elena. 2009. The grammaticalization channels of evidentials and modal particles in German: Integration in textual structures as a common feature. In Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics, Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen & Jacqueline Visconti (eds), 189–209. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2010. On some problem areas in grammaticalization theory. In Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues [Studies in Language Companion Series 119], Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds), 17–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 450–461. Oxford. OUP.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49: 365–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Same same but different – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 234], Liesbeth Degand, Paola Pietrandrea & Bert Cornillie (eds), 19–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Ferraresi, Gisella. 2008. Semantic, syntactic and constructional restrictions in the diachronic rise of modal particles in German: A corpus-based study on the formation of a grammaticalization channel. In Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 77], Elena Seoane & María José López-Couso (eds), 77–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Fischer, Kerstin. 1998. Zur diskursiven und modalen Funktion der Partikeln aber, auch, doch und ja in Instruktionsdialogen. Linguistica 38(1): 75–99.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Kresić, Marijana. 2010. Ein übereinzelsprachliches konstrastives Beschreibungsmodell für Partikelbedeutungen. Linguistik Online, 44(4). <[URL]>
Duden 4: Die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch. 2009. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich & Mrazović, Pavica. 1986. Kontrastive Grammatik deutsch-serbokroatisch [Sagners slavistische Sammlung 10]. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 1989. Beschreibungsebenen für Partikelbedeutungen. In Sprechen mit Partikeln, Harald Weydt (ed.), 305–317. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Franck, Dorothea. 1979. Abtönungspartikel und Interaktionsmanagement. Tendenziöse Fragen. In Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache, Harald Weydt (ed.), 3–13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff & Wierzbicka, Anna (eds). 1994. Semantic and Lexical Universals. Theory and Empirical Findings [Studies in Language Companion Series 25]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard. 1994. Lexikon deutscher Partikeln, 3rd edn. Leipzig: Langenscheidt, Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard & Buscha, Joachim. 2002. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Hentschel, Elke. 1986. Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln: “Ja”, “doch”, “halt” und “eben ”. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Elke & Weydt, Harald. 2002. Die Wortart ‚Partikel’. In Lexikologie. Internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen, 1. Halbband, D. Alan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job, Peter Rolf Lutzeier (eds), 646–653. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker. 2009. Understanding English-German Contrasts, 2nd edn, [Grundlangen der Anglistik und Amerikanistik – 29]. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Kresić, Marijana & Batinić, Mia. 2014. Modalpartikeln: Deutsch im Vergleich mit dem Kroatischen und Englischen/Modalne čestice: Njemački jezik u usporedbi s hrvatskim i engleskim (+ CD-ROM mit Audio-Dialogen und Übungen/s ozvučenim dijalozima i vježbama). Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru.Google Scholar
Molnar, Anna. 2002. Die Grammatikalisierung deutscher Modalpartikeln: Fallstudien. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Raguž, Dragutin. 1997. Praktična hrvatska gramatika. Zagreb: Medicinska naklada.Google Scholar
Sesar, Dubravka. 2009. Čestice – uvodne i umetnute riječi. In Slavenski jezici u usporedbi s hrvatskim I., Dubravka Sesar (ed.), 49–56. Zagreb: FF Press, Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu.Google Scholar
. 2001. Modalni modeli u hrvatskom i drugim slavenskim jezicima. Suvremena lingvistika 51–52(1–2): 203–218.Google Scholar
Silić, Josip & Pranjković, Ivan. 2007. Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika za gimnazije i visoka učilišta, 2nd edn. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uvanović, Željko. 2006. Kroatische Konversationsmarker. Versuch einer Extraktion im translatologischen Vergleich mit deutschen Modalpartikeln (d.h. Abtönungspartikeln) und deren englischen Entsprechungen. Norderstedt: Books on Demand. <[URL]> (4 March 2015).
Waltereit, Richard. 2001. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1391–1417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache [Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 7]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited corpora
Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (DWDS). <[URL]>
Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 Million Words, 1990–present. <[URL]>
IDS. Datenbank für Gesprochenes Deutsch (DGD2). <[URL]>
Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics. 2007–2011. Hrvatski jezični korpus – Croatian Language Corpus (HJK). <[URL]/>
Osmi kat (OK), a corpus of TV conversations 2013 (conducted on the Croatian National Television talk show “Osmi kat“) compiled and transcribed by Marijana Kresić and Tanja Gulan between 1/2011–6/2013 at the Department of Linguistics of the University of Zadar (unpublished).Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Aquino, Marceli
2023. A description of the pragmatic function of mas and aí in Brazilian Portuguese: analysis on the functional equivalents of German Modal Particles. Diálogo das Letras 12 ► pp. e02304 ff. DOI logo
Hamiti, Vjosa & Blertë Ismajli
2022. Zur Übersetzbarkeit der Abtönungspartikel doch ins Albanische. Lebende Sprachen 67:2 ► pp. 342 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 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.