Cover not available
Part of
Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles
Edited by Pierre-Yves Modicom and Olivier Duplâtre
[Studies in Language Companion Series 213] 2020
► pp. 1–24

Introduction

What can information-structural categories tell us about discourse particles?

 | University of Bordeaux Montaigne
 | Sorbonne University
Article outline
  • 1.Discourse particles and information structure: Preliminary definitions
  • 2.Information-structural aspects of the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of discourse particles
    • 2.1Givenness and newness in the syntax and semantics of German discourse particles
    • 2.2Common Ground Management and speech act specification as loci for information-structural strategies
    • 2.3A cross-linguistic view: Equivalence and interactions between particles and information-structural strategies
    • 2.4Particle placement, polyfunctionality and the role of information structure in the emergence and specialization of discourse particles
  • 3.“Epistemic authority”, “engagement” and “enimitives”: Information-structural approaches in the face of the newest typological research on particle semantics
    • 3.1Engagement, epistemic authority, egophoricity
    • 3.2“Enimitives”
  • 4.The contributions in this volume
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 4 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.213.int
References (76)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1991. The grammaticization of the German modal particles. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elisabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 331–380. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Illocutive force is speaker and information source concern. What type of syntax does the representation of speaker deixis require? In Abraham & Leiss (eds), 109–146.Google Scholar
. 2017. Modal particles and Verum focus: New corollaries. In Fedriani & Sansó (eds), 171–202.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth. 2012. Introduction: Theory of Mind elements across languages. In Abraham & Leiss (eds), 1–36.Google Scholar
(eds). 2012. Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adams, James Noel. 1994. Wackernagel’s law and the position of unstressed personal pronouns in classical Latin. Transactions of the Philological Society 92(2): 103–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1993. Wackernagel’s revenge: Clitics, morphology, and the syntax of second position. Language 69(1): 68–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review 28: 449–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate & Detges, Ulrich (eds). 2014. Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2019. The frequency and distribution of modal particles in spoken Swedish. Talk at the 52nd meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea, Leipzig.
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bonnot, Christine. 1986. La particule že marqueur de thème. In Les particules énonciatives en russe contemporain 1, 125–151. Paris: Université Paris VII.Google Scholar
. 1990. La particule to et la polémique cachée en russe moderne: À propos du statut énonciatif du thème. Revue des Études Slaves 62(1): 67–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Deixis, intersubjectivité et thématisation. La particule énonciative –to en russe contemporain. Faits de Langues 45: 11–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonnot, Christine & Bottineau, Tatiana. 2012. Lorsque la marque du conditionnel est une particule mobile: Le cas du russe. Faits de Langue 40: 189–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accent. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 511–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 25–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2008. Modal particles in Italian. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 91–129.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert & Pietrandrea, Paola (eds). 2013. Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 234]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. Same same but different: Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 19–45.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus & Mursell, Johannes. 2016. The syntax and semantics of discourse particles. In Discourse particles: Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and Semantics, Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 15–48. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endo, Yoshio. 2007. Locality and Information Structure. A Cartographic Approach to Japanese [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 116]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Illocutionary force and modal particles in the syntax of Japanese. In Abraham & Leiss (eds), 405–424.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Bergqvist, Henrik & San Roque, Lila. 2018. The grammar of engagement. Language and Cognition 10: 110–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara & Sansò (eds). 2017. Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives [Studies in Language Companion Series 186]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Vest, Marie-Madeleine Jocelyne. 1994. Les particules énonciatives dans la construction du discours. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2007. Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation equivalents. In Lexical Markers of Common Grounds, Anita Fetzer & Kerstin Fischer (eds), 47–66. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Norcliffe, Elisabeth & San Roque, Lila (eds). 2018. Egophoricity [Typological Studies in Language 118]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2001. The clause start in Ancient Greek: Focus and the second position. Glotta 77: 138–177.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2006. Modal particles and context updating: The functions of German ‘ja’, ‘doch’, ‘wohl’ and ‘etwa’. In Modalverben und Grammatikalisierung, Heinz Vater & Ole Letnes (eds), 153–177. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick. 2016. Information structure and discourse particles. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 336–358. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Grzech, Karolina. 2016a. Discourse Enclitics in Tena Kichwa: A Corpus-based Account of Information Structure and Epistemic Meaning. PhD dissertation, SOAS, University of London.Google Scholar
. 2016b. The non-evidential meaning of the Tena Kichwa ‘direct evidential’. Special issue of York Papers in Linguistics 3: 73–94.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2015. Use-conditional Meaning. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1967. Notes in transitivity and theme in English, 2. Journal of Linguistics 3(2): 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie, Haselow, Alexander & Post, Margje (eds). 2015. Final Particles. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hargreaves, David. 2018. Am I blue? Privileged access constraints in Kathmandu Newar. In Floyd, Norcliffe & San Roque (eds), 79–107.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2015. Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: The case of anyway. In New Directions in Grammaticalization Research [Studies in Language Companion Series 166], Andrew D. M. Smith, Graeme Trousdale & Richard Waltereit (eds), 157–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hentschel, Elke. 1986. Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. Ja, doch, halt und eben. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izutsu, Katsunobu & Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita. 2013. From discourse markers to modal/final particles: What the position reveals about the continuum. In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 217–235.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
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. In special issue Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache III. Aspekte der Modalität im Deutschen – auch in kontrastiver Sicht, Friedhelm Debus & Oddleif Leirbukt (eds). Germanistische Linguistik 136: 67–75.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krivonossov, Alexey. 1977. Die modalen Partikeln in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Göppingen: Kümmerle.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 2005. Focusing on the matter of topic: A study of wa and ga in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14: 1–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kwon, Min-Jae. 2005. Modalpartikeln und Satzmodus: Untersuchungen zur Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik der deutschen Modalpartikeln. PhD dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2012. Epistemicity, evidentiality and Theory of Mind. In Abraham & Leiss (eds), 109–146.Google Scholar
Métrich, René, Faucher, Eugène & Courdier, Gilbert (eds). 1999. Les invariables difficiles: Dictionnaire allemand-français des particules, connecteurs, interjections et autres mots de la communication, Vol. 2: bald-geradezu. Nancy: Nouveaux Cahiers d’Allemand.Google Scholar
(eds). 2002. Les invariables difficiles: Dictionnaire allemand-français des particules, connecteurs, interjections et autres mots de la communication, Vol. 3: gern-nur so. Nancy: Nouveaux Cahiers d’Allemand.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2018. Factors behind variation in marking information structure: Contributions from Central Pomo. In Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages: Studies in Prosody and Syntax [Studies in Language Companion Series 199], Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude & Martine Vanhove (eds), 119–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Modicom, Pierre-Yves. 2012. The epistemological treatment of information and the interpersonal distribution of belief in language: German modal particles and the typological challenge. In Abraham & Leiss (eds), 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Valéria. 1998. On the syntax, phonology, semantics and pragmatics of the so-called “contrastive topic” in Hungarian and German. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45: 89–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Contrast – From a contrastive perspective. In Information Structure in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Hilde Hasselgård, Stig Johansson, Bergljot Behrens & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds), 147–161. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onodera, Yoriko. 2004. Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel. 2015. Information structure without topic and focus: Differential Object Marking in Burmese. Studies in Language 39(2): 386–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paillard, Denis. 2017. Scène énonciative et types de marqueurs discursifs. Langages 207: 17–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padučeva, Edita. 1987. La particule že: Sémantique, syntaxe et prosodie. In Les particules énonciatives en russe contemporain 3, 1–44. Paris: Université Paris VII.Google Scholar
Panov, Vladimir. 2018. Defining the area of (sentence-)final particles in Asia. Talk at the 51st meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea in Tallinn.
. 2019. The markers of uncontroversial information in Europe. Talk at the 52nd meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea in Leipzig.
Prince, Ellen. 2002. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information-status. In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 16], William S. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 293–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2013. Common ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and verum. In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning, Daniel Gutzmann & Hansmartin Gärtner (eds), 231–274. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoonjans, Steven. 2013. Modal particles: Problems in defining a category. In Degand, Bert & Pietrandrea (eds), 133–161.Google Scholar
. 2014. Oui, il y a des particules de démodulation en français. Cognitextes 11. <[URL]> DOI logo
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2017. Shared vs. primary epistemic authority in Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru. Open Linguistics 3: 178–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shinzato, Rumiko. 2017. Grammaticalization of pragmatic markers, discourse markers and modal markers in Japanese. In Fedriani & Sansò (eds), 305–333.Google Scholar
Spevak, Olga. 2010. Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose [Studies in Language Companion Series 117]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Squartini, Mario. 2017. Italian non-canonical negations as modal particles: Information state, polarity and mirativity. In Fedriani & Sansò (eds), 203–228.Google Scholar
Thijs, Kees. 2017. The Attic particle μήν: Intersubjectivity, contrast and polysemy. Journal of Greek Linguistics 17: 73–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 29–70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas & Turco, Giuseppina. 2015. The grammatical reflexes of emphasis: Evidence from German wh-questions. Lingua 168: 37–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2006. Abtönung: Zur Pragmatik und historischen Semantik von Modalpartikeln und ihren funktionalen Äquivalenten in romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard & Detges, Ulrich. 2007. Different functions, different histories. Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 61–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weydt, Harald. 1969. Abtönungspartikel: Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen Entsprechungen. Bad Homburg: Gehlen.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan (eds). 2013. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Discourse particles in the left periphery. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse. Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 200–231. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lewis, Diana M.
2021. Pragmatic markers at the periphery and discourse prominence. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 351 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 december 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.