Cover not available
Part of
Particles in German, English, and Beyond
Edited by Remus Gergel, Ingo Reich and Augustin Speyer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 224] 2022
► pp. 1–24

Chapter 1
Particles

A brief synchronic, diachronic and contrastive introduction

| Saarland University,
| Saarland University,
| Saarland University,
This chapter provides a general background to the field of particles by introducing major classifications and considerations from synchronic, diachronic, and contrastive perspectives. It builds on earlier literature from the respective fields. In doing so, it also prepares the ground for the individual chapters, which it previews and puts into perspective with the general theme of the volume.
Keywords: Classifications of particles, Synchronic diagnostics for particles, Diachrony of modal particles, Contrasting studies of particles
Article outline
  • 1.Delimiting current scope
  • 2.Particles from a synchronic point of view
  • 3.Diachronic aspects
  • 4.Contrasting and comparing towards explanatory building blocks
    • 4.1A contrasting paradigm
    • 4.2The contributions of this volume
      • 4.2.1Papers with their main focus on German
      • 4.2.2Papers with their main focus on English
      • 4.2.3Further contrastive studies and papers primarily concerned with particles in other languages
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 16 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.224.01ger
References (89)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1991. The grammaticalization of the German modal particles. In: Traugott, Elisabeth & B. Heine (eds.): Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. II. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 331–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Diskurspartikel zwischen Modalität, Modus und Fremdbewusstseinsabgleich (Theory of Mind). In Theo Harden & Elke Hentschel (eds.): 40 Jahre Partikelforschung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 33–77.Google Scholar
Authenrieth, 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
Axel, Katrin. 2007. Studies in Old High German Syntax: Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verb-second. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axel-Tober, Katrin. 2018. Origins of verb-second in Old High German. In Agnes Jäger, Gisella Ferraresi & Helmut Weiß (eds.): Clause structure and word order in the history of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 22–47.Google Scholar
Axel-Tober, Katrin & Remus Gergel. 2016. Modality and mood in generative and other formal linguistic approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, Jan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 473–494. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, David & Brady Z. Clark. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 2016. Temporal noch/still and further-to readings of German noch. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20: 4–25. Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
. 2020a. Readings of scalar particles: noch/still. Linguistics and Philosophy, 43: 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. Indeterminate pronouns in Old English: a compositional semantic analysis. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 23: 203–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid & Remus Gergel. 2015. The diachronic semantic of English again. Natural Language Semantics 23: 157–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid, Oda, Toshiko, & Sugisaki, Koji. 2004. Parametric variation in the semantics of comparison: Japanese vs. English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 13(4): 289–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid, Sveta Krasikova, Daniel Fleischer, Remus Gergel, Stefan Hofstetter, Christiane Savelsberg, John Vanderelst & Elisabeth Villalta. 2009. Cross-linguistic variation in comparison constructions. The Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics 64: 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1993. “The theory of principles and parameters.” Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by J. Jacobs et al., 506–569. Vol. 1. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2012. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini. 2009. Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: partitions as quantificational domains. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32: 475–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Diachronic semantics. The Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 179–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich, and Richard Waltereit. 2009. Diachronic pathways and pragmatic strategies: Different types of pragmatic particles from a diachronic point of view. In Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics, Björn Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard, and Jacqueline Visconti (eds.), 43–61. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In: Fischer, Kerstin (ed.): Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 403–425.Google Scholar
. 2011. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49: 365–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization. An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Grammaticalization and Semantic Reanalysis. In Semantics – An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 33/3], Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds), 2675–2702. Berlin, De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, Regine & Augustin Speyer. 2014. Information structure and language change. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, C. Féry and S. Ishihara (eds), 503–519. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella. 2014. Grammatikalisierung. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai & Lisa Matthewson. 2008. Semantic universals. The Linguistic Review 25: 139–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2007. Grounding and Common Ground: Modal Particles and Their Translation Equivalents. In Lexical Markers of Common Grounds, Alexandra Fetzer & Kerstin Fischer (eds), 47–66 Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein. 1991. Formal and functional differences between S-internal and S-external modal particles in Norwegian. Multilingua 10, 175–200.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2001. The syntax of mood particles in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica XXII: 301–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergel, Remus. 2011. Structure-sensitivity in actuality: Notes from a class of preference expressions. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17: 115–124.Google Scholar
. 2016. Modality and gradation: Comparing the sequel of developments in ‘rather’ and ‘eher’. In The linguistic Cycle Continued, Elly van Gelderen (ed). 319–350. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Sich ausgehen: Actuality entailments and further notes from the perspective of an Austrian German motion verb construction. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, Martín Fuchs & Joshua Phillips (eds). New Orleans: LSA Publications 5: 5–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergel, Remus and Sigrid Beck. 2015. Early Modern English again: a corpus study and semantic analysis. English Language and Linguistics 19: 27–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergel, Remus & Martin Kopf-Giammanco. 2021. ‘Sich ausgehen’: On modalizing go constructions in Austrian German. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 66: 141–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergel, Remus, Martin Kopf-Giammanco & Maike Puhl. 2021. Simulating semantic change: a methodological note. In Proceedings of Experiments in Linguistic Meaning (ELM) 1, Andrea Beltrama, Florian Schwarz & Anna Papafragou (eds.). 184–196. University of Pennsylvania: LSA Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds). New York: Academic Press, 41–58.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2015. Use-conditional Meaning: Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The Grammar of Expressivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel & Katharina Turgay. 2015. Expressive intensifiers and external degree modification. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17: 185–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2012. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of Common Ground in spoken discourse: final particles in English. Language & Communication 32(3): 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Elke. 1986. Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. Ja, doch, halt und eben. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ippolito, Michela. 2007. On the meaning of some focus-sensitive particles. Natural Language Semantics 15: 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, David. 2004. The meaning of ouch and oops. Howison Lecture in Philosophy delivered at UC Berkeley, transcribed by Elizabeth Coppock. Ms., UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Magdalena & Kaufmann, Stefan. 2016. Modality and mood in formal semantics. In Jan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Modes of comparison. Chicago Linguistic Society 43.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast. 2012. Understanding English-German Contrasts. (revised). Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Kopf-Giammanco, Martin. 2020. German noch under reanalysis. In Remus Gergel & Jonathan Watkins (eds.), Quantification and Scales in Change 161–198. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), page numbers? Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Beyond ouch and oops: How descriptive and expressive meaning interact. In Cornell conference on theories of context dependency (Vol. 26). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
. 2012. Modals and conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument & Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2001. Quantification and the nature of cross-linguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics 9:145–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Presuppositions and cross-linguistic variation. Proceedings of the North Eastern Conference in Linguistics 26: 63–76.Google Scholar
McCready, Elin. 2012. Formal Approaches to Particle Meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(12): 777–795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Anna. 2002. Die Grammatikalisierung deutscher Modalpartikeln. Frankfurt etc.: Lang.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 1994. Modaler Kontrast und konzeptionelle Verschiebung: Studien zur Syntax und Semantik deutscher Modalpartikeln. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Sonja. 2018. Distribution und Interpretation von Modalpartikel-Kombinationen. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Nevalainen 1991. But, only, just. Focusing adverbial change in Modern English, 1500–1700. Memoires de la Societe Neophilologique de Helsinki.Google Scholar
Ormelius-Sandblom, Elisabeth. 1997. Die Modalpartikeln ja, doch und schon. Zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Walter. 2015. A scalar analysis of again-ambiguities. Journal of Semantics 32: 373–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, Anna. 2002. Modality and theory of mind. Perspectives from language development and autism. In: Sjef Barbiers, F. Beukema & Wim van der Wurff (eds.) Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 185–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical linguistics 33: 165–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reich, Ingo. 2002. Question/Answer Congruence and the semantics of wh-phrases. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 73–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reis, Marga. 2001. Bilden Modalverben im Deutschen eine syntaktische Klasse? In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, Reimar Müller and Marga Reis (eds.), 287–318. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2013. Common Ground Management: Modal particles, Illocutionary Negation and VERUM. In Beyond Expressives, Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner, (eds), 231–274. Leiden, Boston: Emerald.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, J. H. Yoon and A. Kathol (eds), 49: 91–136.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus (Montague Grammar, Semantics, Only, Even). Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmerse, Daniel, Elena Lieven & Michael Tomasello. 2014. Discourse Particles and Belief Reasoning: The Case of German doch. Journal of Semantics 31: 115–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smirniova, Elena. 2012. On some problematic aspects of subjectification. Language Dynamics and Change 2: 34–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. The different readings of wieder ‘again’: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13: 87–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2006. The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. In The Handbook of the History of English Handbooks in Linguistics, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), 335–359. Malden et al.: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Whither historical pragmatics? A cognitively-oriented perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 145: 25–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regulartity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weydt, Harald. 1977. Aspekte der Modalpartikeln: Studien zur deutschen Abtönung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (= Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft; 23).Google Scholar
. 1986. Betonungsdubletten bei deutschen Partikeln. In Kontroversen, alte und neue, Vol. 3: Textlinguistik contra Stilistik?, Walter Weiss, Herbert Ernst Wiegand & Marga Reis (eds), 393–403. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Yu, Jianrong. 2020. Repetitive and Restitutive Presuppositions and the Semantics of English Verbal Roots. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.
Zeevat, Henk & Elena Karagjosova. 2009. History and grammaticalisation of “doch”/”toch”. In Papers on Pragmasemantics ZASPiL 51, Benz, Anton & Reinhard Blutner (eds), 135–152. Berlin, ZAS. DOI logoGoogle 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, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey, Claudia Maienborn & Benjamin Shaer (eds), 200–231. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2011. Discourse Particles. In Semantics HSK 33.2, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus v. Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 2012–2038. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2018. Wird schon stimmen. A degree operator analysis of schon. Journal of Semantics 35: 687–739. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 2019. From ‘back’ to ‘again’ in Dutch: the structure of the ‘re’ domain. Journal of Semantics 36: 211–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar