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. 124
Abraham, Werner
1991The 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
2010Diskurspartikel 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
2002Heterosemie 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
2007Studies 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
2018Origins 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
2016Modality 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
2008Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid
2016Temporal noch/still and further-to readings of German noch. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20: 4–25. Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
2020aReadings of scalar particles: noch/still. Linguistics and Philosophy, 43: 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020bIndeterminate pronouns in Old English: a compositional semantic analysis. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 23: 203–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid & Remus Gergel
2015The diachronic semantic of English again. Natural Language Semantics 23: 157–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid, Oda, Toshiko, & Sugisaki, Koji
2004Parametric 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
2009Cross-linguistic variation in comparison constructions. The Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
1998Reference 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
2012Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini
2009Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: partitions as quantificational domains. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32: 475–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015Diachronic semantics. The Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 179–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich, and Richard Waltereit
2009Diachronic 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
2006Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In: Fischer, Kerstin (ed.): Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 403–425.Google Scholar
2011Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49: 365–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David
1979Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, Regine
2006Meaning Change in Grammaticalization. An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012Grammaticalization 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
2014Information 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
2014Grammatikalisierung. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai & Lisa Matthewson
2008Semantic universals. The Linguistic Review 25: 139–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2007Grounding 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
1991Formal and functional differences between S-internal and S-external modal particles in Norwegian. Multilingua 10, 175–200.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van
2001The syntax of mood particles in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica XXII: 301–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergel, Remus
2011Structure-sensitivity in actuality: Notes from a class of preference expressions. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17: 115–124.Google Scholar
2016Modality 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
2020Sich 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
2015Early 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
2021Simulating 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
1975Logic 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
2015Use-conditional Meaning: Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019The Grammar of Expressivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel & Katharina Turgay
2015Expressive intensifiers and external degree modification. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17: 185–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander
2012Subjectivity, 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
1986Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. Ja, doch, halt und eben. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ippolito, Michela
2007On the meaning of some focus-sensitive particles. Natural Language Semantics 15: 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, David
2004The 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
2016Modality 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
2007Modes of comparison. Chicago Linguistic Society 43.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast
2012Understanding English-German Contrasts. (revised). Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Kopf-Giammanco, Martin
2020German noch under reanalysis. In Remus Gergel & Jonathan Watkins (eds.), Quantification and Scales in Change 161–198. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1991Modality. In Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), page numbers? Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999Beyond 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
2012Modals and conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2008Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula
2010Argument & Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa
2001Quantification and the nature of cross-linguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics 9:145–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006Presuppositions and cross-linguistic variation. Proceedings of the North Eastern Conference in Linguistics 26: 63–76.Google Scholar
McCready, Elin
2012Formal Approaches to Particle Meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(12): 777–795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Anna
2002Die Grammatikalisierung deutscher Modalpartikeln. Frankfurt etc.: Lang.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg
1994Modaler Kontrast und konzeptionelle Verschiebung: Studien zur Syntax und Semantik deutscher Modalpartikeln. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Sonja
2018Distribution und Interpretation von Modalpartikel-Kombinationen. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
1991But, only, just. Focusing adverbial change in Modern English, 1500–1700. Memoires de la Societe Neophilologique de Helsinki.Google Scholar
Ormelius-Sandblom, Elisabeth
1997Die Modalpartikeln ja, doch und schon. Zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Walter
2015A scalar analysis of again-ambiguities. Journal of Semantics 32: 373–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, Anna
2002Modality 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
2009Modality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher
2005The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007The expressive dimension. Theoretical linguistics 33: 165–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reich, Ingo
2002Question/Answer Congruence and the semantics of wh-phrases. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 73–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reis, Marga
2001Bilden 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
2013Common 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
1996Information 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
1985Association with Focus (Montague Grammar, Semantics, Only, Even). Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
1992A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmerse, Daniel, Elena Lieven & Michael Tomasello
2014Discourse Particles and Belief Reasoning: The Case of German doch. Journal of Semantics 31: 115–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smirniova, Elena
2012On some problematic aspects of subjectification. Language Dynamics and Change 2: 34–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
2002Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Stechow, Arnim
1996The different readings of wieder ‘again’: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13: 87–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, Maria
1989Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2006The 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
2019Whither historical pragmatics? A cognitively-oriented perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 145: 25–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
2002Regulartity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weydt, Harald
1977Aspekte der Modalpartikeln: Studien zur deutschen Abtönung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (= Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft; 23).Google Scholar
1986Betonungsdubletten 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
2020Repetitive and Restitutive Presuppositions and the Semantics of English Verbal Roots. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.
Zeevat, Henk & Elena Karagjosova
2009History 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
2004Zum „Wohl“: Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren. Linguistische Berichte 199: 253–286.Google Scholar
2008Discourse 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
2011Discourse Particles. In Semantics HSK 33.2, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus v. Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 2012–2038. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2018Wird schon stimmen. A degree operator analysis of schon. Journal of Semantics 35: 687–739. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost
2019From ‘back’ to ‘again’ in Dutch: the structure of the ‘re’ domain. Journal of Semantics 36: 211–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar