Chapter in:
Particles in German, English, and Beyond
Edited by Remus Gergel, Ingo Reich and Augustin Speyer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 224] 2022
► pp. 243–268

Chapter 9
Scalarity as a meaning atom in wohl-type particles

| University of Oslo
German wohl ‘well’, Norwegian vel ‘well’ and French bien ‘well’ are all known to have a modal particle reading that roughly amounts to ‘surely, probably, I guess’ (see Zimmermann 2008; Fretheim 1991; Detges & Waltereit 2009). This paper addresses the question of how such a reading could have arisen from the source meaning of these elements (i.e. ‘well’). I propose an analysis of wohl-type (i.e. ‘well’-type) modal particles as scalar operators, which is based on the observation that each of them appears to have diachronically gone through an intermediate stage in which it was clearly a scalar modifier (namely wohl ‘approximately’, vel ‘approximately, more than’, and bien ‘very’). The core idea of my contribution is that the modal particle variant is still a scalar operator in nature, but has emerged through a shift in the type of scale that the particle operates on (in line with Beltrama’s 2015 approach to English totally). Scalarity thus emerges as a common meaning atom (or meaning molecule), in the spirit of von Fintel & Matthewson (2008: 154,172), which serves as a building block in the semantic makeup of wohl-type particles.
Keywords: modal particle, discourse particle, German, Norwegian, French, scalarity, approximately, meaning atom, universal inventory of functional meanings, grammaticalization
Article outline
  • 1.Background
  • 2.A modal particle puzzle
  • 3.The core proposal
  • 4.Evidence for a scalar source lexeme
  • 5.Evidence from overlap
  • 6.Support from dialectal variation
  • 7.Future directions / micro-parameters
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.224.09gro
References
Aijmer, Karin
1977 Partiklarna ju och väl. Nysvenska studier 57, 205–216.Google Scholar
1996 Swedish modal particles in a contrastive perspective. Language Sciences 18, 393–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 The Swedish modal particle väl in a contrastive perspective. Nordic Journal of English Studies 14, 174–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andvik, Erik A.
1992 A Pragmatic Analysis of Norwegian Modal Particles. Dallas, Texas: SIL.Google Scholar
Beltrama, Andrea
2015 From Totally Dark to Totally Old. The Formal Semantics of Subjectification. In Eva Csipak and Hedde Zeijlstra (eds.): Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19, 125–142.Google Scholar
2016 #Unfortunately, you are bello tall. From beauty to intensification. Poster presented at the 90th LSA Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. URL: https://​andreabeltrama​.files​.wordpress​.com​/2019​/10​/bello​-naples​.pdf
Berg, Ivar
2016 A note on the relationship between Scandinavian and Low German. Journal of Historical Linguistics 2, 189–210.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel, and Katharina Hartmann
2001 The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 229–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, Armin
1994 Abtönungspartikeln im Deutschen: Bedeutung und Genese. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 22, 129–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Henry, and Lisa Matthewson
2016 Against all expectations: The meaning of St’át’imcets séna7 . In Papers for the International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages 51, UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 42 , 37–67.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini
2014 Formal semantics/pragmatics and language change. In: Claire Bowern, and Bethwyn Evans (eds.): The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Routledge, 393–409.Google Scholar
2015 Diachronic Semantics. The Annual Review of Linguistics 1, 179–197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeReKo = The German Reference Corpus DeReKo, at the Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim
http://​www​.ids​-mannheim​.de​/kl​/projekte​/korpora/.
Detges, Ulrich, and Richard Waltereit
2009 Diachronic pathways and pragmatic strategies: Different types of pragmatic particles from a diachronic point of view. In: Björn Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard, and Jacqueline Visconti (eds.): Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics. Bingley: Emerald, 43–61.Google Scholar
DeVeaugh-Geiss, Joseph
2014  Wohl and the semantics of assumptions. MSc thesis, University of Potsdam.
Diewald, Gabriele
2011 Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49, 365–390. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DWB = Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm
. 16 Bde. in 32 Teilbänden. Leipzig 1854–1961 Quellenverzeichnis Leipzig 1971. Online-Version accessed on 23 August 2016, http://​woerterbuchnetz​.de​/DWB/.
Eckardt, Regine
2011 Semantic Reanalysis and Language Change. Language and Linguistics Compass 5, 33–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, Regine, and Andrea Beltrama
2019 Evidentials and Questions. In Christopher Pinon (ed.): Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 12, Paris: CSSP, 121–155.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus
2012 Discourse particles at the semantics-pragmatics interface. In Werner Abrahm and Elisabeth Leiss (eds.): Modality and Theory of Mind elements across languages. Berlin: de Gruyter, 297–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Lisa Matthewson
2008 Universals in Semantics. The Linguistic Review 25, 139–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein
1991 Formal and functional differences between S-internal and S-external modal particles in Norwegian. Multilingua 10, 175–200.Google Scholar
2018  Vel i spørresetninger: en pragmatisk analyse. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift, 36, 5–39.Google Scholar
Gehrke, Berit, and Elena Castroviejo
2016 Good Manners: On the Degree Effect of Good Events. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20 , 252–269.Google Scholar
Göbel, Alexander
2018 Evidentiality and Undirected Questions: A New Account of the German Discourse Particle wohl. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 24.1, 77–86. https://​repository​.upenn​.edu​/pwpl​/vol24​/iss1​/10
Grosz, Patrick Georg
2017 Shedding new light on the wohl muddle: The particle schier in Austrian German. Wiener Linguistische Gazette (WLG) 82 [Themenheft 11-11-17. Festschrift für Martin Prinzhorn , ed. by Clemens Mayr and Edwin Williams], 71–78.Google Scholar
2021 Discourse particles. In Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann, and Thomas Ede Zimmermann (eds.): The Companion to Semantics (SemCom). Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar
1982 Scandinavian language structures: a comparative historical survey. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hügel, Franz Seraph
1873 Der Wiener Dialekt: Lexikon der Wiener Volkssprache. Wien: A. Hartleben. https://​books​.google​.com​/books​?id​=TxUJAAAAQAAJ
Lassiter, Daniel
2016  Must, knowledge, and (in)directness. Natural Language Semantics 24, 117–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindner, Katrin
1991 ‘Wir sind ja doch alte Bekannte.’ The use of German ja and doch as modal particles. In Werner Abraham (ed.): Discourse Particles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 163–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa, and Henry Davis
2018 Micro-variation in discourse particles: From St’át’imcets to German. Presentation at MIT Colloquium, 2nd November 2018.
NAOB = Det Norske Akademis Ordbok (Norwegian Academy Dictionary)
https://​naob​.no​/ordbok.
OMC = The Oslo Multilingual Corpus
(1999–2008), the Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, http://​www​.hf​.uio​.no​/ilos​/english​/services​/omc/.
Penka, Doris
2006 Almost there: The meaning of almost . In Christian Ebert and Cornelia Endriss (eds.): Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung 10, 275–286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, Eric
2006 Interactions With Context. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Thurmair, Maria
1989 Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth
1989 On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65, 31–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard, and Ulrich Detges
2007 Different functions, different histories: Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6, 61–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte
2008 Discourse particles in the left periphery. In: B. Shaer et al. (eds.). Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives. London: Routledge, 200–231.Google Scholar
2011 Discourse particles. In Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn, and Klaus von Heusinger (eds.): Handbook of Semantics./Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012–2038. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Wird schon stimmen! A degree operator analysis of schon . Journal of Semantics 35, 687–739. CrossrefGoogle Scholar