Wybierz format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEData publikacji: 15.06.2016
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2016, Volume 133, Issue 1, s. 31-45
https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.15.003.4892Autorzy
In this paper I argue that a unitary account of the modal and non-modal uses of the German particlesja and doch can be provided by appealing to essentially non-representational properties of the theory of procedural meaning in Relevance Theory (RT). According to Wilson (2011), procedural indicators such as ja and doch function by raising the activation level of cognitive procedures, increasing the likelihood that audiences following the RT comprehension heuristic will use these procedures. Partially following proposals by König (1997) and Blass (2000, 2014), I would like to posit that ja and doch trigger a procedure to raise the epistemic strength of the proposition conveyed. Doch triggers a second procedure in addition, a constraint on context selection to the effect that the proposition conveyed must be processed in a context containing its negation. Since raising the activation level of cognitive procedures can be done in degrees, I argue that the basic difference between modal and non-modal uses of ja and doch is a reflection of differences in the degree of activation level rise: non-modal uses of ja and doch raise the activation of the manifestness procedure to a high degree, giving rise to effects such as emphasis or contrast, whereas modal uses raise this procedure’s activation level merely to some degree. As a result, modal ja and doch are uniquely suitable to mark propositions that do not need much evidential strengthening but would benefit from some such effect. This is most typically the case in mutually manifest assumptions that the communicator intends to use as premises in arguments. However, in some discourse contexts assumptions that are not mutually manifest may also fit this description. The prediction of this analysis is that the modal uses of ja and doch do not form a clearly delimited class; rather, borderline cases exist defying generalizations. I will present data from a qualitative corpus study that confirms these predictions.
Abraham W. 1991. Discourse particles in German: how does their illocutive force come about? - Abraham W. (ed.). Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. Amsterdam: 203–252.
Blass R. 1990. Relevance relations in discourse. Cambridge.
Blass R. 2000. Particles, propositional attitude and mutual manifestness. – Andersen G., Fretheim T. (eds.). Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam: 39–52.
Blass R. 2014. German evidential procedural indicators ja and wohl in comprehension and argumentation. – Paper presented at the conference Interpreting for Relevance. University of Warsaw.
Burkhardt A. 1994. Abtönungspartikeln im Deutschen: Bedeutung und Genese. – Zeitschrift fur Germanistische Linguistik 22.2: 129–151.
Degand L., Cornillie B., Pietrandrea P. 2013. Modal particles and discourse markers: Two sides of the same coin? – Degand L., Cornillie B., Pietrandrea P. (eds.). 2013. Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description. Amsterdam: 1–18.
Diewald G. 2013. “Same same but different” – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. – Degand L., Cornillie B., Pietrandrea P. (eds.). Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description. Amsterdam: 19–46.
Fischer K. 2006. Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation equivalents. – Fetzer A., Fischer K. (eds.). Lexical markers of common grounds. Amsterdam: 47–66.
Gutzmann D. 2009. Hybrid semantics for modal particles. – Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 33.1–2: 45–59.
Gutzmann D. 2010. Betonte Modalpartikeln und Verumfokus. – Hentschel E., Harden T. (eds.). 40 Jahre Partikelforschung. Tübingen: 119–138.
Gutzmann D. 2015. Continuation-based semantics for modal particles. Deriving syntax from semantics. – Kimmelmann V., Korotkova N., Yanovich I. (eds.). Proceedings of MOSS 2: Moscow syntax and semantics. [vol. 75. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics]. Cambridge (MA): 133–150.
Hartmann D. 1998. Particles. – Mey J. (ed.). Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics. Oxford: 657–663.
Höhle T.N. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. – Jacobs J. (ed.). Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. [Linguistische Berichte Sonderhefte 4]. Berlin: 112–141.
König E. 1997. Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. – Germanistische Linguistik 136: 57–75.
Lindner K. 1991. ‘Wir sind ja doch alte Bekannte’: The use of German ja and doch as modal particles. – Abraham W. 1991. Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. Amsterdam: 163–202.
Lütten J. 1979. Die Rolle der Partikeln doch, eben und ja als Konsensus-Konstitutiva in gesprochener Sprache. – Weydt H. (ed.). Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: 30–38.
Pittner K. 2009. Wieder als Modalpartikel. – Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 37.2: 296–314.
Repp S. 2013. Common ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and VERUM. – Beyond Expressives–Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning. [CRISPI Series]. Bingley: 231–274.
Schoonjans S. 2013. Modal particles: Problems in defining a category. – Degand L., Cornillie B., Pietrandrea P., (eds.). Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization
Traugott E.C. 2007. Discussion article: Discourse markers, modal particles, and contrastive analysis, synchronic and diachronic. – Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 139–157.
Waltereit R. 2001. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoretic approach. – Journal of Pragmatics 33.9: 1391–1417.
Waltereit R., Detges U. 2007. Different functions, different histories. Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. – Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6.2007: 61–80.
Weydt H. 1969. Abtönungspartikel. Bad Homburg.
Wilson D. 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. – Escandell-Vidal V., Leonetti M., Ahern A., (eds.). Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives. [vol. 25. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface]. Bingley: 3–31.
Zeevat H., Karagjosova E. 2009. History and grammaticalisation of “Doch”/“Toch”. – ZASPiL 9: 135.
Informacje: Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2016, Volume 133, Issue 1, s. 31-45
Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim
Publikacja: 15.06.2016
Status artykułu: Otwarte
Licencja: Żadna
Udział procentowy autorów:
Korekty artykułu:
-Języki publikacji:
AngielskiLiczba wyświetleń: 2728
Liczba pobrań: 2053