1897-1059 DEGREES OF PROCEDURE ACTIVATION AND THE GERMAN MODAL PARTICLES JA AND DOCH – PART 3 Unger Christoph author Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) 05xg72x27 Correspondence to: Christoph Unger 15 06 2016 Volume 133, Issue 1 2016 63 74 Copyright © 2016 2016 <p>In this paper I argue that a unitary account of the modal and non-modal uses of the German particles ja 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.</p> 1 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. 2 Anscombre J.-C. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. [2nd edition]. Mardaga. 3 Anscombre J.-C., Ducrot O. 1989. Argumentativity and informativity. – Meyer M. (ed.). From metaphysics to rhetoric. Amsterdam: 71–87. 4 Blakemore D. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning. Cambridge. 5 Blass R. 2000. Particles, propositional attitude and mutual manifestness. – Andersen G., Fretheim T. (eds.). Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam: 39–52. 6 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]. 7 Ducrot O. 1972. Le dire et ne pas dire: Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris.  8 Ducrot O., Fouquier E., Gouazé J. 1980. Le mots du discours. [Tech. Rep.]. Paris. 9 Egg M. 2013. Discourse particles, common ground, and felicity conditions. – Gutzmann D., Gärtner H.-M. (eds.). Beyond expressives. Explorations in use – conditional meaning. Leiden: 125–149. 10 Fischer K. 2006. Grounding and common ground: modal particles and their translation equivalents. – Fetzer A., Fischer K., (eds.). Lexical markers of common grounds. Berlin: 47–66. 11 Fretheim T. 2014. The pragmatics of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. [Paper delivered at the 6th International Conference on Intercultural Pragmatics and Communication. University of Malta]. 12 Iten C. 2000. The relevance of Argumentation Theory. – Lingua 110.9: 665–699. 13 Jacobs J. 1991. On the semantics of modal particles. – Abraham W. (ed.). Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. Amsterdam: 141– 162. 14 König E. 1997. Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. – Germanistische Linguistik 136: 57–75. 15 Meibauer J. 1994. Modaler Kontrast und konzeptionelle Verschiebung: Studien zur Syntax und Semantik deutschre Modalpartikeln. Tübingen. 16 Sperber D., Wilson D. 1986/1995. Relevance. Oxford. 17 Unger C. 2006. Genre, relevance and global coherence: The pragmatics of discourse type. [Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language &amp; Cognition]. Basingstoke. 18 Waltereit R. 2001. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoretic approach. – Journal of Pragmatics 33.9: 1391–1417. 19 Wharton T. 2009. Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge. 20 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. 21 Wilson D., Sperber D. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. – Lingua 90.1/2: 1–25. 22 Wilson D., Wharton T. 2006. Relevance and prosody. – Journal of Pragmatics. 38.10: 1559–1579. 23 Winterstein G. 2012. What but-sentences argue for: An argumentative analysis of but. – Lingua 122.15: 1864–1885.