Die Modalpartikeln ja, doch und schon : Zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik

The aim of this thesis is to show how modal particles can be integrated into a modular description of language where grammar and pragmatics are seen as two independent but interacting modules. The modular approach is chosen because of the problems connected with a functional approach. On the syntactic level, it is assumed that modal particles are XPs. The fact that modal particles cannot occur alone in the initial field of a clause has, presumably, semantic-pragmatic reasons. It is also argued that the many positions possible for modal particles in a clause can be accounted for by assuming that they are generated in one special position in the (theoretical) syntactic structure, namely as adjuncts to the highest VP, and that other constituents may move past them for information structural reasons that have to do with the interaction of the grammatical focus-background structure and the pragmatic theme-rheme structure. In the light of the differences between the various occurrences of the words ja, doch and schon, modal particles are regarded as a category of their own, separated from categories such as adverbs, focus particles and sentence equivalents. On the semantic level, it is shown that the modular approach makes it possible to minimalistically assume one semantic form per modal particle, irrespective of stress. In the case of the modal particles ja, doch and schon, it is argued that they are non-referential and non-attitudinal. It is suggested that, in view of their common feature, ‘affirmative1, they be analysed as expressions of facticity. They are represented by an operator in a duality group based on the operator FAKT. The meaning is compositionally integrated into the meaning of a clause at the level of semantic form, where it takes scope over the proposition [e INST p]. It interacts with other modal particles and sentence adverbials, the order of which shows the scope relations. Finally, on the pragmatic level, it is maintained that there is no inherent connection between modal particles and the focus-background structure or the theme-rheme structure. Moreover, modal particles do not even seem to be included in the theme-rheme structure. However, they take part in the focus-background structure and may be focussed themselves. The functions of modal particles are derived from their meaning in interaction with the illocutionary force or the sentence mood, the Principle of Relevance, and stress. The functions thus derived are a strengthening or a weakening effect on assertions, the triggering of implicatures, and the indication of the type of relation between the utterance concerned and the context

Left- and Right-Dislocation and the speaker’s perspective

In Italian, topics may appear in left- or right-dislocated position and are doubled by clause-internal clitic pronouns. In this paper, the syntax and the contribution to discourse of left- and right-dislocated topics are discussed. We will focus on Familiar Topics, the only type of topics which can appear in either position. On the one hand, it is shown that Familiar Topics do not only involve the retrieval of given information, as is currently assumed, but also contribute to the conversational dynamics by adding the speaker’s perspective on shared information. On the other hand, it is shown that left and right-dislocated topics have different properties, confirming that Left Dislocation is not the mirror image of Right Dislocation. The discussion will also include the comparison between Italian Left and Right Dislocation and German sentences with modal particles

Discourse Particles

This chapter aims to provide an overview of core questions concerning the nature of so‐called discourse particles, such as German ja and doch. It starts by exploring the similarity between discourse particles and sentence adverbs, which raises nontrivial questions such as: which properties do the two types of elements share? and what are the differences between them? Subsequently, it is shown that discourse particles can be subclassified, at least into a set of particles that interact with epistemic modality and a set of particles that interact with priority modality (i.e., non‐dynamic root modality). A case study of the German particle ja highlights the complexities that are involved in establishing the lexical entries for discourse particles. This case study confirms that ja(p) has an uncontroversiality component (“p is uncontroversial”), but questions the widespread assumption that it also has a factuality component (“p is true”). The remainder of the paper is dedicated to discussing three approaches to the very type of (non‐truth‐conditional) meaning that discourse particles encode: a syntactic force‐based approach, a presuppositional approach, and a use‐conditional approach. In comparing these three approaches, we see that a presuppositional approach and a use‐conditional approach fare equally well. By contrast, it is shown that one of the main arguments for a syntactic force‐based approach cannot be confirmed, namely, that it predicts the distribution of discourse particles in embedded clauses. Notably, all three approaches have means to deal with the frequently discussed sentence‐type and speech‐act sensitivity of discourse particles, which thus cannot be used to decide between the approaches