1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Modal particles as test case for multi-layer approaches to commitment and assertion
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article discusses the controversial classification of “modal particles” (MPs) in German linguistics, debating whether they are truly “modal” or primarily contribute to illocutionary force. It explores particles like and to show that both have to be regarded as modal egophorics. The analysis builds on Frege’s hierarchy of propositional operations, arguing that MPs function as judgment specifiers rather than direct contributors to epistemic stance. The article also discusses existing multi-layered models of commitment, going back to Frege. Despite their frequent lack of consideration for the intersubjective nature of epistemic judgments, Fregean approaches help describe the fine structure behind epistemic commitment. It is showed that MPs intervene as specifiers of what Frege and Krifka call a judgment. Throughout the paper, particular attention is paid to retroactions between the various layers of assertion, which can give rise to the impression that MPs are located higher than their actual place in the functional hierarchy. It is claimed that these effects are due to pragmatic implications inhibiting the felicity conditions of some theoretically possible combinations.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00062.mod
2026-02-26
2026-03-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/elt.00062.mod
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abraham, W.
    (2010) Diskurspartikeln zwischen Modalität, Modus und Fremdbewussteins-Abgleich (Theory of Mind). InTh. Harden & E. Hentschel (Eds.), Forty Years of Particle Research (p.–). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. (2012) Traces of Bühler’s semiotic legacy in modern linguistics. InW. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind elements across languages (p.–). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110271072.211
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271072.211 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2019) Deutsche Modalpartikel in Nichthauptsatz- und Infinitkonstruktionen. Studia Germanica Gedanensia, (), –. 10.26881/sgg.2019.41.01
     https://doi.org/10.26881/sgg.2019.41.01 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2020a) Modality in Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139108676
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139108676 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2020b) Discourse particles in thetic judgments, in dependent sentences, and in non-finite phrases. InP.-Y. Modicom & O. Duplâtre (Eds.), Information-structural perspectives on discourse particles (p.–). Amsterdam : John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.213.08abr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.213.08abr [Google Scholar]
  6. Abraham, W. & Leiss, E.
    (2012) Introduction: Theory of Mind elements across languages. InW. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind elements across languages (p.–). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110271072.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271072.1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergqvist, H.
    (2020) Swedish modal particles as markers of engagement: Evidence from distribution and frequency. Folia Linguistica, . –. 10.1515/flin‑2020‑2047
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2020-2047 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2021) Egophoricity and Perspective: A View From Spoken Swedish. Frontiers in Communication, . 10.3389/fcomm.2021.627144
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.627144 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bergqvist, H., Grzech, K. & Schultze-Berndt, E.
    (Eds.) (2020) Knowing in interaction: Empirical approaches to epistemicity and intersubjectivity in langage. Folia Linguistica (), –. 10.1515/flin‑2020‑2041
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2020-2041 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bergqvist, H. & Kittilä, S.
    (Eds.) (2019) Evidentiality, egophoricity and engagement. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.5281/zenodo.3968344
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3968344 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bühler, K.
    (1934) Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena/Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Coniglio, M.
    (2011) Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln. Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1524/9783050053578
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050053578 [Google Scholar]
  13. Doherty, M.
    (1985) Epistemische Bedeutung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1515/9783050067452
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783050067452 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ducrot, O.
    (1984) Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Faller, M.
    (2024) The interrogative flip with illocutionary evidentials. Folia Linguistica (), –. 10.1515/flin‑2023‑2050
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2023-2050 [Google Scholar]
  16. Frege, G.
    (1892/2008) Über Sinn und Bedeutung. InG. Patzig (Ed.): Frege. Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung (p.–). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (1918/2003) Der Gedanke". InG. Patzig (Ed.): Frege. Logische Untersuchungen (p.–). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gast, V.
    (2008) Modal particles and context updating: The functions of German ‘ja’, ‘doch’, ‘wohl’ and ‘etwa’. InH. Vater & O. Letnes (Eds.), Modalverben und Grammatikalisierung (p.–). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Givon, T.
    (1994) Irrealis and the Subjunctive. Studies in Language(), –. 10.1075/sl.18.2.02giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18.2.02giv [Google Scholar]
  20. Gosselin, L.
    (2010) Les modalités en français: La validation des représentations. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789042027572
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042027572 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2015) De l’opposition modus / dictum à la distinction entre modalités extrinsèques et modalités intrinsèques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 2015, , –. 10.2143/BSL.110.1.3132105
     https://doi.org/10.2143/BSL.110.1.3132105 [Google Scholar]
  22. Grosz, P.
    (2015) Information structure and discourse particles. InC. Féry & Sh. Ishihara (Eds), The Oxford handbook of information structure (p.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.36
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.36 [Google Scholar]
  23. Grzech, K. & Bergqvist, H.
    (Eds.) (2025) Expanding the Boundaries of Epistemicity: Epistemic Modality, Evidentiality, and Beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111516233
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111516233 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gutzmann, D.
    (2011) Ob einer wohl recht hat? Two sentence mode theories for German in comparison, Deutsche Sprache, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2015) Use-conditional meaning. Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2017) Modal particles =/= modal particles (=modal particles). InJ. Bayer & V. Struckmeier (eds.), Discourse Particles. Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics (p.–). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110497151‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110497151-007 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hargreaves, D.
    (2018) “Am I blue?:” Privileged access constraints in Kathmandu Newar. InS. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds), Egophoricity (p.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.118.02har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.02har [Google Scholar]
  28. Jacobs, J.
    (1991) On the semantics of modal particles. InW. Abraham (Ed.), Discourse Particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German (p.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.12.06jac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.12.06jac [Google Scholar]
  29. König, E.
    (1997) Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kratzer, A.
    (1977) What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, –. 10.1007/BF00353453
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353453 [Google Scholar]
  31. Krifka, K.
    (2008) Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, –. 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.2
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 [Google Scholar]
  32. Krifka, M.
    (2023) Layers of assertive clauses: Propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. InJ. Hartmann & A. Wöllstein (Eds.), Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich / Propositional arguments in cross-linguistic research (p.–). Tübingen: Narr. 10.24053/9783823394105
     https://doi.org/10.24053/9783823394105 [Google Scholar]
  33. Leiss, E.
    (2012) Epistemicity, evidentiality and Theory of Mind. InW. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind elements across languages (p.–). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110271072.39
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271072.39 [Google Scholar]
  34. Leiss, E. & Abraham, W.
    (Eds.) (2014) Modes of Modality: Modality, typology, and universal grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.149
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.149 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lohnstein, H.
    (2000) Satzmodus — kompositionell. Zur Parametrisierung der Modusphrase im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1515/9783050079196
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783050079196 [Google Scholar]
  36. MacFarlane, J.
    (2011) What is assertion?InJ. Brown & H. Cappelen (Eds.), Assertion. New philosophical essays (p.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573004.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573004.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  37. Marty, A.
    (1918) Über subjektlose Sätze und das Verhältnis der Grammatik zu Logik und Psychologie. Halle: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Modicom, P.-Y.
    (2016) L’énoncé et son double: recherches sur le marquage de l’altérité énonciative en allemand. PhD thesis, U. Paris-Sorbonne.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (2018) Modalpartikeln, Urteilsakt und Satzmodus. InS. Zeman & E. Leiss (Eds.), Zukunft der Grammatik und Grammatik der Zukunft. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Werner Abraham (p.–). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Müller, S.
    (2012) The distribution of knowledge in (un)acceptable questions. InW. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages (p.–). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110271072.147
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271072.147 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ormelius-Sandblom, E.
    (1997) The modal particle schon: Its syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. InT. Swan & O. J. Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives (p.–). Berlin, Den Haag: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110889932.75
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.75 [Google Scholar]
  42. Panov, V.
    (2020) The marking of uncontroversial information in Europe: presenting the enimitive. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, (), –. 10.1080/03740463.2020.1745618
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2020.1745618 [Google Scholar]
  43. Portner, P.
    (2009) Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199292424.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199292424.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Reinhart, T.
    (1981) Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, , –. 10.21825/philosophica.82606
     https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82606 [Google Scholar]
  45. San Roque, L., Floyd, S. & Norcliffe, E.
    (2017) Evidentiality and interrogativity. Lingua, –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2018) Egophoricity: An introduction. InS. Floyd, E. Norcliffe & L. San Roque (Eds.), Egophoricity (p.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.118.01san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.118.01san [Google Scholar]
  47. Strawson, P. F.
    (1964) Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria, , –. 10.1111/j.1755‑2567.1964.tb00404.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1964.tb00404.x [Google Scholar]
  48. Thurmair, M.
    (1989) Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Berlin, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783111354569
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354569 [Google Scholar]
  49. Truckenbrodt, H.
    (2006) On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics, –. 10.1515/TL.2006.018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2006.018 [Google Scholar]
  50. Waltereit, R.
    (2006) Abtönung: Zur Pragmatik und historischen Semantik von Modalpartikeln und ihren funktionalen Äquivalenten in romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110948295
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110948295 [Google Scholar]
  51. Weydt, H.
    (1969) Abtönungspartikel: Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen Entsprechungen. Bad Homburg: Gehlen.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Zimmermann, M.
    (2004) Zum ‘Wohl’: Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren, Linguistische Berichte, –. 10.46771/9783967696974_1
     https://doi.org/10.46771/9783967696974_1 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00062.mod
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: German ; modal particles ; Frege’s hierarchy ; commitment ; illocutionary force ; modality ; assertion ; egophoricity ; anchoring

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error