More than just a modal particle

References

1. Abdullaev, Zapir G., Alburi A. Abdulsalamov, Magomed-Said M. Musaev & S. Sapijaxanum M. Temirbulatova
   2014 Sovremenij darginskij jazyk. Makhachkala: IJaLi DNC RAN.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Abraham, Werner
   1991a Introduction. InWerner Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic, and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German, 1–10. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.12
   https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.12 [Google Scholar]
3. Abraham, Werner
   1991b Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about?InWerner Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic, and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German, 203–252. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.12.08abr
   https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.12.08abr [Google Scholar]
4. Abraham, Werner
   2017 Discourse marker = discourse particle = thetical = modal particle? A futile comparison. InJosef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds.), 241–280.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Abraham, Werner & Eva Wuite
   1984 Kontrastive Partikelforschung unter lexikographischem Gesichtspunkt: Exempel am Deutsch-Finnischen. Folia Linguistica Europaea18. 155–193.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Ariel, Mira
   1988 Retrieving propositions from context: Why and how. Journal of Pragmatics12. 567–600. 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90049‑5
   https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90049-5 [Google Scholar]
7. Ariel, Mira
   1998 Discourse markers and form-function correlations. InAndreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 223–259.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bayer, Josef & Volker Struckmeier
   (eds.) 2017 Discourse particles: Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Berg, Helma van den
   2001 Dargi folktales: Oral stories from the Caucasus with an introduction to Dargi grammar. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Boeg Thomsen, Ditte
    2017 Children’s felicitous use of intersubjective particles evidences sensitivity to constellations of perspectives. Glossa2(1). 1–30. 10.5334/gjgl.194
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.194 [Google Scholar]
11. Bolden, Galina B.
    2009 Implementing delayed actions. InJack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 326–353. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.012 [Google Scholar]
12. Bonnot, Christine & C. B. Kodzasov
    1998 Semantičeskoe var’irovanie diskursivnyx slov i ego vlijanie na linearizaciju i intonirovanie (Na primere častic ŽE i VED’). InKatja Kiseleva & Denis Paillard (eds.), Diskursivnye Slova Russkogo Jazyka: Opyt Kontekstno-Semantičeskogo Opisanija, 382–443. Moscow: Metatekst.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Büring, Daniel
    2012 Light negation and conventional implicatures. Paper presented atInformation, discourse structure and levels of meaning, Barcelona, 25–26 October 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Christopher, Nadežda
    2016 The Kazakh particle ğoj: the first full description. Paper presented atInformation structure and discourse in the minority languages of the Russian Federation. London, SOAS, 2–3 December 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Degand, Liesbeth, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea
    2013a Modal particles and discourse markers: Two sides of the same coin?InLiesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Degand, Liesbeth, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea
    (eds.) 2013b Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.234
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234 [Google Scholar]
17. Diewald, Gabriele
    2013 Same same but different: Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. InLiesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), 19–45.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Döring, Sophia & Sophie Repp
    2019 The modal particles ja and doch and their interaction with discourse structure: Corpus and experimental evidence. InSam Featherston, Robin Hörnig, Sophie von Wietersheim & Susanne Winkler (eds.), Experiments in focus: Information structure and semantic processing. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110623093‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110623093-002 [Google Scholar]
19. Dobrushina, Nina
    2019 Moods of Mehweb. InMichael Daniel, Nina Dobrushina & Dmitry Ganenkov (eds.), The Mehweb language: Essays on phonology, morphology and syntax, 117–165. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Egg, Markus
    2010 A unified account of the semantics of discourse particles. Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2010: The 11th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue. 132–138.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Egg, Markus & Malte Zimmermann
    2012 Stressed out! Accented discourse particles: The case of DOCH. InAna Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung16, vol.1, 225–238. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Feldman, Anna
    2001 Discourse markers: Accessing ‘hearer-old’ information: The case of Russian že. The LACUS forum27. 187–201.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Féry, Caroline & Shinichiro Ishihara
    (eds.) 2016 The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.004 [Google Scholar]
24. Foolen, Ad.
    2013 Niederländisch toch und Deutsch doch: Gleich oder doch nicht ganz?Linguistik online13. 85–102.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Forker, Diana
    2016 Floating agreement and information structure: The case of Sanzhi Dargwa. Studies in Language40. 1–25. 10.1075/sl.40.1.01for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.1.01for [Google Scholar]
26. Forker, Diana
    2020 A grammar of Sanzhi Dargwa. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi:  10.5281/zenodo.3339225
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3339225
27. Gast, Volker
    2008 Modal particles and context updating: The functions of German ja, doch, wohl and etwa. InHeinz Vater & Ole Letnes (eds.), Modalverben und Grammatikalisierung, 153–177. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Grosz, Patrick
    2010[published in 2014] German doch: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society46. 163–177.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Grosz, Patrick
    2016 Information structure and discourse particles. InCaroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), 336–359. Oxford: OUP.
30. Gutzmann, Daniel
    2017 Modal particles ≠ modal particles (= modal particles): Differences between German modal particles and how to deal with them semantically. InJosef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds.), 144–172.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Haiman, John
    1978 Conditionals are topics. Language54. 564–589. 10.1353/lan.1978.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1978.0009 [Google Scholar]
32. Helbig, Gerhard
    1988 Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Jucker, Andreas H. & Yael Ziv
    1998a Discourse markers: Introduction. InAndreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Jucker, Andreas H. & Yael Ziv
    (eds.) 1998b Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.57
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57 [Google Scholar]
35. Kalinina, Elena & Nina R. Sumbatova
    2007 Clause structure and verbal forms in Nakh-Daghestanian. InIrina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness, 183–249. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Karagjosova, Elena
    2004 The meaning and function of German modal particles. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Karagjosova, Elena
    2012 Conjunct adverb doch and the notion of contrast. Linguistics50(1). 27–64. 10.1515/ling‑2012‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0002 [Google Scholar]
38. Kazenin, Konstantin
    2002 Focus in Daghestanian word order typology. Linguistic Typology6. 289–316.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Keevallik, Leelo
    2011 Grammar for adjusting assumptions: The Estonian enclitic -gi/-ki in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics43(12). 2879–2896. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.001 [Google Scholar]
40. König, Ekkehard
    1997 Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik136. 57–75.
    [Google Scholar]
41. König, Ekkehard & Susanne Requardt
    1991 A relevance-theoretic approach to the analysis of modal particles in German. Multilingua10. 63–77.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2000 Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
43. Liefländer-Koistinen, Luise
    1989 Zum deutschen doch und finnischen -han. Beobachtungen zur Übersetzbarkeit der deutschen Abtönungspartikel. InHarald Weydt (ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln, 185–195. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Maisak, Timur
    2010 Predicate topicalization in East Caucasian languages. Paper presented at theSWL 4 Conference, 23–26 September 2010, Lyon.
45. Malchukov, Andrej L.
    2004 Towards a semantic typology of adversative and contrast marking. Journal of Semantics21. 177–198. 10.1093/jos/21.2.177
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.2.177 [Google Scholar]
46. McCoy, Svetlana
    2003 Connecting information structure and discourse structure through “Kontrast”: The case of colloquial Russian particles -TO, ŽE, and VED’. Journal of Logic, Language and Information12. 319–335. 10.1023/A:1024110711090
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024110711090 [Google Scholar]
47. Nekula, Malek
    1996 System der Partikeln im Deutschen und Tschechischen: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Abtönungspartikeln. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110930924
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110930924 [Google Scholar]
48. Parrott, Lillian
    1997 Discourse organization and inference: The usage of the Russian particles že and ved’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Pasch, Renate, Ursula Brauße, Eva Breindl & Ulrich H. Waßner
    2003 Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren: Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen, Satzadverbien und Partikeln). Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110201666
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110201666 [Google Scholar]
50. Potts, Christopher
    2007 The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics33. 165–198. 10.1515/TL.2007.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
51. Rathmayr, Renate
    1985 Die russischen Partikeln als Pragmalexeme. München: Sagner. 10.3726/b12537
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b12537 [Google Scholar]
52. Repp, Sophie
    2016 Contrast: Dissecting an elusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. InCaroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), 270–289.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Rinas, Karsten
    2006 Die Abtönungspartikeln «doch» und «ja». Semantik, Idiomatisierung, Kombinationen, tschechische Äquivalente. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Sumbatova, Nina R.
    2009 Constituent questions and argument-focus constructions: Some data from the North-Caucasian languages. InJohannes Helmbrecht, Yoko Nisima, Yong-Min Shin, Stavros Skopeteas & Elisabeth Verhoeven (eds.), Form and function in language research: Papers in honour of Christian Lehmann, 313–328. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Sumbatova, Nina R. & Yury A. Lander
    2014 Darginskij govor selenija Tanty: Grammatičeskij očerk, voprosy sintaksisa. Moscow: JaSK.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Sumbatova, Nina R. & Rasul O. Mutalov
    2003 A grammar of Icari Dargwa. Munich: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Szulc-Brzozowska, Magdalena
    2010 Zur semantisch-pragmatischen Erweiterung der Abtönungsfunktion bei polnischen Modalpartikeln aus kontrastiver Sicht (Deutsch-Polnisch). Linguistik Online44. 19–28.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Tatevosov, Sergei
    2001 From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Journal of Pragmatics33. 443–464. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00012‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00012-6 [Google Scholar]
59. Temirbulatova, Sapijaxanum M.
    2004 Xajdagskij dialekt darginskogo jayzka. Makhachkala: IJaLi DNC RAN.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Thurmair, Maria
    1989 Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111354569
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354569 [Google Scholar]
61. Weydt, Harald & Klaas-Hinrich Ehlers
    1987 Partikel-Bibliographie: Internationale Sprachenforschung zu Partikeln und Interjektionen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Zeevat, Henk, & Elena Karagjosova
    2009 History and grammaticalisation of doch/toch. ZAS Papers in Linguistics. 135–152.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Zimmermann, Malte
    2008 Discourse particles in the left periphery. InBenjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives, 200–231. Oxford: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Zimmermann, Malte
    2011 Discourse particles. InKlaus v. Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. vol.2, 2012–2038. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]