Volume 27, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Modal particles have been intensively studied in German and a few other European languages, but investigations of modal particles from little-known languages are rare. This paper examines in detail the morphosyntactic and the semantic properties of the Sanzhi Dargwa (Nakh-Daghestanian) modal particle =. It is shown that the particle possesses the morphosyntactic properties that are commonly assumed for modal particles. The particle is then analyzed as presupposition trigger that interacts with focus and marks clauses as declarative sentences. It triggers two presuppositions, namely uncontroversiality and contrast/correction. Furthermore, it can express finiteness. The analysis suggests that accounting for modal particles as grammatical rather than lexical items with head status seems promising for further research.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abdullaev, Zapir G., Alburi A. Abdulsalamov, Magomed-Said M. Musaev & S. Sapijaxanum M. Temirbulatova
    2014Sovremenij 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. 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. 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. 1998 Discourse markers and form-function correlations. InAndreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), 223–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bayer, Josef & Volker Struckmeier
    (eds.) 2017Discourse particles: Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Berg, Helma van den
    2001Dargi 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. (eds.) 2013bDiscourse 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.) 2016The 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. 2020A grammar of Sanzhi Dargwa. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi:  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. 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
    1988Lexikon 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. (eds.) 1998bDiscourse 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
    2004The meaning and function of German modal particles. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 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.
    2000Presumptive 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
    1996System 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
    1997Discourse 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
    2003Handbuch 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
    1985Die 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
    2006Die 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
    2014Darginskij govor selenija Tanty: Grammatičeskij očerk, voprosy sintaksisa. Moscow: JaSK.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Sumbatova, Nina R. & Rasul O. Mutalov
    2003A 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.
    2004Xajdagskij dialekt darginskogo jayzka. Makhachkala: IJaLi DNC RAN.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Thurmair, Maria
    1989Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111354569
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354569 [Google Scholar]
  61. Weydt, Harald & Klaas-Hinrich Ehlers
    1987Partikel-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. 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]
  • Article Type: Research Article
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