Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



German modal particles (MPs) show semantic, pragmatic, and syntactic peculiarities which make them specifically interesting for research on language processing. However, so far, there are no tests available that reliably elicit MPs in order to study their production in different groups of speakers. This paper presents the Modal Particle Elicitation Test – MoPET. Based on simple contexts and black and white drawings, it is the first test that elicits a wide range of MPs by incorporating the semantic, pragmatic, and syntactic peculiarities of MPs. The goal of this paper is to evaluate whether the test reliably elicits MPs in adult German L1 speakers, in order to use it for research on different speakers (e.g., patients and L1/L2 learners) in the future. Results of a pilot study with 27 adult native speakers of German demonstrate that the test reliably elicits a wide range of nineteen different MPs and a wide range of different sentence types that are strongly interconnected with the use of MPs. Crucially, each of the twelve critical scenes of the test elicited at least one MP, and each participant produced at least one MP, which also makes the test suitable for diagnostic purposes.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alm, M., Behr, J., & Fischer, K.
    (2018) Modal particles and sentence type restrictions: A construction grammar perspective. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 31, 1–32. 10.5334/gjgl.702
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.702 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bayer, J.
    (2012) From modal particle to interrogative marker: A study of German denn. InL. Brugè, A. Cardinaletti, G. Giusti, N. Munaro & C. Poletto (Eds.), Functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 11–26. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. (1991) German particles in a modular grammar: Neurolinguistic evidence. InAbraham, W. (Ed.), Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. 253–302. 10.1075/pbns.12.09bay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.12.09bay [Google Scholar]
  4. Benazzo, S. & Dimroth, C.
    (2015) Addditive particles in Romance and Germanic languages: Are they really similar?Linguistik Online, 711, 9–30. 10.13092/lo.71.1776
    https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.71.1776 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bonvin, A. & Dimroth, C.
    (2016) Additive linking in second language discourse: Lexical, syntactic and discourse organizational choices in intermediate and advanced learners of L2 German with L1 French. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique181. 10.4000/discours.9142
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.9142 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dimroth, C.
    (2006) The Finite Story. Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2007) Zweitspracherwerb bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede. InT. Anstatt (Ed.), Mehrsprachigkeit bei Kindern und Erwachsenen. Tübingen: Narr-Francke, 115–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dimroth, C., Andorno, C., Benazzo, S., & Verhagen, J.
    (2010) Given claims about new topics. How Romance and Germanic speakers link changed and maintained information in narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics421, 3328–3344. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dimroth, C.
    (2012) Videoclips zur Elizitation von Erzählungen: Methodische Überlegungen und einige Ergebnisse am Beispiel der Finite Story. InB. Arenholz (Ed.), Einblicke in die Zweitspracherwerbsforschung und ihre methodischen Verfahren. Berlin: De Gruyter, 77–98. 10.1515/9783110267822.77
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110267822.77 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dimroth, C. & Benazzo, S.
    (2018) Developing strategies for encoding additive and contrastive relations in French and German child narratives. InM. Garcia & M. Uth (Eds.), Focus realization and interpretation in Romance and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 313–356. 10.1075/slcs.201.11dim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.201.11dim [Google Scholar]
  11. Dörre, L., Czypionka, A., Trotzke, A., & Bayer, J.
    (2018) The Processing of German Modal Particles and their Counterparts. Linguistische Berichte, 2551, 313–346.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dörre, L. & Trotzke, A.
    (2019) The Processing of Secondary Meaning: An Experimental Comparison of Focus- and Modal Particles in wh-questions. InD. Gutzmann & K. Turgay (Eds.), Secondary Content – The Semantics and Pragmatics of Side Issues. Leiden: Brill, 143–167. 10.1163/9789004393127_007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004393127_007 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dörre, L.
    (unpublished manuscript). Sprachtagebuch von Marie-Louise.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fischer, K.
    (2007) Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation equivalents. InA. Fetzer & K. Fischer (Eds.), Lexical markers of common grounds. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 47–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Grosz, P.
    (2014) Optative markers as communicative cues. Natural Language Semantics, 221, 89–115. 10.1007/s11050‑013‑9101‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-013-9101-1 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2016) Information Structure and Discourse Particles. InC. Féry & S. Ishihara (Eds.), Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gutzmann, D.
    (2013) Expressives and beyond. An introduction to varieties of use-conditional meaning. InD. Gutzmann & H.-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning. Leiden: Brill. 1–58. 10.1163/9789004183988_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004183988_002 [Google Scholar]
  18. Helbig, G.
    (1988) Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. Leipzig: Verlag Exzyklopädie.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hentschel, E.
    (1986) Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783111371221
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111371221 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2010) Partikelprofile literarischer Texte. InT. Harden & E. Hentschel (Eds.), 40 Jahre Partikelforschung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. 97–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hogeweg, L., de Hoop, H., Ramachers, S., van der Silk, F., & Wottrich, V.
    (2016) The L2 acquisition of the German particle doch. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 541, 201–227. 10.1515/iral‑2016‑9981
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9981 [Google Scholar]
  22. Husso, A.
    (1981) Zum Gebrauch von Abtönungspartikeln bei Ausländern. InH. Weydt (Ed.), Partikeln und Deutschunterricht: Abtönungspartikeln für Lerner des Deutschen. Heidelberg: Groos. 81–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jacobs, J.
    (1986) Abtönungsmittel als Illokutionstypmodifikatoren. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 271, 100–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. König, E.
    (1997) Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik, 1361, 57–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kratzer, A.
    (1999) Beyond ouch and oops. How descriptive and expressive meaning interact. Cornell Conference on Theories of Context Dependency.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Leiner, D. J.
    (2014) SoSci Survey (Version 2.6.00-i).
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Montag, M.
    (2014) Die Abtöungspartikeln im DaF-Unterricht – Zur Effektivität der methodischen Vermittlung von Partikelbedeutungen. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Müller, S.
    (2014) Modalpartikeln. Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Reimer, L. & Dimroth, C.
    (2021) Added alternatives in spoken interaction: A corpus study on German ‘auch’. Languages, 61, 1–19. 10.3390/languages6040169
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6040169 [Google Scholar]
  30. Repp, S.
    (2013) Common ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and VERUM. InD. Gutzmann & H.-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Beyond Expressives – Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning. Leiden: Brill. 231–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rost-Roth, M.
    (1999) Der (Nicht-)Erwerb der Modalpartikeln. Eine Fallstudie zum Partikelerwerb einer italienischen Deutschlernerin im Vergleich mit anderen Lernervarietäten. InN. Dittmar & A. Ramat (Eds.), Grammatica e discorso. Studi sull’acquisizione dell’italiano e del tedesco, Tübingen: Stauffenburg. 165–209.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Schoonjans, S.
    (2022) Schwierige Wörtchen leicht übersetzt! Modalpartikeln und sinnverwandte Ausdrücke im Deutschen, Englischen, Niederländischen und Französischen. Wien: Böhlau Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Thurmair, M.
    (1989) Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111354569
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354569 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2013) Satztyp und Modalpartikeln. InJ. Meibauer, M. Steinbach & H. Altmann (Eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. 627–651. 10.1515/9783110224832.627
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224832.627 [Google Scholar]
  35. Trotzke, A., Bidese, E., & Moroni, M. C.
    (2020) German discourse particles in the second language classroom. Teasing apart learning problems at the syntax-pragmatics interface. Pedagogical Linguistics, 11, 184–210. 10.1075/pl.20008.tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.20008.tro [Google Scholar]
  36. Weydt, H.
    (1969) Abtönungspartikeln. Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen Entsprechungen. Bad Homburg v.d.H.: Gehlen.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2006) What are particles good for?InK. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 205–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Zimmermann, M.
    (2011) Discourse particles. InP. Portner, C. Maienborn & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 2011–2038.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): contexts; elicitation; modal particles; pictures; production
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