The modal particles ja and doch and their interaction with discourse structure: Corpus and experimental evidence

S. Döring, Sophie Repp
{"title":"The modal particles ja and doch and their interaction with discourse structure: Corpus and experimental evidence","authors":"S. Döring, Sophie Repp","doi":"10.1515/9783110623093-002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":" Introduction German modal particles have been in the centre of linguistic research for several years, the main focus lying on their semantic and pragmatic properties (e.g. Thurmair 1989; Lindner 1991; Jacobs 1991; Waltereit 2001; Karagjosova 2004; Zimmermann 2004, 2012; Gutzmann 2009; Egg 2013; Repp 2013; Rojas-Esponda 2014). Modal particles are usually thought to operate at the semantics-pragmatics interface. The meaning contributions that they have been claimed to make, roughly fall into three types. The first is a modification of the sentence type or the illocution(ary operator) of the utterance they occur in (e.g. Lindner 1991; Jacobs 1991; Waltereit 2001; Karagjosova 2004). For instance, in an assertion a particle may indicate that the speaker is uncertain about committing to the proposition that is asserted, i.e. the particle signals that the speaker modifies or cancels a felicity condition of the speech act assertion. The second is that modal particles relate the proposition they scope over to another proposition in the common ground CG (e.g. Karagjosova 2004; Egg 2013; Repp 2013). The other proposition can be a proposition that was at issue in the previous utterance, a felicity condition of the previous utterance, or it can be a proposition that was entailed or implicated by earlier discourse. The third type of meaning contribution is more generally interaction-directed: Modal particles serve as meta-pragmatic instructions (König & Recquart 1991) or as interaction-regulating instructions (Karagjosova 2004) to the hearer (also cf. Franck 1980). The purpose of such instructions is to integrate an utterance into the current discourse context (also cf. Thurmair 1989). What these meaning types have in common is that they essentially concern common ground management (cf. Repp 2013). Modal particles indicate how a proposition relates to the common ground, and how the common ground is to be developed – by pointing to common or individual knowledge, to epistemic states and to expectations of the interlocutors. Common ground management creates and/or enhances discourse coherence and thus serves smooth communication. For discourses to be coherent they must have a structure. Discourse structure is usually assumed to be hierarchical, and it is assumed that discourse units must be related to other discourse units by discourse relations in a meaningful way (Mann & Thompson 1988; Asher & Lascarides 2003; Hobbs 1985; Sanders, Spooren & Noordman 1992). If, and if so how, modal particles interact with, and contribute to, discourse structure is largely unknown.2 The goal of the present paper is to explore the interaction of modal particles and discourse structure by investigating the interplay of modal particles and discourse relations, and thus to contribute to a better understanding of the role that the particles fulfil in the creation of discourse coherence.","PeriodicalId":256493,"journal":{"name":"Experiments in Focus","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experiments in Focus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110623093-002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

 Introduction German modal particles have been in the centre of linguistic research for several years, the main focus lying on their semantic and pragmatic properties (e.g. Thurmair 1989; Lindner 1991; Jacobs 1991; Waltereit 2001; Karagjosova 2004; Zimmermann 2004, 2012; Gutzmann 2009; Egg 2013; Repp 2013; Rojas-Esponda 2014). Modal particles are usually thought to operate at the semantics-pragmatics interface. The meaning contributions that they have been claimed to make, roughly fall into three types. The first is a modification of the sentence type or the illocution(ary operator) of the utterance they occur in (e.g. Lindner 1991; Jacobs 1991; Waltereit 2001; Karagjosova 2004). For instance, in an assertion a particle may indicate that the speaker is uncertain about committing to the proposition that is asserted, i.e. the particle signals that the speaker modifies or cancels a felicity condition of the speech act assertion. The second is that modal particles relate the proposition they scope over to another proposition in the common ground CG (e.g. Karagjosova 2004; Egg 2013; Repp 2013). The other proposition can be a proposition that was at issue in the previous utterance, a felicity condition of the previous utterance, or it can be a proposition that was entailed or implicated by earlier discourse. The third type of meaning contribution is more generally interaction-directed: Modal particles serve as meta-pragmatic instructions (König & Recquart 1991) or as interaction-regulating instructions (Karagjosova 2004) to the hearer (also cf. Franck 1980). The purpose of such instructions is to integrate an utterance into the current discourse context (also cf. Thurmair 1989). What these meaning types have in common is that they essentially concern common ground management (cf. Repp 2013). Modal particles indicate how a proposition relates to the common ground, and how the common ground is to be developed – by pointing to common or individual knowledge, to epistemic states and to expectations of the interlocutors. Common ground management creates and/or enhances discourse coherence and thus serves smooth communication. For discourses to be coherent they must have a structure. Discourse structure is usually assumed to be hierarchical, and it is assumed that discourse units must be related to other discourse units by discourse relations in a meaningful way (Mann & Thompson 1988; Asher & Lascarides 2003; Hobbs 1985; Sanders, Spooren & Noordman 1992). If, and if so how, modal particles interact with, and contribute to, discourse structure is largely unknown.2 The goal of the present paper is to explore the interaction of modal particles and discourse structure by investigating the interplay of modal particles and discourse relations, and thus to contribute to a better understanding of the role that the particles fulfil in the creation of discourse coherence.
情态助词ja和doch及其与语篇结构的相互作用:语料库和实验证据
介绍德语情态助词近几年来一直是语言学研究的中心,主要集中在它们的语义和语用特性上(例如thurmaair 1989;林德纳1991;雅各布斯1991;Waltereit 2001;Karagjosova 2004;Zimmermann 2004, 2012;Gutzmann 2009;蛋2013;棱纹平布2013;Rojas-Esponda 2014)。情态助词通常被认为在语义-语用界面上起作用。他们所声称的意义贡献,大致分为三种类型。第一种是对句子类型或话语的违例(任意操作符)的修改(例如Lindner 1991;雅各布斯1991;Waltereit 2001;Karagjosova 2004)。例如,在一个断言中,一个小品可以表明说话人对所断言的命题不确定,也就是说,小品表明说话人修改或取消了言语行为断言的一个适当条件。第二个是模态粒子将命题与它们的范围扩展到共同基础CG中的另一个命题(例如Karagjosova 2004;蛋2013;棱纹平布2013)。另一个命题可以是前一个话语中存在争议的命题,是前一个话语的幸福条件,也可以是前一个话语所包含或暗示的命题。第三种意义贡献更普遍地是交互导向的:情态助词作为元语用指令(König & Recquart 1991)或作为交互调节指令(Karagjosova 2004)提供给听者(也参见Franck 1980)。这些指令的目的是将话语整合到当前的话语语境中(也参见Thurmair 1989)。这些意义类型的共同之处在于,它们本质上涉及公共基础管理(参见Repp 2013)。情态助词表明一个命题如何与共同基础相关联,以及共同基础如何发展——通过指向共同或个人知识,指向认知状态,指向对话者的期望。共同点管理创造和/或增强了话语的连贯性,从而有助于顺利沟通。为了使话语连贯,它们必须有一个结构。通常认为语篇结构是分层的,认为语篇单位必须通过语篇关系以有意义的方式与其他语篇单位联系起来(Mann & Thompson 1988;Asher & Lascarides 2003;霍布斯1985;桑德斯,斯波伦和诺德曼1992)。如果是,情态助词如何与语篇结构相互作用,并对语篇结构作出贡献,这在很大程度上是未知的本文的目的是通过考察情态助词与语篇关系的相互作用来探讨情态助词与语篇结构的相互作用,从而有助于更好地理解助词在语篇连贯中所起的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信