Book contents
- Modality in Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics
- Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
- Modality in Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations and Special Symbols
- Introduction
- I Modes of Modality
- II Verbal Modality
- III Adverbial Modality
- IV Covert Modality
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 February 2021
Book contents
- Modality in Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics
- Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
- Modality in Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations and Special Symbols
- Introduction
- I Modes of Modality
- II Verbal Modality
- III Adverbial Modality
- IV Covert Modality
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Modality in Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics , pp. 381 - 415Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Primary Sources
der Psalmen, Buch ‘Book of Psalms’. In the Luther Bible Online, translation by Schlachter and Elberfelder, with full text search: www.bibel-online.net/buch/luther_1912/psalm/.Google Scholar
Psalmów, Knięga. www.edmichalik.jawnet.pl/psalm_pliki/psal.html, online version of the Book of Psalms from the ‘Bibel des Jahrtausends’: Biblia Tysiąclecia Pismo Święte Starego i Nowego Testamentu. 4th edn. Warsaw: Pallotinum 2004 (online version of the entire Bible: www.biblia.pl).Google Scholar
von Weißenburg, Otfrid (about 870) Evangelienbuch. Cod.Pal.lat.52. Bibliotheca Palatina.Google Scholar
Psaltir’. In Bible, Synodal translation of the Old and New Testaments (www.bibleonline.ru/bible/rus/).Google Scholar
Psaltir’ Proroka i Carja Davida (2007) Moskva: Izdatel´stvo Svjato-Tichonovskogo Pravoslavnogo universiteta (generally accessible: www.wco.ru/biblio/books/psalter/Main.htm).Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Aboh, Enoch Oladé (2006) Complementation in Samaraccan and Gungbe: The case of C-type modal particles. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24/1: 1–55.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (1975) German aber, sondern und dafür und ihre Äquivalente im Niederländischen und Englischen. In Syntaktische und semantische Studien zur Koordination, 105–136. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 2]. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (1986) Die Bedeutungsgenese von Modalpartikeln. Die bedeutungskonstituierenden Variablen: Kontrastdomäne und Kontext. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 27: 1–44.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (1987) Burzio trifft Wulfila. Zu den distributionellen Eigenschaften von wairđan ‘werden’ und wisan ‘sein’ im gotischen Passiv. [Groningen Papers in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics – TTT 9]. Groningen.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (1989) Syntaktische Korrelate zum Lesartwechsel zwischen epistemischen und deontisch/volitiven Modalverben. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 30: 145–166.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (1990) Die Grammatikalisierung von Auxiliar- und Modalverben. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 112: 200–208.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (1991a) Modalverben in Germania. In Iwasaki, Eijirō (ed.), Begegnung mit dem Fremden: Grenzen – Traditionen – Vergleiche, Akten des VIII. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses, Tokyo (1990), Vol. IV, Sektion 4: Kontrastive Syntax, 109–118. Munich: Iudicium.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (1991b) Syntaktische und semantische Korrelate zum Lesartwechsel zwischen epistemischen und deontisch/volitiven Modalverben. In Klein, E., Pouradier Duteil, F., and Wagner, K. H. (eds.), Betriebslinguistik und Linguistikbetrieb. Akten des 24. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Universität Bremen, 4.–6. Sept. 1989, 3–13. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (1991c) The grammaticalization of the German modal particles. In Traugott, Elisabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Grammaticalization, Vol. II: 331–380. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (1992) The aspectual source of the epistemic-root distinction of modal verbs in German. In Boeder, Winfried, Schroeder, Chr., Wagner, K. H., and Wildgen, Wolfgang (eds.), Sprache in Raum und Zeit. In memoriam Johannes Bechert, Vol. II: Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft, 231–249. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (1995) Syntax des Deutschen im Sprachenvergleich: Grundlegung einer typologischen Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (1997) The interdependence of case, aspect, and referentiality in the history of German: The case of the genitive. In van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 29–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (1999) ‘Jespersen’s Cycle’: The evidence from Germanic. In Carr, G. F., Harbert, W., and Zhang, L. (eds.), Interdigitations: Essays for Irmengard Rauch, 63–70. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2000) The morphological and semantic classification of evidentials and modal verbs in German: The perfect(ive) catalyst. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 15: 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2001a) Modals: Toward explaining the epistemic non-finiteness gap. In Müller, R. and Reis, M. (eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, 7–36. [Linguistische Berichte – Sonderheft 9]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2001b) The evidential status of modal verbs in German. In Schaner, Chr., Rennison, J., and Neubarth, F. (eds.), Naturally! Linguistic Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler Presented on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, 1–19. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2002) Modal verbs: Epistemics in German and English. In Barbiers, S., Beukema, F., and Wurff, W. van der (eds.), Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System, 19–50. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2004) Modalität und Modalverben. Wohin führt uns die Syntax – inwieweit brauchen wir die Pragmatik? Lindemann, In B. and Letnes, O. (eds.), Diathese, Modalität, Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Festschrift für Odleif Leirbukt zum 65. Geburtstag, 3–14. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2005) Event arguments and modal verbs. In Maienborn, C. and Wöllstein, A. (eds.), Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications, 243–276. [Linguistische Arbeiten 501]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2006a) Introduction: Passivization and typology. Form vs. Function – a confined survey into the research status quo. In Abraham, Werner and Leisiö, Larisa (eds.), Passivization and Typology: Form and Function, 1–28. [Typological Studies in Languages 68]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2006b) The compositional nature of the analytic passive: Syntactic vs. event semantic triggers. “Argument Hypothesis” vs. Aspect Hypothesis.” In Abraham, Werner and Leisiö, Larisa (eds.), Passivization and Typology: Form and Function, 462–501. [Typological Studies in Languages 68]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2008) Modalverben im Deutschen und Englischen unter Aspekt- und Valenzkriterien. In Valentin, J. M. and Mitarbeit von Vinckel, H. (eds.), Akten des XI. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses Paris 2005 Germanistik im Konflikt der Kulturen, 99–104. [Jahrbuch für Internationale Germanistik. Reihe A: Kongressberichte Band 80]. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2009a) Aspektuelle und sprecher- bzw. persongebundene Bestimmungskomponenten deutscher Modalverben. In Niebaum, Hermann and MacDonald, Alasdair (eds.), Northern Voices: Essays on Old Germanic and Related Topics. Offered to Professor Tette Hofstra, 327–347. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2009b) Die Urmasse von Modalität und ihre Ausgliederung. Modalpartikeln anhand von Modalverben, Modalpartikeln und Modus. Was ist das Gemeinsame, was das Trennende, und was steckt dahinter. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus, 251–302. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 77]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2009c) Zeitreferenz bei Modalverbeinbettungen: das Past-Gleichzeitigkeitsparadoxon, Double Access und Aspektsyntax. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus, 57–78. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 77]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2010) Diskurspartikel zwischen Modalität, Modus und Fremdbewusstseinsabgleich. In Harden, T. and Hentschel, E. (eds.), 40 Jahre Partikelforschung, 33–77. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2011a) Modalitäts-Aspekt-Generalisierungen Interaktionen und deren Brüche: Woi kommen die epistemischen Lesarten ti-her? In Kątny, Andrzej and Socka, Anna (eds.), Modalität / Temporalität in kontrastiver und typologischer Sicht, 13–28. [Danziger Beiträge zur Germanistik 30]. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2011b) Traces of Bühler’s semiotic legacy in modern linguistics. In Bühler, Karl, Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language, xiii–xlvii. Trans. from German by D. F. Goodwin. 2nd revised edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2012a) Illocutionary force is speaker and information source concern: What type of syntax does the representation of speaker deixis require? Templates vs. derivational structure? In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, 67–108. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2012b) (Inter)subjectification or foreign consciousness/other’s mind alignment as synchronic and diachronic concepts of change? Conceptualizations and data fidelity. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Covert Patterns of Modality, 24–78. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2012c) Traces of Bühler’s semiotic legacy in modern linguistics. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, 211–250. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2013) Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Grundlegung einer typologischen Syntax des Deutschen, 3rd expanded edn. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2014a) Strong modality and truth disposability in syntactic subordination: What is the locus of the phase edge validating modal adverbials? Studia Linguistica 69/2: 119–159.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2014b) Certainty: The conceptual differential. In Cantarini, Sibilla, Abraham, Werner, and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Certainty – and the Attitudinal Space in Between, 29–45. [Studies in Language Complementary Series 165]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2016a) Was bedeutet Subordination mit V2 im Deutschen und Niederländischen: omdat und want ebenso wie weil und denn? Leuvense Bijdragen 99–100: 122–132. Sprache in Raum und Geschichte, System und Kultur. Festschrift für Luk Draaye (ed. K. Feyaerts, G. Brône, S. Schoonjans, and G. Stuyckens).Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2016b) Pervasive underspecification of diathesis, modality, and structural case coding: The gerund in historical and modern German. Linguistische Berichte 248: 435–472.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2017a) Discourse marker = discourse particle = thetical = modal particle? A futile comparison. In Bayer, Josef and Struckmeier, Volker (eds.), Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and Semantics, 241–280. [Linguistische Arbeiten 564]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2017b) Modal particles and Verum focus – new corollaries. In Fedriani, Chiara and Sanso, Andrea (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. New Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2017c) Modalpartikel und Mirativeffekte. In Tanaka, Shin, Leiss, Elisabeth, Abraham, Werner, and Fujinawa, Yasuhiro (eds.), Grammatische Funktionen aus Sicht der japanischen und deutschen Grammatik, 75–108. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (2019) Zur Architektur von Informationsautonomie: Thetik und Kategorik. Wie sind sie linguistisch zu verorten und zu unterscheiden? In Abraham, W., Fujinawa, Y., Tanaka, S., and Leiss, E. (eds.), Zur übereinzelsprachlichen Architektur von Thetik und Kategorik, 87–146. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (2014) Introduction. In Leiss, Elisabeth and Abraham, Werner (eds.), Modes of Modality. Modality, Typology, and Universal Grammar, 1–15. [Studies in Language Complementary Series 149]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.) (2008) Modality-Aspect Interfaces: Implications and Typological Solutions. [Typological Studies in Languages 79]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.) (2009) Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 77]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.) (2012a) Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.) (2012b) Covert Patterns of Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.) (2013) Funktionen von Modalität. [Linguistik – Impulse und Tendenzen 55]. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.) (2020) Zur linguistischen Architektur von Thetik und Kategorik. [Studien zur Grammatik des Deutschen]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Nishiwaki, Maiko (2016) Modal verbs in German and definiteness effects in verbal complements – focusing on Modern Standard German and Middle High German sollen ‘shall’. In Fischer, Susan, Kupisch, Tanja, and Rinke, Esther (eds.), Definiteness Effects: Bilingual, Typological and Diachronic Variation, 244–277. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Nishiwaki, Maiko (Forthcoming) Mood alternations in the diachrony of German: The architecture of epistemic weakening. Ms., University of Munich.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Piskorz, Jadwiga (2014) A rare case of covert modality: Spoken Polish and the novel periphrastic past with mieć ‘have’. In Leiss, Elisabeth and Abraham, Werner (eds.), Modes of Modality: Modality, Typology, and Universal Grammar, 409–455. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Adams, James N. (1991) Some neglected evidence for Latin habeo with infinitive: The order of the constituents. Transactions of the Philological Society 89: 131–196.Google Scholar
Agrell, Sigurd (1908) Aspektänderung und Aktionsartbildung beim polnischen Zeitworte ein Beitrag zum Studium der indogermanischen Präverbia und ihrer Bedeutungs¬funktionen. Doctoral thesis, University of Lund. [Lunds universitets årsskrift, n.F. Avd. 1, Bd. 4, Nr. 2]. Lund: Håkan Ohlssons Buchdruckerei.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin (2013) Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2004b) Evidentiality in typological perspective. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, Robert M. W. (eds.), Studies in Evidentiality, 1–31. [Typological Studies in Language 54]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2012) Review of Diewald, Gabriele and Smirnova, Elena (eds.) 2010. Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Studies in Language 36/1: 431–439.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2015) Evidentials: Their links with other grammatical categories. Linguistic Typology 19/2: 239–278.Google Scholar
Akiba, Daigo (2014) Interpreting modals by phase heads. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modes of Modality: Modality, Typology, and Universal Grammar, 19–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alleton, Viviane (1984) Les auxiliaries de mode en Chinois contemporain. [Publications de la société de linguistique de Paris; Collection linguistique 74]. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.Google Scholar
Aloni, Maria (2007) Free choice, modals and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics. 15: 65–94.Google Scholar
Altmann, Hans (1987) Zur Problematik der Konstitution von Satzmodi als Formtypen. In Meibauer, Jörg (ed.), Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik, 22–56. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Altmann, Hans (1993) Satzmodus. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Syntax. Ein Internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 1006–1029. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix K. (1995) The linguistic construction of space in Ewe. Cognitive Linguistics 6/2–3: 139–181.Google Scholar
Anderson, Curtis Anthony (1967) The Logic of Decision and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Andersson, Sven Gunnar (1978) Aktionalität im Deutschen: eine Untersuchung unter Vergleich mit dem russischen Aspektsystem. Stockholm: Almqvist und Wiksell International,Google Scholar
Austin, John L. (1955) How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures, 1955. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Autenrieth, Tanja. (2002) Heterosemie und Grammatikalisierung bei Modalpartikeln. Eine synchrone und diachrone Studie anhand von eben, halt, echt, einfach, schlicht und glatt. [Linguistische Arbeiten 450]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Avanessian, Armen (2013) Materialismus und Realismus. Spekulative Philosophie und Metaphysik für das 21. Jahrhundert. In Avanessian, Armen (ed.), Realismus jetzt, 7–22. Berlin: Merve.Google Scholar
Averina, Anna (2015) Partikeln im komplexen Satz. Mechanismen der Lizenzierung von Modalpartikeln in Nebensätzen und Faktoren ihrer Verwendung in komplexen Nebensätzen und Faktoren ihrer Verwendung in komplexen Sätzen: kontrastive Untersuchung (am Beispiel der Partikeln ja, doch und denn im Deutschen und ведь [ved’], же [že] und вот [vot] im Russischen). Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef (1995) The syntax of interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate (1973) Negative Transportationen gibt es nicht. Linguistische Berichte 27: 1–7.Google Scholar
Basse, Galen (2008) Factive complements as defective phases. In Abner, N. and Bishop, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 54–62. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Battlori, Montserrat and Hernandez, Maria-Lluısa (2011) Emphatic polarity in Spanish and Catalan. GIST 4 Workshop: Polarity Emphasis ‒ Distribution and Locus of Licensing, Universiteit Gent.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef (2004) Non-nominative subjects in comparison. In Bhaskararo, Peri and Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata (eds.), Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. I, 49–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef (2017) Clitic denn and wh-movement. In Mayr, Clemens and Williams, Edwin (eds.), Festschrift for Martin Prinzhorn. Special Issue of Wiener Lingustische Gazette 82: 1–12.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef and Brandner, Ellen (2008a) On wh-head-movement and the Doubly-Filled-Comp filter. In Chang, C. B. and Haynie, H. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 87–95. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef and Brandner, Ellen (2008b) Wie oberflächlich ist die syntaktische Variation zwischen Dialekten? – Doubly-filled COMP revisited. In Patocka, F. and Seiler, G. (eds.), Dialektale Morphologie, dialektale Syntax, 9–26. Vienna: Praesens.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef and Obenauer, Hans Georg (2011) Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review 28: 449–491.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef and Struckmeier, Volker (eds.) (2017) Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and Semantics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef and Trotzke, Andreas (2015) The derivation and interpretation of left peripheral discourse particles. In Bayer, Josef, Hinterhölzl, Roland, and Trotzke, Andreas (eds.), Discourse-Oriented Syntax, 13–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef, Häussler, Jana, and Bader, Markus (2016) A new diagnostic for cyclic wh-movement: Discourse particles in German questions. Linguistic Inquiry 47/4: 591–629.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef, Häussler, Jana, Bader, Markus, and Hopp, Simon (2011) Connecting to illocutionary force: A theoretical and experimental study of the German discourse particle denn. Talk at GLOW 2011 at Vienna University.Google Scholar
Bech, Gunnar (1949) Das semantische System der deutschen Modalverba. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 4: 3–46.Google Scholar
Bech, Gunnar (1957) Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum, Vol. I. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. 2nd edn. 1983.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto (1923–1932) Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, 4 vols. [Germanische Bibliothek 1. Sammlung germanischer Elementar- und Handbücher 10]. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi (1988) Psych-verbs and theta theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola and Poletto, Cecilia (2001) On some descriptive generalizations in Romance. In Cinque, Guglielmo and Kayne, Richard (eds.), Handbook in Comparative Syntax, 221–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola and Poletto, Cecilia (2005) The third dimension of person features. In Cornips, Leonie and Corrigan, Karen (eds.), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social, 264–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile (1958/1971) Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics, 223–230. Trans. Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C. and Chomsky, Noam (2016) Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh (2006) Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts. [Interface Explorations 8]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina (2013) On focus movement in Italian. In Camacho-Taboada, M. V., Fernández, A. Jiménez, Martín-Gonzáles, J., and Reyes-Tejedor, M. (eds.), Information Structure and Agreement, 193–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina and Bocci, Giuliano (2012) Should I stay or should I go? Optional focus movement in Italian. In Piñon, C. (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9, 1–18. Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Bocci, Giuliano, and Cruschina, Silvio (2015) Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures. In Aboh, Enoch O., Schaeffer, Jeanette C., and Sleeman, Petra (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013: Selected Papers from Going Romance, Amsterdam 2013, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Bocci, Giuliano, and Cruschina, Silvio (2016) Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures. Semantics & Pragmatics 9, Article 3: 1–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.3.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek (2012) The origins of syntactic language. In Gibson, Kathleen R. and Tallerman, Maggie (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution, 456–468. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Birkmann, Thomas (1987) Präteritopräsentia. Morphologische Entwicklungen einer Sonderklasse in den altgermanischen Sprachen. [Linguistische Arbeiten 188]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Biskup, Petr (2011) Adverbials and the Phase Model. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 177]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bloom, Paul and German, Tim P. (2000) Two reasons to abandon the false belief task as a test of theory of mind. Cognition 77: 25–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boeckx, Cedric (2010) Why edges are needed? In Sciullo, Anna Maria Di and Hill, Virginia (eds.), Edges, Heads, and Projections: Interface Properties. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 156]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bojanova, Denitsa (2010) Modalverben im Deutschen und im Bulgarischen: Eine syntaktisch-semantische Analyse. Berlin: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Bolze, Christine (2013) The verb to be in the West Saxon Gospels and the Lindisfarne Gospels. In Diewald, Gabriele, Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, and Wischer, Ilse (eds.), Comparative Studies in Early Germanic Languages: With a Focus on Verbal Categories, 217–234. [Studies in Language Companion Series 138]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bondaruk, Anna (2004) Pro and Control in English, Irish and Polish: A Minimalist Analysis. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny and Trnavac, Radoslava (2011) Imperfective aspect and epistemic modality. In Patard, Adeline and Brisard, Frank (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect, and Epistemic Modality, 217–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper and Harder, Peter (2009) Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 16: 9–43.Google Scholar
Brandmaier, Ramona and Auer, Anna (2014) “Es kann sein, dass der Junge ins Haus gegangen ist” – eine replizierende Pilotstudie zum Experiment von Serge Doitchinov (2007) Hausarbeit zum Seminar “Sicherheit und Unsicherheit in der Sprache.” Wintersemester 2013/14. LMU Munich.Google Scholar
Brandt, Reinhard (2009) Können Tiere denken? Ein Beitrag zur Tierphilosophie. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Brentano, Franz (1874/1924) Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: von Duncker & Humboldt. Trans. Antos C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell, and Linda L. McAlister, Psychology from an Empirical Point of View, New York: Humanities Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter (2007) Der Verbalaspekt im Spannungsfeld zwischen Grammatik und Lexik. Sprachwissenschaft 32/2: 123–166.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter (2011) Language contact of minority languages in Central and Southern Europe: A comparative approach. In Kortmann, B. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide, 429–451. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurie and Akimoto, M. (1999) Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. [Studies in Language Companion Series 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurie and Traugott, Elizabeth (2005) Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans and Verkuyl, Henk (2014) Binary tense and modality. Natural Language and Linguist Theory 32: 1011–1032.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl 1889. Das Nominalgeschlecht in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 4: 100–109.Google Scholar
Brünjes, Lena (2014) Das Paradigma deutscher Modalpartikeln: Dialoggrammatische Funktion und paradigmeninterne Oppositionen. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bryant, Levi, Srnicek, Nick, and Harman, Graham (eds.) (2011) The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Melbourne: re.press.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl (1934/1982) Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion von Sprache. With a code of conduct by Friedrich Kainz. Unabridged reprint of the 1934 edition. Stuttgart and New York: UTB 1159.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl (1934/2011) Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Trans. Donald Fraser Goodwin, in collaboration with Achim Eschbach; with a preface by Werner Abraham. [Foundations of Semiotics 25]. 2nd rev. edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (1985) Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Form and Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2002) Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Givón, T. and Malle, B. (eds.), The Evolution of Language out of Pre-language, 109–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel (2009) The nanosyntax of case. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø and Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics (CASTL).Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna (2011) German and Italian modal particles and clause structure. The Linguistic Review 28: 493–531.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna and Starke, Michael (1999) The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Riemsdijk, H. v. (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. (1977) Reference to kinds in English. Doctoral thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1928/1966) Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie. Das Fremdpsychische und der Realismusstreit. Berlin: Welkreis-Verlag. Repr. 1966, Frankfurt/M.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1928/1998) Der logische Aufbau der Welt. [Philosophische Bibliothek 514]. Hamburg: Meiner. Repr. 1998.Google Scholar
Champollion, Lucas and Krifka, Manfred (2016) Mereology. In Dekker, P. and Aloni, M. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics, 518–541. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chernilovskaya, Anna (2014) Exclamativity in Discourse: Exploring the Exclamative Speech Act from a Discourse Perspective. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro and McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1991) Meaning and Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2000) Minimalist inquiries. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2001) Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicsz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2004) Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and Beyond. 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guilgelmo (1993) A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24/2: 239–298.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guilgelmo (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coates, Joan (1995) The expression of root and epistemic possibility in Modern English. In Bybee, J. and Fleischman, S. (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse, 55–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard (1976) Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo (2001) Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In Beaver, David, Kaufmann, Stefan, Clark, Brady, and Casillas, Luis (eds.), Stanford Papers on Semantics 2001, 1–30. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco (2009a) Modal particles, speaker-hearer links, and illocutionary force. Doctoral dissertation, University of Venice.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco (2009b) Deutsche Modalpartikeln in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus, 191–221. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 77]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco (2011) Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln. Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. [Studia grammatica 73]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Cormack, Annabel and Smith, Neil (2002) Modality and negation in English. In Barbiers, S., Beukema, F., and van der Wurff, W. (eds.), Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System, 133–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia 2003. The referential hierarchy: Reviewing the evidence in diachronic perspective. In Bakker, D. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), Language across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, 69–93. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio (2012) Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio (2015) Focus fronting: special effects: Talk and handout, University of Vienna, June 19, 2015 Workshop ‘Left Peripheries’.Google Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep (2013) The fuzzy boundaries between discourse marking and modal marking. In Degand, Liesbeth et al. (eds.), Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description, 191–215. [Pragmatic and Beyond New Series 234]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Czardybon, Adrian and Fleischhauer, Jens (2014) Definiteness and perfectivity in telic incremental theme predications. In Gerland, D. C., Horn, A., Latrouite, A., and Ortmann, A. (eds.), Meaning and Grammar of Nouns and Verbs, 373–400. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Johannes (1988) Die Abtönungspartikeln im Deutschen. Ausdrucksmittel für Sprechereinstellungen – mit einem kontrastiven Teil deutsch – serbokroatisch. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara (2012a) The Language of Stories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara (2012b) Negation, stance, and subjectivity. In Dancygier, Barbara and Sweetser, Eve (eds.), Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective, 69–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara (2012c) Conclusion: Multiple viewpoints, multiple spaces. In Dancygier, Barbara and Sweetser, Eve (eds.), Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective, 219–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara and Sweetser, Eve (2005) Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara and Vandelanotte, Lieven (2016) Discourse viewpoint as network. In Dancygier, Barbara, Lu, Wei-lun, and Verhagen, Arie (eds.), Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, 13–40. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald (1967) The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, Nicolas (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, 81–95. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald (2001) Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
de Villiers, Jill (2005) Can language acquisition give children a point of view? In Astington, Janet Wilde and Baird, Jodie A. (eds.), Why Language Matters for Theory of Mind, 186–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deely, John N. (2009) Purely Objective Reality. [Semiotics, Communication and Cognition 4]. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert, and Pietrandea, Paola (eds.) (2013) Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description. [Pragmatic and Beyond New Series/P&BNS 234]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott (1997) Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1: 33–52.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott (2001) The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33/3: 369–382.Google Scholar
Demske, Ulrike (1994) Modales Passiv und tough-Movement – Zur strukturellen Kausalität eines syntaktischen Wandels im Deutschen und Englischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Demske, Ulrike (2001) Zur Distribution von Infinitivkomplementen im Althochdeutschen. In Müller, R. and Reis, M. (eds.), Modality und Modalverben im Deutschen, 61–86. [Linguistische Berichte – Sonderheft 9]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele (1999) Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. [Reihe Germanistische Linguistik; 208]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele (2006) Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Fischer, K. (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles, 403–426. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele (2007) Abtönungspartikel. In Hoffmann, L. (ed.), Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten, 117–141. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele (2010) On some problem areas in grammaticalization studies. In Stathi, Katerina, Gehweiler, Elke, and König, Ekkehard (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues, 17–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele (2011) Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49: 365–390.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele and Smirnova, Elena (2010) Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages. [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 49]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele and Smirnova, Elena (eds.) (2011) Modalität und Evidentialität. [FOKUS; 37]. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele and Fischer, Kerstin (1998) Zur diskursiven und modalen Funktion der Partikeln aber, auch, doch und ja in Instruktionsdialogen. Linguistica 38: 75–99.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele and Kresić, Marijana (2010) Ein übereinzelsprachliches kontrastives Beschreibungsmodell für Partikelbedeutungen. Linguistik Online 44.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. (1997) The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part II (ed., posthumously, Hengeveld, K.). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar (2009) Mapping between Domains: The Aspect-Modality Connection in Russian. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Doitchinov, Serge (2001) ‘Es kann sein, dass der Junge nach Hause gegangen ist’ – Zum Erstspracherwerb von können in epistemischer Lesart. In Müller, R. and Reis, M. (eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, 111–134 [Linguistische Berichte – Sonderheft 9]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Doitchinov, Serge (2007) Modalverben in der Kindersprache. Kognitive und linguistische Voraussetzungen für den Erwerb von epistemischem können. [Studia grammatica 67]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Döring, Sophia. (2013) Modal particles and context shift. In Gutzmann, Daniel and Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning, 95–123. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Duch-Adamczyk, Justyna (2012) Funktionsdistribution der Abtönungspartikeln des Deutschen und des Polnischen. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Duffield, Nigel (2013) On polarity emphasis, assertion and mood in Vietnamese and English. Lingua 137: 248–270.Google Scholar
Durbin, John and Sprouse, Rex (2001) The syntactic category of the preterit present modal verbs in German. In Müller, R. and Reis, M. (eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, 135–148. [Linguistische Berichte – Sonderheft 9]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine 2012 Who is talking? Narrators and speakers in free indirect discourse. Ms. www.uni-goettingen.de/de/323434.html (accessed December 25, 2016).Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine (2014) The Semantics of Free Indirect Discourse: How Texts Allow Us to Mind-Read and Eavesdrop. Leiden: Brill. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004266735.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto (1986) Semiotics and Philosophy of Language. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus (2012) Discourse particles at the semantics-pragmatics interface. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, 297–334. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus and Mursell, Johannes (2017) The syntax and semantics of discourse particles. In Bayer, Josef and Struckmeier, Volker (eds.), Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and Semantics, 15–48. [Linguistische Arbeiten 564]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus and Zimmermann, Malte (2012) Stressed out! Accented discourse particles: The case of DOCH. In Guevara, Aguilar, Chernilovskaya, Anna, and Nouwen, Rick (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16 (MITWPL), Vol. I, 225–238. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Ehrich, Veronika (2001) Was nicht müssen und nicht können (nicht) bedeuten können: Zum Skopus der Negation bei den Modalverben des Deutschen. In Müller, Reimar and Reis, Marga (eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, 149–176. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum (2002) Norwegian modals. Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph (1979) Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 211–243.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet (2006) Information packaging in questions. In Bonami, Olivier and Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. VI, 93–111. Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.Google Scholar
Evans, Nick (2005) View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective constructions. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31/1: 93–120.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan (2004) The Structure of Time: Language, Meaning, and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Evers, Arthur (1975) The transformational cycle in Dutch and German. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred, and Palmer, Frank (2003) Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert and Lenertová, Denisa (2011) Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 169–209.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. and Bruce, Kim B. (2010) On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27/1: 81–118.Google Scholar
Fintel, Kai von and Iatridou, Sabine (2003) Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 173–198.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin (2007) Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation equivalents. In Fetzer, A. and Fischer, K. (eds.), Lexical Markers of Common Grounds, 47–66. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Frawley, William (ed.) (2006) The Expression of Modality. [The Expression of Cognitive Categories/ECC 1]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob (1892/1990) 17 Kernsätze zur Logik. In Schriften zur Logik und Sprachphilosophie, 3rd edn, ed. Gabriel Gottfried, posthumously, with introduction, notes, biblio and index, 23–24. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner (2004) A medial topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte 198: 153–190.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner (2010) Ā-Movement and conventional implicatures: About the grammatical encoding of emphasis in German. Lingua 120: 1416–1435.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. (1986) Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian. In Chafe, Wallace L. and Nichols, Johanna (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, 168–187. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Friedmann, Na’ama and Grodzinsky, Yakof (1997) Tense and agreement in agrammatic production. Brain and Language 56: 397–425.Google Scholar
Fries, Norbert (1983) Syntaktische und semantische Studien zum frei verwendeten Infinitiv. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans Martin (2009) More on the indefinite-interrogative affinity: The view from embedded non-finite interrogatives. Linguistic Typology 13: 1–37.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans (2011) Some remarks on ‘liberalizing modals’: Talk and handout at workshop on ‘Main vs. embedded clauses’ at the University of Lund, April 14–15, 2011.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans (2017) Root infinitivals and modal particles: An interim report. In Bayer, J. and Struckmeier, V. (eds.), Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and Semantics, 115–143. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Geilfuß, Jochen (1992) Ist wollen ein Kontrollverb oder nicht? Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 Stuttgart-Tübingen, Report no. 27: 29–51.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van (2001) The syntax of modal particles in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica 22/1–2: 301–332.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van (2004) Aspect, modals, and infinitival endings in Germanic. In ter Meulen, Alice and Abraham, Werner (eds.), The Composition of Meaning: From Lexeme to Discourse, 39–68. [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 235]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gelhaus, Hermann (1977) Der modale Infinitiv. Forschungsberichte des IdS Mannheim 35. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia (1998) Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia (2009) The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua 120: 1883–1908.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia (2011a) Non-veridicality and time: The dependency of the subjunctive revisited. In Musan, R. and Rathert, M. (eds.), Tense across Languages, 59–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia (2011b) (Non)Veridicality and mood choice: Subjunctive, polarity, and time. In Musan, Renate and Rathert, Monika (eds.), Tense across Languages, 59–90. [Linguistische Arbeiten, 541]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia (2013) (Non)veridicality, evaluation, and event actualization: Evidence from the subjunctive in relative clauses. In Trnavac, Radoslava and Taboada, Maite (eds.), Nonveridicality and Evaluation: Theoretical, Computational, and Corpus Approaches, 17–47. [Studies in Pragmatics, 11]. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia (2015) Evaluative subjunctive and nonveridicality. Ms. University of Chicago, February 24, 2015.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia and Mari, Alda (2016) Epistemic future and MUST: Reasoning with nonveridicality and partial knowledge. In Blaszczak, Joanna, Giannakidou, Anastasia, Klimek-Jankowska, Dorota, and Midgalski, Krystof (eds.), Mood, Aspect, Modality Revisited: What Is a Linguistic Category, 75–117. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia and Mari, Alda (2018a) The semantic roots of positive polarity Epistemic modal verbs and adverbs in English, Greek and Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy 41/6: 623–664.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia and Mari, Alda (2018b) A unified analysis of the future as epistemic modality: The view from Greek and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36: 85–129.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia and Mari, Alda (2018c) Veridicality in Grammar and Thought: Modality, Propositional Attitudes and Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan (1996a) Interrogatives: Questions, facts and dialogue. In Lappin, Shalom (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 385–422. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan (1996b) Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In Seligman, J. and Westerstahl, D. (eds.), Language, Logic and Computation, Vol. I (CSLI Lecture Notes 58), 221–237. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Giurgea, Ion and Soare, Elena (2010) Predication and the nature of non-finite relatives in Romance. In Sciullo, Anna Maria Di and Hill, Virginia (eds.), Edges, Heads, and Projections: Interface Properties, 191–214. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 156]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (1989) Mind, Code, and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. University of Michigan: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (2002) Biolinguistics: The Santa Barbara Lectures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (2005) Context as Other Minds: The Pragmatics of Sociality, Cognition and Communication. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred (1991) Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul (1975) Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef (2000) The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca’s area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23: 1–71.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander (2004) Modal existential wh-constructions. In Tomić, Olga Mišeska (ed.), The Syntax–Semantics of Balkan Languages, 405–438. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick (2012) On the Grammar of Optative Constructions. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 193]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel (2010) Betonte Modalpartikeln und Verumfokus. In Harden, T. and Hentschel, E. (eds.), 40 Jahre Partikelforschung, 119–138. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel (2012) Use-conditional meaning: Studies in multidimensional semantics. Doctoral thesis, Institute of Linguistics, University of Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel 2017. Modal particles ≠ modal particles (= modal particles). Differences between German modal particles and how to deal with them semantically. In Bayer, Josef and Struckmeier, Volker (eds.), Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and Semantics, 144–172. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel and Elena Miró, Castroviejo (2011) The dimensions of VERUM. In Bonami, Olivier and Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. VIII, 143–165. Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.Google Scholar
Haan, Ferdinand de (2005a) Coding of evidentiality. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, W., Gil, D., and Comrie, B. (eds.), The World Atlas of Linguistic Structures, 318–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haan, Ferdinand de (2005b) Semantic distinctions of evidentiality. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, W., Gil, D., and Comrie, B. (eds.), The World Atlas of Linguistic Structures, 314–317. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haan, Ferdinand de (2006) Typological approaches to modality. In Frawley, William (ed.), The Expression of Modality, 27–70. [The Expression of Cognitive Categories/ECC 1]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1973) Wahrheitstheorien. In Fahrenbach, H. (ed.), Wirklichkeit und Reflexion. Walter Schulz zum 60. Geburtstag, 211–265. Pfullingen: Neske.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine (2006) Aspects of modality. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine (2009) On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 279–315.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine (2010) On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics 18/1: 79–114.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane (2004) A DP-internal anaphor agreement effect: Introduction. Linguistic Inquiry 35/4: 704–712.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane (2006) Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert (1984) Was zu haben ist und was zu sein hat: Bemerkungen zum Infinitiv. Papiere zur Linguistik 30: 23–36.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert (2013) Symmetry Breaking in Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert and Rosengren, Inger (2003) Scrambling: Non-triggered chain formation in OV languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15: 203–267.Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn (2001) Das Modalauxiliar im Slavischen. Grammatikalisierung und Semantik im Russischen, Polnischen, Serbischen/Kroatischen und Altkirchenslavischen. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn (2014) The syntax of modal polyfunctionality revisited: Evidence from the languages of Europe. In Leiss, E. and Abraham, W. (eds.), Modes of Modality: Modality, Typology, and Universal Grammar, 89–126. [Studies in Language Complementary Series 149]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel (2013) A uniform syntax and discourse structure: The Copenhagen Dependency Treebanks. Dialogue and Discourse 4/2: 53–64.Google Scholar
Hare, Brian and Tomasello, Michael (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 439–444.Google Scholar
Harman, Graham (2010) Towards Speculative Realism: Essays and Lectures. Winchester: Zero Books.Google Scholar
Hegarty, Michael (2016) Modality and Propositional Attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd (1995) Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality: Some observations on German modals. In Bybee, J. L. and Fleischman, S. (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse, 17–53. [Typological Studies in Language 32]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania (2002) World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania (2007) The Genesis of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hentschel, Elke (1986) Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln: ja, doch, halt und eben. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Herburger, Elena and Rubinstein, Aynat (2014) Is ‘more possible’ more possible in German? In Snider, Todd, D’Antonio, Sarah, and Weigand, Mia (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, held at New York University, May 30–June 1, 2014, 555–576. Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan Werner (2012) Mirativity does not exist: Hdug in Lhasa Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 16/3: 389–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia (2011) Modal grammaticalization and the pragmatic field: A case study. Diachronica 28/1: 25–53.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland (2009) The IPP-effect, phrasal affixes and repair strategies in the syntax–morphology interface. Linguistische Berichte 218: 191–215.Google Scholar
Hinzen, Weolfgang (2014a) What is un-Cartesian linguistics? Biolinguistics 8: 226–257.Google Scholar
Hinzen, Weolfgang (2014b) The future of universal grammar research (editorial). Language Sciences 46: 97–99.Google Scholar
Hinzen, Wolfram and Sheehan, Michelle (2014) The Philosophy of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles and Altmann, S. A. (1968) A note on design features. In Sebeok, T. (ed.), Animal Communication: Techniques of Study and Results of Research, 61–72. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman (1982) Explikationen für ‘normale Betonung’ und ‘normale Wortstellung’. In Abraham, Werner (ed.), Satzglieder im Deutschen, 75–154. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman (1992a) Über Verum Fokus in Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 60: 20–45.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman (1992b) Über Verum-focus im Deutschen. In Jacobs, Joachim (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, 112–141. Opladen: WestGermaner Verlag.Google Scholar
Holl, Daniel (2001) Was ist modal an modalen Infinitiven? In Müller, Reimar and Reis, Marga (eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, 217–238. [Linguistische Berichte – Sonderheft 9]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Holl, Daniel (2010) Modale Infinitive und dispositionelle Modalität im Deutschen. [Studia grammatica 7]. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
Holler, Anke (2005) Weiterführende Relativsätze: Empirische und theoretische Aspekte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Holler, Anke (2013) d- und w-Relativsätze. In Meibauer, Jörg, Steinbach, Markus, and Altmann, Hans (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen, 266–300. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan and Thompson, Sandra (1973) On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465–497.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Traugott, Elizabeth (2003) Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. (1989) A Natural History of Negation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar (2008) Liberalizing modals and floating clause boundaries. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 82: 103–130.Google Scholar
Hundt, Markus (2003) Zum Verhältnis von epistemischer und nicht-epistemischer Modalität im Deutschen. Forschungspositionen und Vorschlag zur Neuorientierung. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 31: 343–381.Google Scholar
Hurley, Susan and Nudds, Matthew (2010) Rational Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine and Zeijlstra, Hedde (2013) Negation, polarity and deontic modals. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 529–568.Google Scholar
IJbema, Aniek (1997) Zu-Infinitiv im Deutschen. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 40: 1–45.Google Scholar
IJbema, Aniek and Abraham, Werner (2000) Die syntaktische Function des infinitivischen zu. In Thieroff, R., Tamrat, M., Fuhrhop, N., and Teuber, O. (eds.), Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie and Praxis, 123–137. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Isačenko, Alexander 1960. Slovesny’vid, slovesná akce a obecny’ charakter slovesného de je. [Verbal aspect, Aktionsart and the general character of the verb]. Slovo a Slovesnost 21: 9–16.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi (1993) Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical Considerations and a Case Study of Japanese Spoken Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi (2002) Japanese. [London Oriental and African Language Library]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Izutsu, Katsunobu and Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita (2013) From discourse markers to modal final markers: What the position reveals about the continuum. In Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert, and Pietrandea, Paola (eds.), Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description, 217–235. [Pragmatic and Beyond New Series/P&BNS 234]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim (1991) On the semantics of modal particles. In Abraham, Werner (ed.), Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German, 141–162. [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jäger, Anne (2012) The emergence of modal meanings from haben with zu-infinitives in Old High German. In Diewald, G., Kahlas-Tarkka, L., and Wischer, I. (eds.), Comparative Studies in Early Germanic Languages: With a Focus on Verbal Categories. [Companion Series of Studies in Language]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard (2001) Topic-comment structure and the contrast between stage level and individual level predicates. Journal of Semantics 18/2: 83–126.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1957/1971) Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected Writings, Vol. II: Word and Language, 130–147. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jędrzejowski, Łukasz (2012) What is it that keeps the rein on quotative modals so tight? In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, 425–454. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jędrzejowski, Łukasz (2015) All you need is another ‘need’: On the verbal NPI cycle in the history of German. In van Gelderen, Elly (ed.), Cyclical Change, 209–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jędrzejowski, Łukasz (2017) Wie mobil sind Auxiliarklitika und was verraten sie über die Illokutionskraft abhängiger Sätze im Polnischen? Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin w Kolloquium Slawistische Linguistik w 13.2.2017.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto (1917) Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Høst.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto (1992) The Philosophy of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. (2004) Evidentials: Summation, questions, prospects. In Aikhenvald, Alexander Y. and Dixon, Robert M. W. (eds.), Studies in Evidentiality, 307–327. [Typological Studies in Language 54]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jost, Karl (1909) beon und wesan. Eine syntaktische Untersuchung. [Anglistische Forschungen 26]. Heidelberg: Universitätsbuchhandlung Winter.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit (2005) Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kabakčiev, Krasimir (1984a) Verkuyl’s compositional spects and aspect in the Slavonic languages. Balkansko ezikoznanie 27: 77–83.Google Scholar
Kabakčiev, Krasimir (1984b) The article and the Aorist/Imperfect distinction in Bulgarian: An analysis based on cross-language ‘aspect’ parallelisms. Linguistics 22: 643–672.Google Scholar
Kabakčiev, Krasimir (2017) An English Grammar: Main Stumbling Blocks for Bulgarians Learning English. Stuttgart: Mariana Kabakchiev Verlag.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther and Heine, Bernd (2014) Sentence grammar vs. thetical grammar: Two competing domains? In MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A., and Moravcsik, E. (eds.), Competing Motivations in Grammar Usage, 348–363. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien, and Lohmann, Arne (eds.) (2016) Outside the Clause Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents. [Studies in Language Companion Series, 178]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1784) Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung? Berlinische Monatsschrift 12: 481–494.Google Scholar
Karagjosova, Elena (2003) Modal particles and the common ground: Meaning and functions of German ja, doch, eben/halt and auch. In Kühnlein, P., Rieser, H., and Zeevat, H. (eds.), Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium, 335–349. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard (2002) Prepositional complementizers as attractors. In Kayne, R., Parameters and Universals, 282–323. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van (1987) Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kidwai, Ayesha (2006) The cartography of phases: Fact and inference in Meiteilon. In Di Sciullo, A. (ed.), Edges, Heads, and Projections: Interface Properties, 233–262. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 156]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul and Kiparsky, Carol (1970) Fact. In Bierwisch, M. and Heidolph, K. E. (eds.), Progress in Linguistics, 143–73. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kiser, Heidi (2017) Wortarten in der grammatica speculativa – Eine funktional-semantische Theorie zu Sprache und Wortarten auf Basis der modistischen Universalgrammatik. Doctoral dissertation, LMU Munich.Google Scholar
Klecha, Peter (2012) Positive and conditional semantics for gradable modals. In Aguilar-Guevara, Ana, Chernilovskaya, Anna, and Nouwen, Rick (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16 (MITWPL), Vol. 2, 363–376. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang (1998) Assertion and finiteness. In Dittmar, N. and Penner, Z. (eds.), Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition: Essays in Honor of Jürgen Weissenborn, 222–245. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang (2006) On finiteness. In Van Geenhoeven, V. (ed.), Semantics in Acquisition, 245–272. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Kneepkens, Corneille H. (1987) Het iudicium constructionis. Vol. 1/4: Een verkennende en inleidende studie. Nijmegen: Ingenium Publishers.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard (1997) Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik 136: 57–75.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker (2012) Understanding English-German Contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Kotin, Michail L. (2008a) Zu den Affinitäten zwischen Modalität und Aspekt: Eine germanisch-slavische Fallstudie. Die Welt der Slaven 53: 116–140.Google Scholar
Kotin Michail, L. (2008b) Aspects of a reconstruction of form and function of modal verbs in Germanic and other languages. In Abraham, W. and Leiss, E. (eds.), Modality–Aspect Interfaces: Implications and Typological Solutions, 371–384. [Typological Studies in Languages 79]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kotin Michail, L. (2012) Impersonal dative constructions as covert root-modality patterns. In Abraham, W. and Leiss, E. (eds.), Covert Patterns of Modality, 153–174. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Kotin Michail, L. (2015a) Introduction. In Kotin, M. L. in collaboration with Whitt, R. J. (eds.), To Be or Not to Be? The Verbum Substantivum from Synchronic, Diachronic, and Typological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Kotin Michail, L. (2015b) Grammatische Kategorien aus diachroner und kontrastiver Sicht: Wie interagieren Aktionsart, Aspekt, Tempus, Modalität und Definitheit? Lecture and Handout at the Ludwig-Maximilian University November 15, 2015.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika (1981) The notional category of modality. In Eikmeyer, H.-J. and Rieser, H. (eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, 38–74. [Research in Text Theory 6]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika (1991) Modality. In von Stechow, Arnim and Wunderlich, D. (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 639–650. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika (2012) Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives. [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika (1981) The notional category of modality. In Eikmeyer, Hans-Jürgen and Rieser, Hannes (eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts, 38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Repr. 2002, in Paul Portner and Barbara H. Partee (eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, 289–323. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (1989a) Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. [Studien zur theoretischen Linguistik 10]. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (1989b) Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Bartsch, Renate, van Benthem, Johan, and Boas, Peter (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, 75–115. [Groningen Amsterdam Studies in Semantics, 11]. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (2001) Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1–40.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (2014) Embedding illocutionary acts. In Roeper, Tom and Speas, Margaret (eds.), Recursion: Complexity in Cognition, 59–87. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. (2000) Emerging English Modals. A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. [Topics in English literature 32]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki (1972) The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.Google Scholar
William, Ladusaw (1994) Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Harvey, M. and Santelmann, L. (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV, 220–229. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lahousse, Karen (2010) Information structure and epistemic modality in adverbial clauses. Studies in Language 34/2: 298–326.Google Scholar
Laing, Margaret (2010) The reflexes of OE beon as a marker of futurity in early Middle English. In Lenker, Ursula, Huber, Judith, and Mailhammer, Robert (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2008: Selected Papers from the 15th International Conference on English (ICEHL 15), Munich, 20–24 August 2008, Vol. I: The History of English Verbal and Nominal Constructions, 237–254. [Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar (1990) Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George (1968) A syntactic argument for negative transportation. Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (2002) Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lassiter, Daniel (2010) Gradable epistemic modals, probability, and scale structure. In Li, Nan and Lutz, David (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20, 197–215. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Lassiter, Daniel (2011) Measurement and modality: The scalar basis of modal semantics. Dissertation, New York University, November 2011.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert (1999) Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3/1: 91–109.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian (1985) Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–318.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. (1958) On earlier stages of the Indo-European nominal inflection. Language 34: 179–202.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (1992) Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der sprachlichen Kategorisierung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (1994) Markiertheitszunahme als natürliches Prinzip grammatischer Organisation (am Beispiel der Verbalkategorien Aspekt, Tempus und Modus). In Köpcke, Klaus-Michael (ed.), Funktionale Untersuchungen zur deutschen Nominal- und Verbalmorphologie, 149–160. [Linguistische Arbeiten 319]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (2000a) Verbalaspekt und die Herausbildung epistemischer Modalverben. German- istische Linguistik 154: 63–83.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (2000b) Artikel und Aspekt: Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit. [Studia Linguistica Germanica, 55]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (2002) Explizite und implizite Kodierung von Deontizität und Epistemizität: Über die grammatische Musterbildung vor der Entstehung von Modalverben. Jezikoslovlije 3: 69–98.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (2008) The silent and aspect-driven patterns of deonticity and epistemicity: A chapter in diachronic typology. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modality–Aspect Interfaces: Implications and Typological Solutions, 15–42. [Typological Studies in Languages 79]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (2009b) Drei Spielarten der Epistemizität, drei Spielarten der Evidentialität und drei Spielarten des Wissens. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus, 3–24. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 77]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (2011a) Lexikalische versus grammatische Epistemizität und Evidentialität: Plädoyer für eine strikte Trennung zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. In Diewald, Gabriele and Smirnova, Elena (eds.), Modalität und Evidentialität, 149–169. [Fokus 37]. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (2011b) Semantisches und episodisches Gedächtnis bei Alzheimer-Demenz und primär progredienter Aphasie. In Geist, Barbara, Hielscher-Fastabend, Martina, and Maihack, Volker (eds.), Sprachtherapeutisches Handeln im Arbeitsfeld Geriatrie. Störungsbilder, Diagnostik, Therapie, 141–168. Cologne: Prolog.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (2012a) Epistemicity, evidentiality, and Theory of Mind. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind across Languages, 37–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (2012b) Aspectual patterns of covert coding of modality in Gothic. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Covert Patterns of Modality, 175–201. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (2014) Modes of modality in an Un-Cartesian framework. In Cantarini, S., Abraham, W., and Leiss, E. (eds.), Certainty – Uncertainty – and the Attitudinal Space in Between, 47–62. [Studies in Language Companion Series 165]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (2015) The construction sein (‘be’) + infinitive from Old High German to New High German. In Kotin, Michail M. (ed.), To Be or Not to Be: The verbum substantivum in Synchrony, Diachrony, and Typology, 122–140. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (2017) Kodierung von Wissen und Erfahrung anhand von zwei unterschiedlichen Kopula- und Prädikatsqualitäten. In Tanaka, Shin, Leiss, Elisabeth, Fujinawa, Yasuhiro, and Abraham, Werner (eds.), Grammatische Funktionen aus Sicht der japanischen und deutschen Germanistik. [Sonderband Linguistische Berichte 23]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (Forthcoming a) Erkenntnistheoretische Sprachkritik. In Niehr, Thomas, Kilian, Jörg, and Schiewe, Jürgen (eds.), Handbuch Sprachkritik. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth (Forthcoming b) The function of aspect in embedded infinitives in Gothic. In Ratkus, A. (ed.), Studies in Gothic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth and Abraham, Werner (eds.) (2014) Modes of Modality: Modality, Typology, and Universal Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula, Huber, Judith, and Mailhammer, Robert (eds.) (2010) English Historical Linguistics 2008: Selected Papers from the 15th International Conference on English (ICEHL 15), Munich, 20–24 August 2008. Vol. I: The History of English Verbal and Nominal Constructions. [Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel (2008) Definiteness effects and the role of the coda in existential constructions. In Klinge, A. and Hoeg-Müller, H. (eds.), On Nominal Determination, 131–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, André (1964–1965) Le geste et la parole, Vol. I: Le geste et la parole. Vol. II: La mémoires et les rhythmes. Paris: Michel.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, André (1987) Hand und Wort: Die Evolution von Technik, Sprache und Kunst. [nach diesem Titel suchen]. Frankurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1973) Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Repr. with revisions 1986.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Arne and Koops, Christian (2016) Aspects of discourse marker sequencing: Empirical challenges and theoretical implications. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien, and Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Extra-clausal Constituents, 417–446. [Studies in Language Companion Series]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje (2009) The copula cycle. In van Gelderen, Elly (ed.), Cyclical Change, 209–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst (2000) Satzmodus – kompositionell. Zur Parametrisierung der Modusphrase im Deutschen. [Studia grammatica 49]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst (2007) On clause types and sentential force. Linguistische Berichte 209: 63–86.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst (2012) Verumfokus – Satzmodus – Wahrheit. In Horst Lohnstein and Hardarik Blühdorn (eds.), Wahrheit – Fokus – Negation (= Linguistische Berichte –Sonderheft 18), 31–67. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst (2014) Verum focus. In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), Handbook of Information Structure, 1–29. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst (2018) Verum focus, sentence mood, and contrast. In Dimroth, Christine and Sudhoff, Stefan (eds.), The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast: Theoretical, Empirical, and Typological Approaches, 55–87. [Linguistik Aktuell 249]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst and Stommel, Hildegard (2009) Verum focus and phases. In Panageotidis, P. and Grohmann, K. (eds.), Linguistic Analysis 35/1–4. Special issue: Phase Edge Investigations, 109–140.Google Scholar
Longa, Victor M., Galluzzi, Lorenzo, and Rigau, Gemma (1998) Subject clitics and clitic recycling: Locative sentences in some Iberian Romance languages. Journal of Linguistics 34/1: 125–164.Google Scholar
Lotze, Rudolf Hermann (1843/1989) Logik. Drittes Buch: Vom Erkennen. With an introduction by Georg Misch, reedited Gottfried Gabriel. [Philosophische Bibliothek 408]. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Masi, Stefania (1996) Deutsche Modalpartikeln und ihre Entsprechungen im Italienischen. Äquivalente für ‘doch’, ‘ja’, ‘denn’, ‘schon’ und ‘wohl’. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mauthner, Fritz (1901–1920) Beiträge zu einer Kritik der Sprache, 3 vols. Stuttgart and Brlin. Later revised editions 1906–1913, 1982.Google Scholar
Mauthner, Fritz (1925) Die drei Bilder der Welt. Ein sprachkritischer Versuch, Erlangen: Severus.Google Scholar
McLuhan, Marshall (1995) Die Gutenberg-Galaxis: das Ende des Buchzeitalters. Bonn: Econverlag.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John (1997) Towards a New Model of Creole Genesis. [Studies in Ethnolinguistics]. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mehlig, Hans (1981) Satzsemantik und Aspektsemantik im Russischen (zur Verbalklassifikation von Zeno Vendler). [Sentential semantics and aspect semantics in Russian (on the verbal classification of Zeno Vendler)]. Slavistische Linguistik 1980, 95–151. Russian abridged translation in Novoe v zarubeznoj lingvistike 15: 227–249. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg (1994) Modaler Kontrast und konzeptuelle Verschiebung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Meisnitzer, Benjamin (2012) Modality in communication in the Romance languages: Modal verbs and particles. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modality and Theory of Mind across Languages, 335–360. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Moll, Henrike and Meltzoff, Andrew N. (2011a) How does it look? Level 2 perspective-taking at 36 months of age. Child Development 82/2: 661–673.Google Scholar
Moll, Henrike and Meltzoff, Andrew N. (2011b) Joint attention as the fundamental basis of understanding perspectives. In Seemann, Axel (ed.), Joint Attention: New Developments in Psychology, Philosophy of Mind, and Social Neuroscience, 393–413. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Moll, Henrike and Meltzoff, Andrew N. (2011c) Perspective-taking and its foundation in joint attention. In Roessler, Johannes, Lerman, Hemdat, and Eilan, Naomi (eds.), Perception, Causation, and Objectivity. 286–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike (n.d.) Attitudinal objects. Ms. IHPST, Paris.Google Scholar
Moroni, Manuela (2010) Modalpartikeln zwischen Syntax, Prosodie und Informations-struktur. [Sabest. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Sprach- und Informationswissenschaft 20]. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mortelmans, Tanja (1999) Die Modalverben sollen und müssen im heutigen Deutsch unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Status als subjektivierter ‘grounding predications’. Doctoral dissertaion, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Morzycki, Marcin (2012) Adjectival extremeness: Degree modification and contextually restricted scales. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 567–609.Google Scholar
Mossé, Fernand (1938) Histoire de la forme périphrastique être participe présent en Germanique. Première partie: Introduction – ancien Germanique – vieil Anglais. [Collection linguistique publiée par La Société de Linguistique de Paris 42]. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Müller, Reimar and Reis, Marga (eds.) (2001) Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen. [Linguistische Berichte – Sonderheft 9]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Müller, Sonja (2014) Zur Anordnung der Modalpartikeln ja und doch: (In)stabile Kontexte und (non)kanonische Assertionen. Linguistische Berichte 238: 165–208.Google Scholar
Müller, Sonja (2017) Combining ja und doch: A case of discourse structural identity. In Bayer, Josef and Struckmeier, Volker (eds.), Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and Semantics, 203–240. [Linguistische Arbeiten 564]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Munaro, Niola (2010) On edge features of particles, interjections, and short answers. In Di Sciullo, A. (ed.), Edges, Heads, and Projections: Interface Properties, 67–85. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 156]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Munaro, Nicola and Obenauer, Hans-Georg (1999) On underspecified wh-elements in pseudo-interrogatives. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 181–253.Google Scholar
Näf, Anton (1979) Die Wortstellung in Notkers Consolatio. Untersuchungen zur Syntax und Übersetzungstechnik. [Das Althochdeutsche von St. Gallen 5]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2009) Modality in Japanese: The Layered Structure of the Clause and Hierarchies of Functional Categories. [Studies in Language Companion Series 109]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2010a) Voice and non-canonical case marking in the expression of event-oriented modality. Linguistic Typology 14: 71–126.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko (2010b) (Inter)subjectification in the domain of modality and mood: Concepts and cross-linguistic realities. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven, and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 385–429. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.) (2011) The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina (2007) Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nilsen, Øystein 2003. The Unquestionable Ways of Adverbs. CASTL: The Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
Nordström, Jackie and Boye, Kasper 2016. Complementizer semantics in the Germanic languages. In Boye, Kaspar and Kehayov, Petar (eds.), Complementizer Semantics in European Languages, 131–174. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2000) Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization. [Human Cognitive Processing 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2009) The one-commitment-per-clause principle and the cognitive status of qualificational categories. Linguistics 47/1: 141–171.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2016a) Evidentiality reconsidered. In Marin-Arrese, Juana I., Haßler, Gerda, and Carretero, Marta (eds.), Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive Grammar, Functional and Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2016b) Analyses of the modal meanings. In Nuyts, Jan and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online publication date, November 2014.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan (2016c) Surveying modality and mood: An introduction. In Jan Nuyts and Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Online publication date, November 2015.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan and Byloo, Pieter (2015) Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica 32: 1.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.) (2016) The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nykiel, Jerzy (2010) The interplay of modal verbs and modal adverbs. A history of mæg eaþe. In Lenker, U., Huber, J., and Mailhammer, R. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2008, Vol. I: The History of English Verbal and Nominal Constructions, 143–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ogden, Charles K. and Richards, Ivor A. (1923) The Meaning of Meaning. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Öhlschläger, Günther (1989) Zur Syntax und Semantik der Modalverben des Deutschen. [Linguistische Arbeiten 144]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ormelius-Sandblom, Elisabet (1997) Die Modalpartikeln ja, doch und schon. Zur ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Oubouzar, Erika (1974) Über die Ausbildung der zusammengesetzten Verbalformen im deutschen Verbalsystem. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Sprache der deutschen Literatur (Halle) 95: 5–96.Google Scholar
Ozturk, Isik Özge and Papafragou, Anna (2015) The acquisition of epistemic modality: From semantic meaning to pragmatic interpretation. Language Learning and Development 11/3: 191–214.Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. (1996) Semantičeskie issledovanija. Moscow: Ŝkola Jaziky russkoy kuľturi.Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. (2008) Russian modals mozet and dolzen selecting the imperfective in negative contexts. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modality–Aspect Interfaces: Implications and Typological Solutions, 197–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna (1997) Modality in language development: A reconsideration of the evidence. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 77–105.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna (2000) Modality: Issues in the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. [Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 6]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna (2001) Linking early linguistic and conceptual capacities: The role of theory of mind. In Cienki, Alan, Luka, Barbara J., and Smith, Michael B. (eds.), Conceptual and Discourse Factors in Linguistic Structure, 169–184. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna (2002) Modality and theory of mind: Perspectives from language development and autism. In Barbiers, S., Beukema, F., and van der Wurff, W. (eds.), Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System, 185–204. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna, Peggy, Li, Choi, Youngon, and Han, Chung-hye (2007) Evidentiality in language and cognition. Cognition 103: 253–299.Google Scholar
Payawang, Surachai (2014) Informationsstruktur und grammatische Kodierungsmuster. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. (1982ff.) Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, Vols. I–VI. Bloominton: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Perner, Josef (1991) Understanding the Representational Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perner, Josef, Brandl, Johannes L., and Garnham, Alan (2003) What is a perspective problem? Developmental issues in belief ascription and dual identity. Facta Philosophica 5: 355–378.Google Scholar
Perner, Josef, Stummer, Sandra, Sprung, Manuel, and Doherty, Martin (2002) Theory of mind finds its Piagetian perspective: Why alternative naming comes with understanding belief. Cognitive Development 17/3–4: 1451–1472.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David (1995) Zero Syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther (2007) Probes, goals, and syntactic categories. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (Keio University, Japan). Preprint, University of Massachusetts, Boston.Google Scholar
Piaget, Jean (1983) Sprechen und Denken des Kindes. Frankfurt/M.: Ullstein. German from original Le langage et la pensée chez l’enfant.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia and Zanuttini, Rafaella (2011) Negation and focus: On the syntax of emphasis. GIST 4 Workshop: Polarity Emphasis ‒ Distribution and Locus of Licensing, Universiteit Gent.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1935/1995) Logik der Forschung. Zehnte, verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul (2007) Instructions for interpretation as separate performatives. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, 407–426. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul (2009) Modality. [Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher (2005) The Logic of Conventional Implicature. [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 7]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher (2007a) Conventional implicatures, a distinguished class of meaning. In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 475–501. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher (2007b) The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33/2: 165–197.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher (2012) Conventional implicature and expressive content. In Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus, and Ortner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. III, 2516–2536. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Orman, Van (1953) From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rapp, Irene (2018) Wenn man versucht, JA nichts Falsches zu sagen – Zum Auftreten von Modalpartikeln in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Linguistische Berichte 254: 183–228.Google Scholar
Recanati, François (2000) Oratio obliqua, oratio recta. An essay on metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, François (2004) Pragmatics and semantics. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 442–462. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga (1995) Über infinite Nominativkonstruktionen im Deutschen. In Önnerfors, Olaf (ed.), Festvorträge anläßlich des 60. Geburtstags von Inger Rosengren, 114–156. Lund: Sprache und Pragmatik Sonderheft.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga (2001) Bilden Modalverben im Deutschen eine syntaktische Klasse? (Nicht nur) Neues zu einem alten Thema. In Müller, R. and Reis, M. (eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, 287–318. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga (2002) What are we doing with wh-infinitives in German? Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 2: 287–341.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga (2003) On the form and interpretation of German wh-infinitives. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15: 155–201.Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie (2013) Common ground management. In Gutzmann, Daniel and Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Expressives and Beyond: Explorations of Conventional Non-truth-conditional Meaning, 231–274. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Rinas, Karsten (2007) Abtönungspartikel-Kombinationen und Skopus. Sprachwissenschaft 32/4: 407–452.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi (2001) On the position INT(ERROGATIVE) in the left periphery of the clause. In Cinque, G. and Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax, 287–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian (2000) The history of the modals yet again. Paper read at the Modality workshop at the University of Tübingen, March 16–17, 2000.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang (1999) Morphology-Driven Syntax: A Theory of V-to-I Raising and Pro-Drop. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel and Han, Chung-Hye (2004) On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27/5: 609–658.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats Edward (1985) Association with focus (January 1, 1985). Ph.D. dissertation. Available from Proquest. Paper AI8509599.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats Edward (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Björn and Thieroff, Rolf (eds.) (2010) Mood in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze, Matthewson, Lisa, and Davis, Henry (2008) Modals as distributive indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 16: 317–357.Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan (2003) Language, desire, and the ontogenesis of intersubjectivity. Language and Communication 23: 169–187.Google Scholar
Salkie, Raphael (2009) Degrees of modality. In Salkie, Raphael, Busuttil, Pierre, and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), Modality in English: Theory and Description, 79–104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Salkie, Raphael (2014) Enablement and possibility. In Leiss, Elisabeth and Abraham, Werner (eds.), Modes of Modality: Modality, Typology, and Universal Grammar, 319–352. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (1987) The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580.Google Scholar
Savage-Rumbaugh, Sue E. and Fields, Williams M. (2011) The evolution and the rise of human language: Carry the baby. In Henshilwood, Christopher S. and D’Errico, Francesco (eds.), Homo Symbolicus: The Dawn of Language, Imagination and Spirituality, 13–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Savage-Rumbaugh, Sue E., Rumbaugh, Duane M., and Fields, Williams M. (2006) Language as a window on rationality. In Hurley, Susan and Nudds, Matthew (eds.), Rational Animals?, 513–552. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schallert, Oliver (2014) Zur Syntax der Ersatzinfinitivkonstruktion. Typologie und Variation. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 87]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe (2004) Context of thought and context of utterance (A note on free indirect discourse and the historical present). Mind and Language 19/3: 279–304.Google Scholar
Schmid, Tanja (2002) West Germanic IPP-constructions: An optimality theoretic approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. (1969) Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. and Vanderveken, Daniel (1985) Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. and Weaver, Warren (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shaumyan, Sebastian (1987) A Semiotic Theory of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Šimík, Radek (2011a) Modal existential wh-constructions. Doctoral dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
Šimík, Radek (2011b) Covert modality in modal existential wh-constructions. Paper read at the Annual SLE Meeting in Logroño, Workshop ‘Covert Patterns of Modality’.Google Scholar
Šimík, Radek (2013) The PRO-wh connection in modal existential wh-constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 1163–1205.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. and Aksu, Ayhan A. (1982) Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. In Hopper, Paul J. (ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena (2011) The organization of the German clausal grounding system. In Patard, Adeline and Brisard, Frank (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect, and Epistemic Modality, 87–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Speas, Peggy (2010) Evidentials as generalized functional heads. In Di Sciullo, A. (ed.), Edges, Heads, and Projections: Interface Properties, 127–150. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 156]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Rex and Durbin, John (1998) The syntactic category of the preterit-present modal verbs in Modern Standard German. Paper read at the Berkeley Germanic Linguistics Round Table, April 4, 1998.Google Scholar
Squartini, Mario (2013) From TAM to discourse: The role of information status in North-Western Italian gía ‘already’. In Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert, and Pietrandea, Paola (eds.), Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description, 163–189. [Pragmatic and Beyond New Series/P&BNS 234]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert (1978) Assertion. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Pragmatics, 315–332. [Syntax and Semantics 9]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Starr, William (2012) Kratzer on Modality in Natural Language, June 2, 2012. Handout Phil 6710 / Ling 6634, Spring 2012.Google Scholar
Stechow, Arnim von (1990) Kompositionsprinzipien und grammatische Struktur. In Suchsland, Peter (ed.), Biologische und soziale Grundlagen der Sprache, 175–248. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Stechow, Arnim von (2004) Binding by verbs: Tense, person and mood under attitudes. In Lohnstein, Horst and Trissler, Susanne (eds.), The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, 431–488. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang (2009) Syntax: Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. [Stauffenburg Linguistik]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim (2004) Tense and modals. In Guéron, J. and Lecarme., J. (eds.), The Syntax of Time, 621–636. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm A. (1897) Gotisches Elementarbuch. 5th and 6th edns. 1920. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker (2007) Attribute im Deutschen. Zu ihren Eigenschaften and ihrer Positon im grammatischen System. [Studia grammatica 65]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker (2010) Attributive constructions, scrambling in the AP, and referential types. Lingua 120: 673–692.Google Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker (2014) Ja doch wohl C. Modal particles in German as C-related elements. Studia Linguistica 68/1: 16–48.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve (2012) Introduction: Viewpoint and perspective in language and gesture, from the ground up. In Dancygier, Barbara and Sweetser, Eve (eds.), Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective, 1–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szymański, Leszek (2015) An empirical analysis of the semantic field of the English modal auxiliary verb may in 19th-century American English exampled in the novel Moby Dick; or, the Whale by Herman Melville. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 71: 93–109.Google Scholar
Szymański, Leszek (2016) The interaction of negated must and grammatical aspect in contemporary American English: An empirical study on aspect-modality interaction. Journal of the Polish Linguistic Society: Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 71: 111–129.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Shin (2011) Deixis und Anaphorik. Referenzstrategien in Text, Satz und Wort. [Linguistik: Impulse und Tendenzen]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Shin, Leiss, Elisabeth, Abraham, Werner, and Fujinawa, Yasuhiro (eds.) (2017) Grammatische Funktionen aus Sicht der japanischen und deutschen Grammatik. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Ter Beek, Janneke (2008) Restructuring and infinitival complements in Dutch. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien (1965/1988) Éléments de syntaxe structurale. 2nd revised edn., 5th printing, foreword by Jean Fourquet. Paris: Klincksieck 1988.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien (2015) Elements of Structural Syntax. Trans. Timothy Osborne and Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria (1989) Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. [Linguistische Arbeiten 223]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria (2013) Satztyp und Modapartikeln. In Meibauer, Jörg, Steinbach, Markus, and Altmann, Hans (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen, 627–651. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, Beaver, David, Roberts, Craige, and Simons, Mandy (2011) What projects and why, ESSLLI course. In Li, Nan and Lutz, David (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20: 309–327. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth and Trousdale, Graeme (2013) Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1982) From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, 245–271. [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 24]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth (2003a) From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Motives for Language Change, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth (2010) Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanott, Lieven, and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 29–70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B. (2002) Regularity in Semantic Change. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas (2015) DP-internal discourse particles, expressive content, and illocutionary force. Grazer Linguistische Studien 83: 91–104.Google Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas (2017) The Grammar of Emphasis: From Information Structure to the Expressive Dimension, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2013) An analysis of prosodic F-effects in interrogatives: Prosody, syntax and semantics. Lingua 124: 131–175.Google Scholar
Tschirner, Erwin (1991) Aktionalitätsklassen im Neuhochdeutschen. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tulving, Endel (1972) Episodic and semantic memory. In Tulving, Endel and Donaldson, Wayne (eds.), Organization of Memory, 381–403. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tulving, Endel (2005) Episodic memory and autonoesis: Uniquely human? In Terrace, Herbert S. and Metcalfe, Janet (eds.), The Missing Link in Cognition: Origins of Self-Reflexive Consciousness, 3–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan and Plungian, Vladimir A. (2009) Modality’s Semantic Map. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven (2009) Speech and thought representation in English: A Cognitive-Functional Approach. [Topics in English Linguistics 65]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Vanderweken, Daniel (1990/1991) Meaning and Speech Acts, Vols. I–II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vater, Heinz (1975) Werden als Modalverb. In Calbert, J. C. and Vater, Heinz (eds.), Aspekte der Modalität, 71–148. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 1]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (2005) Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (2007) Construal and perspectivization. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Herbert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 48–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (2008) Intersubjectivity and the architecture of the language system. In Zlatev, Jordan, Racine, Timothy P., Sinha, Chris, and Itkonen, Esa (eds.), The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity, 307–331. [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (2016) Introduction: On tools for weaving meaning out of viewpoint threads. In Dancygier, Barbara, Wei-lun, Lu, and Verhagen, Arie (eds.), Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities,1–10. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean Christophe (2005) Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality: Problems in the deontic domain. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1401–1418.Google Scholar
Viesel, Yvonne (2016) Discourse particles ‘embedded’: German ja in adjectival phrases. In Bayer, J. and Struckmeier, V. (eds.), Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to Their Syntax and Semantics, 173–202. [Linguistische Arbeiten 564]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten (1988) Modals in Danish and event expression. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 39: 31–53.Google Scholar
Vogel, Petra Maria (1996) Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel. Zur Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wada, Naoki (2001) Interpreting English Tenses: A Compositional Approach. Tokyo: Kaitakusha Co.Google Scholar
Watkins, Arthur Rich 1948. The functions of the verbal prefix ge- in Late Middle High German as exemplified in “Die Erlösung.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
Weise, Oscar 1900. Syntax der Altenburger Mundart. [Grammatiken deutscher Mundarten 6]. Leipzig: Breitkopf & HärtelGoogle Scholar
Werner, Martina (2012) Genus, Derivation und Quantifikation. Zur Funktion der Suffigierung und verwandter Phänomene im Deutschen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Westmoreland, Robert R. (1996) Epistemic must as evidential. In Dekker, P. and Stokhof, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, Part III, 683–702. Amsterdam: Institute of Language, Logic and Computation.Google Scholar
Westmoreland, Robert R. (1999) Information and intonation in natural language modality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn (2004) Grammatische Kernbereiche, deren Rekonstruktion und deren Relevanz für historisch belegte Sprachstufen des Baltischen und Slavischen. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LI, 11–24Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn (2014) Mora da as a marker of modal meanings in Macedonian: On correlations between categorial restrictions and morphosyntactic behaviour. In Abraham, Werner and Elisabeth Weiss (eds.), Modes of Modality: Modality, Typology, and Universal Grammar, 127–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek (2010a) Movement Theory of Control and CP-infinitives in Polish. In Hornstein, Norbert and Polinsky, Maria (eds.), Movement Theory of Control, 45–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek (2010b) On the lack of case on the subject of infinitives in Polish. Folia Linguistica 44: 179–238.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen (2003) Burzio’s Generalization, markedness, and locality constraints on nominative objects. In Brandner, E. and Zinsmeister, H. (eds.), New Perspectives on Case Theory, 301–329. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wright, Georg Henrik von (1976) Handlung, Norm und Intention. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi (1998) Infinitives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi (1999) Modal verbs must be raising verbs. Paper presented at West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Arizona, April 9–11, 1999.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha and Chor, Winnie (2013) Epistemic, evidential and attitudinal markers in utterance-medial position in Cantonese. In Leiss, E. and Abraham, W. (eds.), Modes of Modality, 1–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha, Chor, Winnie, and Wang, Jiao (2012) On the development of epistemic fear markers: An analysis of Mandarin kongpa and Cantonese taipaa. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Covert Patterns of Modality, 312–342. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Zeman, Sonja (2013) Zur Diachronie der Modalverben: sollen zwischen Temporalität, Modalität und Evidentialität. In Abraham, Werner and Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Funktionen von Modalität, 335–366. [Linguistik – Impulse und Tendenzen 55]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zeman, Sonja (2016) Perspectivization as a link between narrative micro- and macro-structure. In Zeman, Sonja and Igl, Natalia (eds.), Perspectives on Narrativity and Narrative Perspectivization, 17–42. [Linguistic Approaches to Literature 21]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zeman, Sonja (2017) Confronting perspectives: Modeling perspectival complexity in language and cognition. Glossa (formerly Lingua). Special issue Perspective-Taking (ed. Stefan Hinterwimmer, Petra B. Schumacher, and Hanna Weiland-Breckle).Google Scholar
Zeman, Sonja (2019) Vom Oppositions- zum Integrationsprinzip. Oder: Vom ‘entweder oder’ zum ‘und zugleich’. In Lefèvre, Michel and Mucha, Katharina (eds.), Konstruktionen, Kollokationen, Muster – Geerbte Strukturen, Übertragung in neue Realitäten. Akten des Workshops an der UVP Montpellier 3, November 2017. [Reihe: Eurogermanistik]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Zhang, Lao (1995) A Contrastive Study of Aspectuality in German, English, and Chinese. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra (2010) Semantic determinism and the grammaticalization of have to in English. A reasessment. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11, 1: 32–66.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte (2004) Zum ‘Wohl’: Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren. Linguistische Berichte 199: 253–286.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte (2005) Discourse particles in the left periphery. In Cook, Ph., Frey, Werner, Maienborn, C., and Shaer, B. (eds.), Dislocated Elements in Discourse, 200–231. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte (2007) Contrastive focus. In Féry, C., Fanselow, G., and Krifka, M. (eds.), The Notions of Information Structure, 147–159. [Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure, Vol. 6]. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte (2011) Discourse particles. In Portner, Paul, Maienborn, Claudia, and von Heusinger, Klaus (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 2011–2038. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan, Racine, Timothy P., Sinha, Chris, and Itkonen, Esa (2008) Intersubjectivity: What makes us human. In Zlatev, Jordan, Racine, Timothy P., Sinha, Chris, and Itkonen, Esa (eds.), The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa (1982) On the relationship of the lexicon to syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar