No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Degrees of procedure activation and the German modal particles ja and doch - Part 1
Abstract
In this paper I argue that a unitary account of the modal and non-modal uses of the German particles ja and doch can be provided by appealing to essentially non-representational properties of the theory of procedural meaning in Relevance Theory (RT). According to Wilson (2011), procedural indicators such as ja and doch function by raising the activation level of cognitive procedures, increasing the likelihood that audiences following the RT comprehension heuristic will use these procedures. Partially following proposals by König (1997) and Blass (2000, 2014), I would like to posit that ja and doch trigger a procedure to raise the epistemic strength of the proposition conveyed. Doch triggers a second procedure in addition, a constraint on context selection to the effect that the proposition conveyed must be processed in a context containing its negation. Since raising the activation level of cognitive procedures can be done in degrees, I argue that the basic difference between modal and non-modal uses of ja and doch is a reflection of differences in the degree of activation level rise: non-modal uses of ja and doch raise the activation of the manifestness procedure to a high degree, giving rise to effects such as emphasis or contrast, whereas modal uses raise this procedure's activation level merely to some degree. As a result, modal ja and doch are uniquely suitable to mark propositions that do not need much evidential strengthening but would benefit from some such effect. This is most typically the case in mutually manifest assumptions that the communicator intends to use as premises in arguments. However, in some discourse contexts assumptions that are not mutually manifest may also fit this description. The prediction of this analysis is that the modal uses of ja and doch do not form a clearly delimited class; rather, borderline cases exist defying generalizations. I will present data from a qualitative corpus study that confirms these predictions.
It has long been recognised that at least some linguistic expressions —such as the connectives but in English and mais in French, and the particles doch in German and jo in Norwegian— function to affect the audience’s inference or reasoning processes rather than, or in addition to, provide conceptual content. There is a debate, however, whether the inference procedures triggered by these linguistic expressions function primarily to affect the audience’s recognition of the communicator’s arguments or primarily to guide the audience’s comprehension process. I discuss this question with reference to an instructive example from an advertisement in Norwegian. The advertisement is an argumentative text where the modal particle jo achieves subtle argumentational and stylistic effects that differ from those achieved by the corresponding German modal particles doch or ja . I demonstrate how the procedural semantic analyses independently developed by Berthelin & Borthen (submitted) of jo and Unger (2016a, 2016b, 2016c) of ja and doch support a pragmatic-semantic account of the argumentational effects of these particles. Although the semantics I propose for the respective particles does not directly relate to argumentation, it is specific enough to affect argumentation in predictable ways. The reason for this is that comprehension procedures and argumentation procedures closely interact in processing ostensive stimuli (such as verbal utterances) for optimal relevance.
Beamer presentation accompagnying the paper with the same name
I discuss three issues common to papers in the present issue of CatJL by Aijmer, Bazzanella et al., and Waltereit and Detges. One is modal uses of discourse markers and distinctions between discourse markers and modal particles. The second is evidence provided by the papers for diachronic changes that individual markers underwent; the distinction between grammaticalization and pragmaticalization is considered and challenged. Finally, I raise some issues regarding the methodology of data-selection in contrastive studies.
One of the main concerns of recent research in discourse markers, modal particles and related elements has been the problem of a neat categorical delimitation between the major classes involved. Comparing the Spanish discourse particle bien and its French cognate modal particle bien, we show that the functional difference between discourse markers and modal particles can be accounted for in diachronic terms. In other words, discourse markers and modal particles arise in different diachronic pathways, and ultimately from different pragmatic strategies. Strategies which eventually yield discourse markers are related to the joint coordination of human interaction.
In contrast, strategies which give rise to modal particles make reference to the status of a given proposition for the ensuing discourse. Our results suggest that there are levels of generalization on semantic change below the overarching tendencies of subjectification (Traugott and Dasher 2002). More importantly, we provide specific motivations for these levels of generalization, and ultimately for subjectification itself