Logic, Language and Meaning pp 416-425 | Cite as
Modality and Speech Acts: Troubled by German Ruhig
Conference paper
Abstract
This paper aims to explain the distribution and effect of the German modal particle ruhig, which is argued to be licensed only in utterances that induce a particular change in the contextual status of a possible future course of events.
Keywords
Epistemic Modality Necessity Operator Possibility Modal Necessity Modal Optimal World
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Davis, C., et al.: Decisions, dynamics, and the Japanese particle yo. Journal of SemanticsGoogle Scholar
- 2.Ehrich, V.: Was nicht müssen und nicht können (nicht) bedeuten können: Zum Skopus der Negation bei den Modalverben des Deutschen, pp. 148–176 (2001)Google Scholar
- 3.Grosz, P.: German particles, modality, and the semantics of imperatives. In: Lima, S., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of NELS 39. GLSA, Amherst (2009a)Google Scholar
- 4.Grosz, P.: Grading modality: A new approach to modal concord and its relatives. Talk at SuB 14, University of Vienna, September 28-30 (2009b)Google Scholar
- 5.Horn, L.: On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph. D. thesis, UCLA (1972)Google Scholar
- 6.Karagjosova, E.: The Meaning and Force of German Modal Particles. Saarbrücken Dissertations in Computational Linguistics and Language Technology (2004)Google Scholar
- 7.Kaufmann, S.: Conditional predictions. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 181–231 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Kratzer, A.: The notional category of modality. In: Eikmeyer, H., Rieser, H. (eds.) Words, Worlds, and Contexts. de Gruyter, Berlin (1981)Google Scholar
- 9.McCready, E.: Japanese yo: Its semantics and pragmatics. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 30, 25–34 (2006)Google Scholar
- 10.Ninan, D.: Two puzzles about deontic necessity. In: Gajewski, J., et al. (eds.) New Work on Modality, pp. 149–178. MITWPL, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
- 11.Önnerfors, O.: Verberst Deklarativsätze. Grammatik und Pragmatik. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm (1997)Google Scholar
- 12.Sadock, J.M., Zwicky, A.M.: Speech act distinctions in syntax. In: Shopen, T. (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. I, pp. 155–196. CUP, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
- 13.Schwager, M.: Interpreting Imperatives. Ph.D.thesis, University of Frankfurt (2006)Google Scholar
- 14.Searle, J.: Speech Acts. CUP, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
- 15.Stalnaker, R.: Assertion. In: Cole, P. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 9, pp. 315–332. Academic Press, New York (1978)Google Scholar
- 16.Veltman, F.: Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25, 221–261 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 17.von Fintel, K., Iatridou, S.: How to say ought in foreign. In: Guéron, J., Lecarme, J. (eds.) Time and Modality, vol. 75, pp. 115–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Zeevat, H.: The syntax semantics interface of speech act markers. In: Kruijff-Korbayová, I., et al. (eds.) Proceedings Diabruck 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
- 19.Zimmermann, M., et al.: Discourse particles. In: Portner, P., Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K. (eds.) Handbook of Semantics. Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010