Chapter published in:
The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast: Theoretical, empirical, and typological approaches
Edited by Christine Dimroth and Stefan Sudhoff
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 249] 2018
► pp. 129172
References

References

Abraham, Werner
1986Die Bedeutungsgenese von Modalpartikeln. Die bedeutungskonstituierenden Variablen: Kontrastdomäne und Kontext. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 27: 1–44.Google Scholar
1991Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about? In Discourse Particles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 203–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin
1996Swedish modal particles in a contrastive perspective. Language Sciences 18(1): 393–427.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015The Swedish modal particle ‘väl’ in a contrastive perspective. Nordic Journal of English Studies 14(1): 174–200.Google Scholar
Alm, Maria
2012Why not Swedish modal particles? In Discourse & Grammar: A Festschrift for Valéria Molnár, Johan Brandtler, David Håkansson, Stefan Hubert & Eva Klingvall (eds), 29–52. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Asbach-Schnitker, Brigitte
1977Die Satzpartikel ‘wohl’. In Aspekte der Modalpartikeln, Harald Weydt (ed.), 38–62. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Beun, Robbert-Jan
2000Context and form: Declarative or interrogative, that is the question. In Abduction, Belief, and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics [Natural Language Processing 1], Harry Bunt & William Black (eds), 311–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borkin, Ann
1971Polarity items in questions. Chicago Linguistic Socierty 7: 53–62.Google Scholar
Brandt, Willy
1989Erinnerungen. Berlin: Propyläen-Verlag.Google Scholar
Brandtler, Johan & Håkansson, David
2012Negation, contrast, and the Swedish prefield. In Discourse & Grammar: A Festschrift for Valéria Molnár, Johan Brandtler, David Håkansson, Stefan Hubert & Eva Klingvall (eds),75–91. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
2014Not on the edge. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17(2): 97–128.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel
1994Mittelfeldreport V. In Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation?, Brigitta Haftka (ed.), 79–96. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Gunlogson, Christine
2000Aren’t positive and negative polar questions the same? Ms, UCSC/UCLA.Google Scholar
Christensen, Ken Ramshøj
2005Interfaces: Negation-syntax-brain. PhD dissertation, University of Aarhus.Google Scholar
Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen
2015ordinal – Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2015-6-28. http://​www​.cran​.r​-project​.org​/package​=ordinal/ (1 October 2016).
Cohen, Ariel
2007Incredulity questions. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Ron Artstein, Laure Vieu (eds), 133-140. Trento: University of Trento.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
1999Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, Monika
1979Wohl. Linguistische Studien, Reihe A. Arbeitsberichte 60: 101–140.Google Scholar
1985Epistemische Bedeutung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Domaneschi, Filippo, Romero, Maribel & Braun, Bettina
2017Bias in polar questions: Evidence from English and German production experiments. Glossa 2(1): 1–28.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Döring, Sophia
2016Modal Particles, Discourse Structure and Common Ground Management. Theoretical and Empirical Aspects. PhD dissertation, Humboldt University Berlin.Google Scholar
Döring, Sophia & Repp, Sophie
To appear. The modal particles ‘ja’ and ‘doch’ and their interaction with discourse structure: Corpus and experimental evidence. In Information Structure and Semantic Processing, Sam Featherston, Robin Hörnig, Sophie von Wietersheim & Susanne Winkler eds Berlin De Gruyter
von Essen, Otto
1966Allgemeine und angewandte Phonetik. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina
2017Reportative evidentials and modal subordination. Lingua 186–187: 55–67.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gårding, Eva
1979Sentence intonation in Swedish. Phonetica 36(3): 207–215.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Gyuris, Beáta
2017On delimiting the space of bias profiles for polar interrogatives. Linguistische Berichte 251: 293–316.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker
2008Modal particles and context updating – the functions of German ‘ja’, ‘doch’, ‘wohl’ and ‘etwa’. In Modalverben und Grammatikalisierung, Heinz Vater & Ole Letnes (eds), 153–177. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia
2011Negative and positive polarity items. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 1660–1712. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick
2014aGerman ‘doch’: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 46 (1): 163–177.Google Scholar
2014bOptative markers as communicative cues. Natural Language Semantics 22(1): 89–115.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gunlogson, Christine
2003True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives as Questions in English. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22: 101–136.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gyuris, Beáta
2017New perspectives on bias in polar questions: A study of Hungarian ‘-e’. International Review of Pragmatics 9(1): 1–50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haumann, Dagmar & Letnes, Ole
2012German ‘wohl’: An evidential? In Covert Patterns of Modality, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 202–237. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene
1991Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 487–535. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N.
1988Vorwort und Nachwort zu Verumfokus. Sprache und Pragmatik 5(1): 1–7.Google Scholar
1992Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 112–141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
House, David
2003Hesitation and interrogative Swedish intonation. Phonum 9: 185–188.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim
1991On the semantics of modal particles. In Discourse Particles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 141–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit & Landman, Fred
1990Polarity sensitive any and free choice any. In Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, Part I, Martin Stokhof & Leen Torenvliet (eds), 227–252. Amsterdam: ITLI Publications.Google Scholar
Karagjosova, Elena
2004The Meaning and Function of German Modal Particles. PhD dissertation, Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Magdalena & Kaufmann, Stefan
2012Epistemic particles and performativity. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 22: 208–225.
Krifka, Manfred
1995The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25(3–4): 209–257.Google Scholar
2015Bias in commitment space semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25: 328–345.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert
1981A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Papers from the Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistics Society 17: 164–171.
Lindner, Katrin
1991’Wir sind ja doch alte Bekannte’ The use of German ‘ja’ and ‘doch’ as modal particles. In Discourse Particles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 163–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan
2007Initial clausal negation – A Nordic areal feature. In Linguistics Festival, Andreas Ammann (ed.), 31–58. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst
2012Verumfokus – Satzmodus – Wahrheit. In Wahrheit – Fokus – Negation, Horst Lohnstein & Hardarik Blühdorn (eds), 31–67. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
2016Verum Focus. In Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 290–313. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Modicom, Pierre-Yves
2012Shared knowledge and epistemic reductionism: Covert semantics of German modal particles. In Covert Patterns of Modality, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 281–311. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mortelmans, Tanja
2000On the ‘evidential’ nature of the ‘epistemic’ use of the German modals ‘müssen’ and ‘sollen’. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14: 131–148.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Sonja
2017aCombining ‘ja’ and ‘doch’: A case of discourse structural iconicity. In Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics, Joseph Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 225–254. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2017bRedundancy effects in discourse: On the modal particle combinations ‘halt eben’ and ‘eben halt’ in German. In Pragmatics at its Interfaces, Stavros Assimakopoulos (ed.), 225–254. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Öhlschläger, Günther
1989Zur Syntax und Semantik der Modalverben im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Østbø Munch, Christine
2013North Germanic Negation: A Microcomparative Perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Østbø, Christine Bjerkan & Garbacz, Piotr
2014Doubling of negation. Nordic Atlas of Language Structures 1. http://​www​.tekstlab​.uio​.no​/nals​/#​/chapter​/60 (1 October 2016).
Petersson, David
2008Inte, nog och visst i mittfält och fundament. Nordlund 29: 111–153.Google Scholar
Petrone, Caterina & Niebuhr, Oliver
2014On the intonation of German intonation questions: The role of the prenuclear region. Language and Speech 57(1): 108–146.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Repp, Sophie
2006¬(A&B). Gapping, negation and speech act operators. Research on Language and Computation 4(4): 397–423.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009aNegation in Gapping. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009bTopics and corrections. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, SinSpeC. Working Papers of the SFB 732, Arndt Riester & Torgrim Solstad (eds), 399–414. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
2013Common ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and VERUM. In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning, Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 231–274. Leiden: Brill.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-hye
2004On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 609–658.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, Robert & Šafářová, Marie
2003On polar questions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13: 292–309.
Šafářová, Marie
2006Rises and Falls: Studies in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Intonation. PhD dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
van der Sandt, Rob
1991Denial. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 27(2): 331–344.Google Scholar
Scherf, Nathalie
2017The syntax of Swedish modal particles. In Discourse Particles. Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics, Joseph Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 78–99. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
In preparation. Swedish Modal Particles. Analyses of ‘ju’, ‘väl’, ‘nog’, ‘visst’. PhD dissertation, Humboldt University Berlin.
Seeliger, Heiko
2015“Surely that’s not a negative declarative question?” Polar discourses in Swedish, German and English. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19, Eva Csipak & Hedde Zeijlstra (eds), 591–609. Göttingen: LinG.Google Scholar
In preparation. Negation, Modal Particles and Bias in Questions with Declarative Syntax. PhD dissertation, Humboldt Unviersity Berlin.
Seeliger, Heiko & Repp, Sophie
2017On the intonation of Swedish rejections and rejecting questions. In Nordic Prosody. Proceedings of the XXIIth conference, Trondheim 2016, Wim A. van Dommelen & Jacques Koreman (eds), 135–146. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada
2013Biased polar questions in English and Japanese. In Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning, Daniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 275–296. Leiden: Brill.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik
1999Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria
1989Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trawiński, Beata & Soehn, Jan-Philipp
2008A multilingual database of polarity items. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC‘08), Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis & Daniel Tapias (eds): ELRA. http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2008/ (1 September 2017).
Trinh, Tue
2014How to ask the obvious – A presuppositional account of evidential bias in English yes/no questions. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 71: 227–249.Google Scholar
Ulvestad, Bjarne
1975‘Nicht’ im Vorfeld. Sprache der Gegenwart 34(2): 373–392.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde
2013Not in the first place. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(3): 865–900.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte
2004Zum Wohl: Diskurspartikeln als Satztypmodifikatoren. Linguistische Berichte 199: 253–286.Google Scholar
2011Discourse particles. In Handbook of Semantics [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft HSK 33.2], Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds), 2011–2038. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar