The marking of uncontroversial information in Europe: presenting the enimitive

References

• Abish, Aynur. 2014. Modality in Kazakh as Spoken in China. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
   Google Scholar
• Aijmer, Karin. 1996. “Swedish Modal Particles in a Contrastive Perspective.” Language Sciences 18 (1–2): 393–427. doi:10.1016/0388-0001(96)00027-7.
   Google Scholar
• Aijmer, Karin, Ad Foolen, and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2006. “Pragmatic Markers in Translation: A Methodological Proposal.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, edited by Kerstin Fischer, 101–114. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Andvik, Erik E. 1992. A Pragmatic Analysis of Norwegian Modal Particles. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington.
   Google Scholar
• Anikin, Alexandr E. 2012. Russkij Etimologičeskij Slovar’ [The Etymological Dictionary of Russian]. Vol. 6. Moskva: Rukopisnye pamjatniki drevnej Rusi.
   Google Scholar
• Ariel, Mira. 1998. “Discourse Markers and Form-function Correlations.” In Discourse Markers. Descriptions and Theory, edited by Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv, 223–259. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ariel, Mira. 1999. “Mapping so-called ‘Pragmatic’ Phenomena according to a ‘Linguistic–extralinguistic’ Distinction.” In Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume II: Case Studies, edited by Edith A. Moravcsik, Michael Darnell, Michael Noonan, Frederick J. Newmeyer, and Kathleen Wheatley, 11–39. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Arkhangelskiy, Timofey A. n.y. “Clitics in the Besermyan Dialect of Udmurt.” Accessed 15 February 2019. https://wp.hse.ru/data/2014/10/02/1100269480/10LNG2014.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Arndt, Walter. 1960. “‘Modal Particles’ in Russian and German.” Word 16 (3): 323–336. doi:10.1080/00437956.1960.11659734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auer, Peter, and Yael Maschler, eds. 2016. NU/NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers across the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.
   Google Scholar
• Bross, Fabian. 2012. “German Modal Particles and the Common Ground.” Helikon 2: 182–209.
   Google Scholar
• Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Croft, William, and Keith T. Poole. 2008. “Inferring Universals from Grammatical Variation: Multidimensional Scaling for Typological Analysis.” Theoretical Linguistics 34 (1): 1–37. doi:10.1515/THLI.2008.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cysouw, Michael. 2007. “Building Semantic Maps: The Case of Person Marking.” In New Challenges in Typology: Broadening the Horizons and Redefining the Foundations, edited by Michael Cysouw and Bernhard Wälchli, 225–247. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, Östen, and Bernhard Wälchli. 2016. “Perfects and Iamitives: Two Gram Types in One Grammatical Space.” Letras De Hoje 51 (3): 325–348. doi:10.15448/1984-7726.2016.3.25454.
   Google Scholar
• de Vaan, Michiel. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Degand, Liesbeth, Bert Cornillie, and Paola Pietrandrea, eds. 2013. Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ellertsson, Björn. 1993. Íslensk-þýsk orðabók/Isländisch-deutsches Wörterbuch [Icelandic-German dictionary]. Reykjavík: Iðunn.
   Google Scholar
• Fedriani, Chiara, and Andrea Sansò, eds. 2017. Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers, and Modal Particles. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Foolen, Ad. 2006. “Polysemy Patterns in Contrast: The Case of Dutch Toch and German Doch.” In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, edited by Karin Aijmer and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, 59–72. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Forker, Diana. forthcoming. “More than Just a Modal Particle: The Enclitic ꞊q′al in Sanzhi Dargwa”. To be published in Functions of Language.
   Google Scholar
• Gast, Volker. 2008. “Modal Particles and Context Updating – The Functions of German ja, doch, wohl and etwa.” In Modalverben und Grammatikalisierung, edited by Ole Letnes and Heinz Vater, 153–177. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Gast, Volker, and Johan van der Auwera. 2012. “What Is ‘Contact-induced Grammaticalization’? Examples from Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean Languages.” In Grammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact, edited by Björn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli, and Björn Hansen, 381–426. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Gil, David. 2016. “Describing Languoids: When Incommensurability Meets the Language-dialect Continuum.” Linguistic Typology 20 (2): 432–462. doi:10.1515/lingty-2016-0017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossman, Eitan, and Stéphane Polis. 2017. “Polysemy Networks in Language Contact: Borrowing of the Greek-Origin Preposition κατά/κατα in Coptic.” In Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic: Contact-Induced Change in an Ancient African Language, edited by Eitan Grossman, Peter Dils, Tonio Sebastian Richter, and Wolfgang Schenkel, 335–367. Hamburg: Widmaier.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, Patrick. 2010. “German doch: An Element that Triggers a Contrast Presupposition.” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 46: 163–177.
   Google Scholar
• Gyuris, Beáta. 2018. “Ugye in Hungarian: Towards a Unified Analysis.” In Boundaries Crossed, at the Interfaces of Morphosyntax, Phonology, Pragmatics and Semantics, edited by Huba Bartos, Marcel den Dikken, Zoltán Bánréti, and Tamás Váradi, 199–211. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hancil, Sylvie, Alexander Haselow, and Margje Post, eds. 2015. Final Particles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, Erik, and Lars Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog, bind II [Grammar of the Danish Language. Vol. II]. Copenhagen: Det danske Sprog- og litteraturselskab.
   Google Scholar
• Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. “The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and Cross-linguistic Comparison.” In The New Psychology of Language, edited by Michael Tomasello, 211–242. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. “Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Crosslinguistic Studies.” Language 86 (3): 663–687. doi:10.1353/lan.2010.0021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. “Argument Indexing: A Conceptual Framework for the Syntactic Status of Bound Person Forms.” In Languages across Boundaries, edited by Dik Bakker and Martin Haspelmath, 209–238. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Hellquist, Elof. 1922. Svensk Etymologisk Ordbok. Lund: Gleerups.
   Google Scholar
• Ickler, Theodor. 1994. “Zur Bedeutung der sogenannten ‘Modalpartikeln’.” Sprachwissenschaft 19: 374–404.
   Google Scholar
• Itkonen, Erkki, and Maija Kulonen. 1992-2000. Suomen sanojen alkuperä. Etymologinen sanakirja [The Origin of Finnish Words: Etymological Dictionary]. Vol. III. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus & Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
   Google Scholar
• Karagjosova, Elena. 2004. “The Meaning and Function of German Modal Particles.” PhD thesis. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Kobolt, Erich. 1990. Die deutsche Sprache in Estland am Beispiel der Stadt Pernau. Lüneburg: Verlag Nordostdeutsches Kulturwerk.
   Google Scholar
• Kroon, Caroline. 1995. Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero, and at. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.
   Google Scholar
• Lü, Shuxiang. 2006. xiàndài hàn yǔ bābǎi cí [Modern Chinese Eight Hundred Words]. Běijīng: Shāngwù Yìnshūguǎn.
   Google Scholar
• Le, Giang Ha. 2015. “Vietnamese Sentence-Final Particles.” A master degree thesis. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
   Google Scholar
• Levin, Ivan. 2016. “Časticy dokh i že jazyka idiš v sravnenii s ix slavjanskimi i nemeckimi kognatami [The Particles dokh and že in Yiddish Compared to Their Slavic and German Cognates].” In Problemy jazyka. Sborbik četvertoj konferencii-školy “Problemy jazyka: vzgljad molodyx učenyx” [Problems of Language. Proceedings of the 4th school and conference ‘Problems of Language. Perspectives of Young Scholars’], edited by Ekaterina M. Devjatkina, Denis V. Makhovikov, and Andrey B. Shluinsky, 188–189. Moskva: Institut Jazykoznanija Rossijskoj Akademii Nauk, Kancler.
   Google Scholar
• Matras, Yaron. 1998. “Utterance Modifiers and Universals of Grammatical Borrowing.” Linguistics 36 (2): 281–331. doi:10.1515/ling.1998.36.2.281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matras, Yaron, and Jeanette Sakel. 2007. “Investigating the Mechanisms of Pattern Replication in Language Convergence.” Studies in Language 31 (4): 829–867. doi:10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, Zelda Kahan. 1977. “The Intensifier Particles den and dokh.” Working Papers in Yiddish and East European Jewish Studies 23: 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Obe, Rie, and Hartmut Haberland. 2018. “Review of Naomi Ogi, Involvement and Attitude in Japanese Discourse: Interactive Markers. Amsterdam: Benjamins 2017.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 41 (1): 117–128. doi:10.1017/S0332586518000045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlova, Svetlana. 2012. Sopostavitel’nyj analiz semantiki nemeckix častic denn, doch i ja i ix russkix perevodnyx ekvivalentov [A Contrastive Analysis of the Semantics of German denn, doch and ja and Their Russian Translation Counterparts]. PhD thesis. Moskva: Moscow State University.
   Google Scholar
• Oslon, Mikhail V. 2018. Jazyk kotl’arov-moldovaja. Grammatika kelderarskogo dialekta cyganskogo jazyka v russkojazyčnom okruženii [The Language of Moldovaya Kalderash. A Grammar of the Kalderash Dialect of Romani in a Russian-speaking Environment]. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.
   Google Scholar
• Palomäki, Jennimaria Kristiina. 2009. The Pragmatics and Syntax of the Finnish -han Particle Clitic. PhD thesis. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia.
   Google Scholar
• Panov, Vladimir. 2020a. “Juk and gi, and ‘Particles’ in Contemporary Lithuanian: Explaining Language-particular Elements in a Cross-linguistic Context.” Kalbotyra 72: 33–61.
   Google Scholar
• Panov, Vladimir. 2020b. “Final Particles in Asia: Establishing an Areal Feature.” Linguistic Typology. ahead-of-print. doi:10.1515/lingty-2019-2032).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrova, Svetlana. 2016. “On the Status and the Interpretation of the Left-peripheral Sentence Particles inu and ia in Old High German.” In Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics, edited by Josef Bayer and Volker Struckmeier, 304–331. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Rath, Rainer. 1975. “Doch. Eine Studie zur Syntax und zur kommunikativen Funktion einer Partikel.” Deutsche Sprache 3: 222–242.
   Google Scholar
• Rhee, Seongha. 2001. “Grammaticalization of Verbs of Cognition and Perception.” Studies in Modern Grammar 24: 111–135.
   Google Scholar
• Rinas, Karsten. 2006. Die Abtönungspartikeln doch und ja: Semantik, Idiomatisierung, Kombinationen, tschechische Äquivalente. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. “Types of Loan: Matter and Pattern.” In Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective, edited by Yaron Matras and Jeanette Sakel, 15–29. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Sansò, Andrea. 2010. “How Conceptual are Semantic Maps?” Linguistic Discovery 8 (1): 288–309. doi:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.354.
   Google Scholar
• Schiller, Karl, and August Lübben. 1876. Mittelniederdeutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Vol. 2. Bremen: Verlag von Kühtmann’s Buchhandlung.
   Google Scholar
• Song, Jae Jung. 2018. Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sreznevskij, Izmail I. 1893. Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka po pis’mennym pam’atnikam [Materials for an Old Russian Dictionary]. Vol. I. Sankt-Peterburg: Tipografija imperatorskoj akademii nauk.
   Google Scholar
• Tenser, Anton. 2016. “Semantic Map Borrowing – Case Representation in Northeastern Romani Dialects.” Journal of Language Contact 9 (2): 211–245. doi:10.1163/19552629-00902001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
   Google Scholar
• van der Auwera, Johan. 2008. “In Defense of Classical Semantic Maps.” Theoretical Linguistics 34 (1): 39–46. doi:10.1515/THLI.2008.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Auwera, Johan, and Kalyanamalini Sahoo. 2015. “On Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories, Such as They Are.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 47 (2): 136–173. doi:10.1080/03740463.2015.1115636.
   Google Scholar
• van der Auwera, Johan, and Vladimir Plungian. 1998. “Modality’s Semantic Map.” Linguistic Typology 2 (1): 79–124. doi:10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79.
   Google Scholar
• von Gutzeit, Waldemar. 2001 [1859-1898]. Wörterschatz der deutschen Sprache Livlands. Riga: Kümmel.
   Google Scholar
• Wälchli, Bernhard. 2010. “Similarity Semantics and Building Probabilistic Semantic Maps from Parallel Texts.” Linguistic Discovery 8 (1): 331–371. doi:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.356.
   Google Scholar
• Wauchope, Marie Michele. 1991. The Grammar of the Old High German Particles thoh, ia, and thanne. New York, Bern, Frankfurt am Main and Paris: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Žele, Andreja. 2015. Slovar Slovenskih Členkov. Ljubljana: Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica.
   Google Scholar