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

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: Wo_i kommen die epistemischen Lesarten t_i-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 (2009) Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language 16: 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, Karin (2013) Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2004a) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford 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

Beaver, David I. and Clark, Brady Z. (2008) Sense and Sensitivity. Oxford: Blackwell.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 (1990) Language and Species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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

Bowers, John (1995) The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656.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

Broz, Vlatko (2014) Aspectual Prefixes in Early English. Bern: Peter Lang.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

Bühring, Daniel (2004) Focus suppositions.Theoretical Linguistics 30/1: 65–76.Google Scholar

Butler, Jonney (2003) A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113: 997–1029.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 (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.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

Chomsky, Noam (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.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

Comrie, Bernard (1985) Tense. 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

Corbett, Greville G. (1991) Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. (2000) Number. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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 Smet, Hendrik (2012) The course of actualization. Language 88/3: 601–633.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

Engel, Ulrich (1999) Deutsch-polnische kontrastive Grammatik. Heidelberg: Gross.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 (2010) The Syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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

Hamblin, Charles Leonard (1970) Fallacies. London: Methuen.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

Helbig, Gerhard (1988) Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.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

Jacobs, Joachim (ed.) (1992) Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Springer.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

Kamp, Hans and Reyle, Uwe (1993) From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.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 (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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 (1994) Time in Language. London: Routledge.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

Kripke, Saul (1972) Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.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 (2009a) Sprachphilosophie. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 2nd edn. 2012.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) Logik. Leipzig: Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung.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

Lyons, John (1977) Semantics, 2 vols. London: Cambridge University Press.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 (1962) The Gutenberg Galaxy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.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. 2010. Modality and Subordinators. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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

Nöth, Winfried (2000) Handbuch der Semiotik, 2nd edn. Stuttgart: Metzler.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