Title: What are particles good for?

Running head: What are particles good for?

Author: Harald Weydt

0. Introduction

Since the sixties, particles have aroused the interest of linguists far and wide. The

various classifications into parts of speech or word classes that particles have

undergone in the recent years will not be discussed here. Most of what will be

discussed will be illustrated with German Abtönungspartikeln (~ modal particles?),

and, for reasons of economy, with German aber, but it should be clear from the

beginning that it will hold true for particles of other classes as well and not only for

German but also for other languages.

Instead of discussing particle classifications and the respective criteria1, I would

like to raise the basic question of what are Abtönungspartikeln good for or why one

uses Abtönungspartikeln. This question has not really been considered in this direct

way and that is why I think it is particularly (!) suitable for a new look at an old

subject.

1. Problems of definition

When speaking of particles in a general way, we have good reasons to avoid a too

restrictive definition. Instead, we will enumerate some denominations in German,

1

French, and English. They roughly circumscribe the range of the words that this

article will be about and they will already reveal to a certain degree what the

authors think they are good for.2 The particles that I am going to treat are called in

German:

Abtönungspartikeln, Modalpartikeln, Satzpartikeln, Gliederungssignale, illokutive

Partikeln, diskursorientierende Partikeln, Einstellungspartikeln, diskursive

Partikeln, Gesprächswörter.

In French:

modalisateurs, particules expressives, appréciatifs, argumentatifs, particules

illocutoires, adverbes de phrase, connecteurs, mots de la communication,

charnières du discours (de discours), particules énonciatives, marqueurs, adverbes

explétifs.

In English:

pragmatic markers, discourse particles (as in this volume), discourse markers,

interpersonal markers, argumentative markers, presentative particles,

parentheticality markers, modal particles, adverbial connectives, connectives,

modal discourse particles, elusive particles, particles of truth, contrastive and set-

evoking particles, sentence-structure particles, down toners.

Some general remarks concerning the definition of particles:

In principle, I consider the category particle to be a cross-linguistic one. Contrary

to widespread ideas (Sasse (1993:682): “These subcategories are too language-

specific to justify cross-linguistic treatment”), particle is a category and has as such

universal validity, just like other linguistic terms such as verb and noun. When

defining noun we do not define the French noun or the Japanese one, but we have

2

an idea of noun and, in a second step, we look at a certain language, observing if

there is a noun and if so, what qualities it has (does it inflect, does it mark the

plural, does it bear articles, etc.) The same holds for particles.3 By particle I

understand a word class. That means that only single words, not clauses, are

considered to be particles. Word groups like I mean, you know, après tout, au fond,

au total, c'est-à-dire, tout compte fait, je dirai que, sp. por este motivo, port. de

maneira que, are not particles, in spite of the undisputed fact that they can occupy

the place of a particle, replace it and be replaced by it. An analogy may help to

point out what I mean, and justify my claim. If linguists speak of nouns, they only

mean nouns and not elements which can stand in the place of a noun. So, that you

come, is not a noun, even though it can stand for one. In the sentence I know the

answer, the answer can be replaced by that you come, or by it. Neither that you

come nor it, however, is nouns. A constitutive feature, however, for the definition

of particles is that they do have (synsemantic) meaning. Nonetheless they do not

refer to sections of the extralinguistic reality (they have no lexical meaning), nor do

they position anything relative to the ego, the speaking person (they have no deictic

meaning), and they do not have word class meaning (as pronouns do, which are the

empty forms of nouns, adjectives or adverbs). Interjections, having no synsemantic

meanings, are not particles.

To sum up, particles are (single) words, which have no dissecting (lexical), deictic

nor word class meaning, but they do have a semantic content which they deploy in

connection with other elements of the utterance (for further details see Hentschel

and Weydt (1989: 6)).

3

2. Functions: Why we use Abtönungspartikeln.

I recall the results of an experiment presented in the preface of the Kleine deutsche

Partikellehre (Weydt et al. 1983: chapter 0, 11–12). Two dialogues, held between

two young people, were presented to our informants. The first, dialogue A,

contained a relatively large number of Abtönungspartikeln. The second one,

dialogue B, was identical to A except that all particles had been removed from it. It

is still grammatically correct. A teacher could not find any grammatical mistakes.

Here is a section of this dialogue:

[...]

X: Ja, das gibt's doch gar nicht! Was

machst Du denn hier! Ich denk' Du bist in

England!

Y: War ich auch, aber jetzt wohn' ich in

Berlin. Bin gerade auf dem Rückweg.

X: Ist ja toll, ich fahr' nämlich auch nach

Berlin, aber nur übers Wochenende.

Y: Gut, dann können wir ja während der

Fahrt ein bißchen über die alten Zeiten

quatschen.

X: Ja eben, aber sag' mal, wo fährt denn der

9.30 Uhr-Zug eigentlich ab?

[...]

[...]

X: Ja, das gibt's gar nicht! Was machst du

hier? Ich denk' Du bist in England!

Y: War ich auch, aber jetzt wohn' ich in

Berlin. Bin gerade auf dem Rückweg.

X: Ist toll, ich fahr nämlich auch nach

Berlin, aber nur übers Wochenende.

Y: Gut, dann können wir während der

Fahrt ein bißchen über die alten Zeiten

quatschen.

X: Ja, aber sag', wo fährt der 9.30 Uhr-Zug

ab?

[...]

4

Both dialogues were presented to informants who were asked to read them and

judge them relative to a given matrix which contained the features natural,

rejecting, warm, wooden, smooth, authentic, difficult to make contact with, friendly.

The results are shown in figure 1.

Fig. 1: Comparison of dialogues: Average results of 82 German native speakers

We have repeated the experiment often, with native German speakers as well as

with non-native speakers of German, and every time the results were very similar.

The differences in values assigned to the dialogues A and B must be explained by

the difference in the presence or absence of particles.

How should this be interpreted? One can see that the matrix contains two different

qualities. The first is a complex value, which may be labeled ‘authenticity’. It

answers the question Do Germans really speak like this? The respective values are:

natürlich ('natural'), flüssig ('smooth'), echt ('authentic'). The answer for dialogue A

is Yes. In such a situation, they do speak with and not without particles. Dialogue A

is much more authentic than dialogue B.

5

The second value is a social one and shows up in the other features. It can be

labeled ‘friendliness’. Compared to B, dialogue A is conceived of as friendly and

warm, neither rejecting nor stiff, nor unsociable.

A conclusion that could be drawn and a first answer to the title question could then

be that the speakers use particles in their speech when and because they want to be

friendly, and if they don't use them, their particleless speech is strange. (It will be

the task of this article to ask whether this is an acceptable statement).

However, this conclusion leads to a number of difficulties. The first is the

phenomenon of over-summativity. The overall impact of particles does not coincide

with the meaning of only one of them. Neither eigentlich nor doch, nor denn nor

any of the other particles are friendly in and of themselves. If one does not want to

give up this first conclusion, then one would have to try seriously to explain how

particles which are not friendly bring about friendliness. The second problem is that

while particles may have friendly effects, they frequently do not. They can appear

in utterances meant to hurt the partner. Was hast Du denn jetzt schon wieder

gemacht?! (What did you do this time?!) and Haben sie überhaupt einen

Führerschein? (Do you even have a driver's license?) can be very aggressive.

3. The semantica of modal particles

In order to find out how particles act in speech and to answer the title question of

‘what Abtönungspartikeln are good for’ it is useful to observe how the meanings of

the particles function and how they act in conversation.

6

3.1. Six general theses on particle meaning

1. Every particle has a meaning. It is present in every occurrence.

This thesis opposes the idea that particles are meaningless, at least in certain

contexts (mots de remplissage, vides/explétifs, palabras vacías), or as a weaker

claim, semantically reduced (bleached), just fulfilling expletive functions. In this

view, particles have lost their semantic content and are only used in their context

for euphonic reasons. If this statement is not just based on a terminological

difference (that meaning is only used for 'lexical meaning'), then we must disagree

with it. We know of no case, where a particle is used without its meaning, and we

don’t think that one can be found.

2. It is not the function of particles to tone down the utterance in oral discourse.

This claim corrects a frequent idea about particles, above all on German

Abtönungspartikeln. For example James (1983), who calls eigentlich "one of the

voluntary markers of imprecision". Similarly, Grevisse (1993: § 920) describes the

function of particles like bien, donc, un peu, voir as ‘explétifs’: "Ils servent

seulement à renforcer ou à atténuer l’expression. Certains participent aussi à la

fonction phatique." It is very commonly said that particles fulfill the function of

‘down toners’5 and that they are used in a general way and without having a

specific meaning, in order to make the utterance in which they occur imprecise and

vague. This in turn is said to be one way a speaker can take the sharpness from

utterances, in order to prevent a so called FTA (face threatening act), or at least to

make it less threatening. In reality, however, eigentlich and the other

7

Abtönungspartikeln do not express weakening (or extenuation), but they have a

precise meaning which is not extenuating. Eigentlich indicates that the utterance is

true in a deeper sense. This holds for every single occurrence. This meaning does

not in itself contain any extenuating, down-toning element. And no particle is in

and of itself friendly (see 3.2). As we have seen in the earlier discussion, it is true

that Abtönungspartikeln (and comparable elements in other languages) can make

dialogues friendly, social, and natural, but not via down-toning. Particles show that

the actual speaker takes into account his partner’s perspective on the subject, that

he cooperates. This is why his speech is conceived as amiable. This effect can be

achieved by various means and in any linguistic society. For more details see

Hentschel and Weydt (1983), Weydt et al. (1983), and Weydt (forthcoming).

3. Particles, even if used as ‘Gliederungssignale’ (discourse markers?), conserve

their primary meaning.

The term Gliederungssignal was created by Gülich (1970). It referred to particles

(such as French et, alors, mais, puis, enfin) in the wider sense which take on

specific functions in spoken dialogues or in spoken speech. In Gülich’s conception,

Gliederungssignale form a homogeoneous word class in the grammar of spoken

language, as opposed to traditional grammar, which, she writes, represents above

all the system of the written language. In the grammar of the written, but not of the

spoken language, the particles belong to different word classes. Among the

Gliederungssignale one finds syntagms consisting of more than one traditional

word, like vous savez, n’est-ce pas, tu comprends, et bien, you know, I mean which

we have already excluded form our definition of particles and one word

Gliederungssignale as for instance et, alors, mais, puis, quoi, hein, enfin.

8

A widespread opinion says that it is their task, to structure the dialogue (Gülich

1970: 270) and to help the hearer interpret the other’s turn. When these words are

Gliederungssignale, they lose their original meaning. Mais, when used as

Gliederungssignal (or, more exactly, as an opening-up signal, ‘Eröffnungssignal’),

no longer expresses, following Gülich´s contrast, puis and alors do not contain

temporal relationships (Gülich 1970: 297). We disagree with this theory. In

deference to the space it would require to argue against it in detail, let it suffice to

say briefly that that we could not find any example where a particle is a

Gliederungssignal, instead of conserving its original meaning. There is no

alternative of Gliederungssignal or particle with original (primary) meaning.

Instead, a certain particle can fulfill the function of a Gliederungssignal because of

the fact that it maintains its original meaning. It is able to structure the dialogue, as

it means something. Let’s take again the example of the French conjunction mais.

1 For the criteria and problems of classification see Hentschel and Weydt (2002).

2 For a cross linguistic definition of "particle" see Hentschel and Weydt (1995) and

Weydt (2001).

3 For a discussion of this problem and the potential criteria of definition see Weydt

(2001: 2.1 “Zum Problem der Einzelsprachlichkeit des Begriffs Partikel”).

4 translation: kontaktschwach - 'difficult to make contact with'

5 I don’t know where the origin of the term ‘down toner’ as a linguistic term lies. It

may be a calque, a loan translation, of the German Ab-tönung (ab = down, Tönung

= toner). If that were the case, it would be a rather bad translation, German ab-

here, not having the meaning of ‘down’, tönen not of ‘to tone’. The expression

abtönen was taken from the art of painting, where abtönende Farben means

‘shadowing colors’. These paints lend the painting a certain nuance.

9

According to Gülich (1970: 77), (the same holds true for English but, German aber

and probably for Dutch maar), used as Gliederungssignal no longer carries any

adversative meaning. ”...hat es seine ursprüngliche lexikalische Bedeutung in vielen

Fällen aufgegeben zugunsten seiner Eröffnungsfunktion”. If its only function were

to open up a turn, it could be replaced, without changing the context conditions, by

any other opening up signal. This, however, is not the case. Mais can only occur in

cases which are compatible with its original, constant meaning. It demands a

context which fits its meaning, and that explains why we can predict the context

conditions for every occurrence.

4. Every particle can be assigned a constant basic meaning, which appears in every

occurrence of that particle. This meaning may be conceived of as a set of semantic

features.

In the process of discovering the meaning of the particle, the semanticist first

establishes a hypothesis about the meaning of the particle and then he tries to

corroborate it, exposing it to as many occurrences of the particle as possible.

According to this thesis (4.), no particle can occur in a usage which is incompatible

with its meaning. Otherwise the semantic description is falsified. As soon as a

usage appears which is not covered by the hypothesis, this hypothesis must be

given up or it must be modified in such a way that a new hypothesis covers every

known occurrences, including the non-complying case. The opposite is not

necessary: One does not demand that this particle be really used to express a certain

state of affairs, in agreement with the meaning of the particle. Again consider

French mais. The basic meaning of mais, as well as of Dutch maar, of English but,

of German aber, is this pattern: 'It would be wrong to continue the preceding

10

thought in the expected direction. One has to change the direction of the thought.'

The idea may be illustrated by figure 2.

Fig 2: The semantic structure of mais (aber, but)

Explanation: The pattern may be condensed into the formula: 'against the

expectation'. This explains the usage of mais as an adversative, coordinating

conjunction. Il est grand, mais faible, He is big, but weak. Er ist groß, aber

schwach. Hej is groot maar dapper. There are many more examples in Foolen

(1993). The speaker assumes that the hearer concludes that in general, the one who

is big is also strong. By using mais he warns the hearer not to think in the

anticipated direction. - Thesis 4 admits restrictions of usage. In some languages, the

respective particle may appear in the imperative: In a scene, where a victim of an

accident lies on the ground covered with blood, one of the bystanders may say in

French, Mais occupez-vous de cet homme!, which is not possible in German: *Aber

helfen Sie dem Mann. The underlying idea which justifies the usage of mais is:

‘You don't seem inclined to help. However, you should help’. On the other hand,

there are restrictions of but and mais in their respective languages which do not

exist in German. In German one can combine aber with oder ('or'), which is not

possible in English or French. Sie brauchen jetzt neue Reifen, oder aber sie geben

die Reise auf. *Il vous faut de nouveaux pneus, ou mais vous abandonnez le voyage.

11

*You need new tires, or but you give up going on your trip. The basic meaning also

explains the usage of aber as Abtönungspartikel in German and of maar in Dutch,

and as Gliederungspartikel: but structures while signaling a contrast to the

expectation.

When checking if all the empirically appearing occurrences of a particle are

compatible with the hypothesis about its meaning, one has to consider carefully the

reasons for the apparent semantic deviance. Sometimes one can find reasons which

seem to present counter-evidence to the assumed meaning. One of these is irony.

Aber, used as Abtönungspartikel in an affirmative clause, expresses not only

surprise, but a surprise that the content of the sentence is given excessively. The

speaker it astonished, not about the fact, the that, but about its extent, the how

much. An apparent counter example could be seen in the following case: A sees a

small man and says: Guck mal, der ist aber groß! (‘Look, that man is aber tall!’).

The use of aber can be explained by irony, where the designated reality is the

contrary of what is said.

5. The basic meaning can be diversified according to its context. More

sophisticated meanings remain compatible with the basic meaning.

In actual use, one finds more semantic rules than are contained in the common

overall meaning of the respective particle. Again the example of German aber. The

overall meaning is, as pointed out 'against expectation'. A closer look and the

opposition with vielleicht reveal a more subtle semantic structure. It is compatible

with but richer than the overall meaning:

a) The astonishment concerns the how much of the surprising fact, not the that of

the fact.

12

b) aber is used in order to express surprise only if the hearer knows the fact. It

accompanies a comment about a known fact or a shared knowledge. It does not tell

the fact itself, but presupposes that it is known to both of the interlocutors. An

example will help to make this subtle detail clear. Hans tells his friend about his

last holidays in the mountains and mentions the fantastic view from the terrace of

his hotel. He may then say: Da hatten wir vielleicht eine schöne Aussicht! ('There

we had vielleicht a beautiful view!'), but he cannot say: *Da hatten wir aber eine

schöne Aussicht! ('There we had aber a beautiful view!') because of the fact that his

partner does not see the view himself. If, however, he shows a photo of the view,

the other can say: Da hattet ihr aber eine schöne Aussicht! ('There you had aber a

beautiful view!'), due to the fact that they both see it at that moment.

The description, therefore, must be given on two levels. The overall meaning,

which holds for all occurrences, is relatively abstract. It explains the coherence of

all uses and guarantees its identity. The specific meaning is richer and deploys

more subtle semantic rules which control differentiated usages. The specific rules

often appear in the lexicon as numbered variants. 6

6. It is necessary to distinguish these basic meanings of participles from their

pragmatic ‘meanings’.

Basic meanings of particles and pragmatic effects that can be brought about by

using particles have to be distinguished from each other. One example is the

friendliness that may accompany the use of particles. Another effect is a

compliment which is expressed by particles. Du kannst aber kochen! ('(How) you

can aber cook!') expresses the surprise about how (good) the host can cook and can

6 As an example see Métrich (1993: 398 ff).

13

express a compliment. Du kannst ja kochen! (' You can ja cook!'), would indicate

that the guest had had a very low expectation, which is hardly a basis for a

compliment.

3.2. The content of particle meanings.

3.2.1. How to present the meanings?

Before discussing in more detail a few particle meanings, I shall allow myself some

general comments on the presentability of particle semantics. I support the idea that

so-called different meanings can be reduced to a single semantic nucleus. This

monosemantic approach is discussed in various places, from Weydt (1969) on, and

it has been well shown, for example, in Foolen’s book (1993). An additional

problem, however, is how to express this meaning, how to describe it in an

understandable form.

When looking for a way to present of the semantic definition, it would be ideal to

find a form which is easily comprehensible, ideally in such a way that it can be

understood by lay people, such as teachers and students of German (English,

Dutch) as a second language.

Widely used ways of presentation, so far, are either notations in symbolic logic or

paraphrases. Logical notation has the disadvantage of causing additional work.

First, one has to discover the semantics and, then, in a second step, one has to

translate it into the respective logical language. The paraphrasing of particle

meaning is a comment on the level of metalanguage. But, as such, it does not

preserve the original impact. Being linguistic descriptions, the sentences which

14

express the particle meaning do not serve the purpose of intersubjective

communication,. The meaning of the German particle denn can be correctly

paraphrased by ‘(I ask this), because the situation makes me think that you know

the answer’. In normal contexts a w-question with denn sounds more amiable than

without a particle or, for example, with the particle eigentlich. Wie heißt du denn?

is a bit more friendly than Wie heißt du eigentlich? and much more friendly than

Wie heißt du? This impact can be explained on the basis of its meaning. The

semantic paraphrase, however, does not have the same effect. Ich frage Dich, wie

du heißt, weil etwas in der Situation mich motiviert, die Frage zu stellen ('I’m

asking you your name because something within the situation motivates me to ask

this question') is just awkward and not amiable at all.

3.2.2. Some examples

The following examples attempt to demonstrate the overall meaning and show that

they do not contain friendly elements within themselves. They may help to make

better explain the monosemantic approach.

(1) denn (~ 'for', 'then')

Denn appears as a coordinative causal conjunction (e.g.: Er aß ein Wurstbrot,

denn er war sehr hungrig. ('He ate a sandwich for he was very hungry') and as

a stressed or unstressed Abtönungspartikel in w-questions (Wie hEIßt Du

denn? (unstressed denn) ('What is your name?'), Wie heißt Du dEnn? (stressed

denn), the latter being used if the name previously given was wrong. It also

appears in yes-no-questions (Warst Du denn noch nie wirklich verliebt?,

15

'Were you really never in love?' (expressing surprise)). All these usages of

denn may be reduced to one single semantic nucleus, illustrated by figure 3.

Fig. 3: Illustration of the meaning structure of denn

Denn indicates that the content of the sentence in which it appears points back

to something that can be found in the preceding context (for a more detailed

explanation see Weydt and Hentschel (1983) and Hentschel and Weydt

(1983)).

(2) auch (~'also', 'too')

Auch appears in sentences such as: Günter will nächste Woche auch in Ferien

fahren ('Günter also wants to go on vacation next week'), and as an

Abtönungspartikel in rhetorical questions (Warum auch?, may be translated by

'Why should I?').

The function of auch is to join two ideas, a and b, in such a way that they are

no longer seen as isolated but are subsumed under a common denominator

("c.d." in figure 4). One of the two elements may be implicit (symbolized by

parentheses) and must be reconstructed from the context. Fig. 4 may help to

make the function clear.

16

Fig. 4: Illustration of the semantic structure of auch.

(3) eh / ohnehin / sowieso (~ 'anyway')

eh / ohnehin / sowieso are cognitive synonyms and differ only in speech

register.

Ex.: A: Wir können nächste Woche nicht an den Strand fahren. B: Macht

nichts, ich muss sowieso / ohnehin / eh fürs Examen arbeiten. ('A: We cannot

go to the beach next week. B: That does not matter, I have sowieso/

(~’anyway’) to work for my examen.')

Fig. 5 may explain the semantic structure:

a

(a‘)

b

Fig. 5: Illustration of the meaning structure of eh (ohnehin, sowieso).

There are two potential reasons, a and a', for b (not going to the beach). a' is

not the decisive one, because a alone causes b (' that you want to cancel the

trip is not the important point, but the fact that I have no time').

(4) jedenfalls (~'in any event')

Example: Ich weiß nicht, ob Maria intelligent ist, jedenfalls habe ich noch

17

nichts Kluges von ihr gehört. ('I don't know if Maria is intelligent, jedenfalls

(in any event) so far I have not heard anything intelligent from her') Jedenfalls

can be explained by figure 6:

Fig.6 : Illustration of the semantic structure of jedenfalls.

It reads as follows: there is a relatively far-reaching claim. The dotted circle

symbolizes it here. The speaker can not fully affirm it (here: he cannot deny

Maria's intelligence). But he can guarantee a weaker claim which is part of it

(the fact that he never had a corroboration of her intelligence), symbolized by

the full circle. Both claims stand in an inclusive opposition.

(5) immerhin: (~ ‘after all’)

Immerhin appears in affirmative sentences. Example: Hans hat ziemlich viele

Fehler in der Übersetzung, aber immerhin hat er das Examen bestanden.

('Hans made quite a few mistakes in his translation, but he immerhin passed

the test').

The particle positions the content of the sentence in which it stands between

18

two expectations. A first high expectation (a) is not met and as a consequence,

one might form a very low expectation (b). Compared to this second

expectation, the reality of the actual occurrence is still higher.

Fig. 7: Illustration of the meaning structure of immerhin.

3.3 Why we use Abtönungspartikeln

Let's return to the question posited in section 2 of how an amiable effect is brought

about.

You see that dialogue A is full of elements which position the utterance in the

context. We have indictors like:

– -‘I say this and I know that you know the answer. It’s precisely your preceding

utterance which made me ask you this’: denn.

– ‘I say this, knowing that you know it already, and that you agree’: ja (summary

of shared idea).

– ‘I say this and I am surprised about the extension of the fact which is expressed

in the sentence’: aber.

19

– ‘Saying this I presume that you will be surprised about what I’m saying because

it is new for you’: vielleicht.

These particles have in common that they create a network of relationships between

the actual hearer and the actual speaker. They transform the dialogue into a

common speech, make it become more than a simple sequence of: I say - you say.

The actual speaker, A, expresses that he not only makes his contribution in an

authentic way, but models it in such a way that it takes into account the other's, B's,

perspective. Instead of making an independent statement, he continues B’s idea. He

is aware of what B thinks and believes, and he bases his contribution on B’s

assumed state of mind. Therefore, the dialogue, instead of being an exchange of

independent turns, let alone of mutual feedings with bits of information (I give you

some information, and then you give me some information, etc.) becomes a

cooperative process of both interlocutors. Each in turn expresses - by use of

Abtönungspartikeln - that she/he respects and/or considers the other's view; each

utterance is based on the preceding one. In a certain sense, the dialogue, even in its

individual steps, is a common work, a creation of both partners.

When such a dialogue occurs, it conveys to the partners a feeling of profound

satisfaction. The feeling exists, even if they disagree in content, because they

realize that the one understands (or at least tries to understand) the other. They

cooperate in the effort to understand each other and try to make each other

understood. It is this very feeling which is an important factor in bringing about the

features of friendliness and amiability.

In summary: Abtönungspartikeln and related linguistic elements are used as

specific instruments for the partners' cooperation. They help them to make the

20

actual intention of an utterance clear and to assign it its function in the developing

interplay. Speakers who express - by using particles - that they earnestly try to

cooperate, are conceived of as friendly, sociable, amiable and able to make contact.

4. Broader perspective

4.1 Politeness versus friendliness

Friendliness and sociability are not to be identified as equal to politeness. Though

dialogue A is friendlier than dialogue B, it can hardly be said to be politer. In our

explanation of verbal friendliness, we don’t use the patterns of FTA’s and of FTA

avoiding, which are common in politeness research. There is no danger of FTA in

the speakers’ utterances and the particles don’t serve the purpose of neutralizing

FTAs. An interpretation of particle effects, based on FTA conception, would miss

the essential point.7

4.2 The question of equivalence and language comparison

There are languages which have a large inventory of Abtönungspartikeln and their

speakers use them frequently (languages like German, Dutch, White Mountain

7 The fact that particles often appear without polite effects is pointed out in Berger

(1998) and Hentschel (forthcoming).

21

Apache, Guaraní, Toura, Kera) and others which don’t (like English and the

Romance languages). No one, however, would claim that only Germans, Dutch,

Touras, Kera, and Guaraní-speakers are able to be friendly and amiable when

speaking and conversing with each other. This raises an interesting new problem

for comparative linguistics, namely how to deal with the tertium comparationis

friendliness in language comparison. If someone has to judge a translation of a

literary work, where, for example in the German original a friendly speaker shows

his good intentions by using Abtönungspartikeln, then he has to ask how the same

effect is brought about in the target language. It may be reached by means which

are specific for that particular language.

Without going into details, let me just mention two specific means in other

languages which are candidates for this purpose.8 In French (the hexagonal

variation, not the Canadian), using a form of reference to the partner is much more

common than in other languages. It is rather unpersonal and unfriendly to say: Au

revoir ('Good bye'), instead of Au revoir, Madame. One may even omit Au revoir or

Bonjour and just greet: Madame! or Monsieur. French mothers correct their

children ironically repeating the phrase: Au revoir qui? ('Good bye, who?'). The

social process is essentially the same. By using the partner's name or title, the

speaker shows that he takes his specific presence into account.

In Spanish, the threefold pronoun system esto, eso, aquello which expresses if the

thing belongs to the own sphere, to the partner's or to neither of them may serve the

same purpose.

8 A third is analyzed in Hentschel (1991).

22

References

Berger, T.

1998 “Partikeln und Höflichkeit im Russischen”. In Slavistische Beiträge 375: 29-

53.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C.

1988 Politeness. Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Foolen, A.

1993 “De betekenis van partikels”. Nijmegen: PhD. Diss.

Grevisse, M.

1993 Le bon usage. (Treizième édition refondue par A. Goosse). Paris: Duculot.

Gülich, E.

1970 Makrosyntax der Gliederungssignale im gesprochenen Französisch.

München: Fink.

Held, G. (ed.)

(forthcoming) Partikeln und Höflichkeit.

23

Hentschel, E.

1986 Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. Ja, doch, halt und eben.

Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Hentschel, E.

1991 “Aspect versus particle: Contrasting German and Serbo-Croatian”.

Multilingua 101 (2): 139-149.

Hentschel, E.

(forthcoming) “Wenn Partikeln frech werden”. In Partikeln und Höflichkeit, G.

Held (ed.).

Hentschel, E. and Weydt, H.

1983 “Der pragmatische Mechanismus: denn und eigentlich”. In Partikeln und

Interaktion, H. Weydt (ed.): 263-273.

Hentschel, E.and Weydt, H.

1989 “Wortartenprobleme bei Partikeln”. In Sprechen mit Partikeln, H. Weydt

(ed.): 3-18.

Hentschel, E. and Weydt, H.

1995 “Die Wortarten des Deutschen”. In Grammatik und deutsche Grammatiken.

Budapester Grammatiktagung 1993, V. Agel and R. Brdar-Szabó (eds.), 39-60.

Tübingen: Niemeyer.

24

Hentschel, E. and Weydt, H.

2002 „Die Wortart Partikel“. In Lexikologie. Lexicology. Ein Internationales

Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen. An International

Handbook on the Nature and Structure of Words and Vocabularies, D. A. Cruse et

al. (eds.), 646-653. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

James, A. R.

1983 „Compromisers in English: A cross-disciplinary approach to their

interpersonal significance“. Journal of Pragmatics 7 (2): 191-206.

Métrich, R.

1993 Lexicographie bilingue des particules illocutoires de l'allemand. Göppingen:

Kümmerle.

Sasse, H.-J.

1993 "Syntactic categories and subcategories“. In Syntax. Ein internationales

Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, J. Jacobs et al. (eds.), 646-686. Berlin etc.:

de Gruyter.

Weydt, H.

1969 Abtönungspartikel. Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen

Entsprechungen. Bad Homburg vor der Höhe: Gehlen.

Weydt, H.

1983 “Aber, mais und but.” In Partikeln und Interaktion, H. Weydt (ed.), 148-159.

25

Weydt, H.

1984 “Techniques of request: In quest of its universality”. In The Tenth LACUS

Forum 1983, A. Manning, P. Martin, K. McCalla (eds.), 333-341. Columbia:

Hornbeam Press.

Weydt, H.

1993 “Was ist ein gutes Gespräch?” In Dialoganalyse, IV. Referate der 4.

Arbeitstagung. Basel 1992, H. Löffler (ed.), 3-19. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Weydt, H.

2001 “Partikelforschung/Particules et modalité” In Lexikon der Romanistischen

Linguistik, G. Holtus et al. (eds.), 782-801. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Weydt, H.

(forthcoming) "(Warum) spricht man mit Partikeln überhaupt höflich?". In

Partikeln und Höflichkeit, G. Held (ed.).

Weydt, H. et al.

1983 Kleine deutsche Partikellehre. Stuttgart: Klett.

Weydt, H. (ed.)

1983 Partikeln und Interaktion. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

26

Weydt, H. (ed.)

1989 Sprechen mit Partikeln. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

Weydt, H. and Hentschel, E.

1981 “Ein Experiment zur Entwicklung der verbalen Interaktionsfähigkeit bei

Kindern”. Zeitsschrift für germanistische Linguistik 326-331.

Weydt, H. and Hentschel, E.

1983 “Kleines Abtönungswörterbuch”. In Partikeln und Interaktion, H. Weydt

(ed.), 3-24.

27