Doch, toch and wel on the table

Hogeweg, Lotte; Ramachers, Stefanie; Wottrich, Verena M.

doi:10.1075/avt.28.05hog

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While a limited set of modal particles appear to independently epistemically affect statements (see Tables 3-4), we will not spend much time discussing these, as they appear to be a relatively minor way of expressing epistemic modality (Nuyts, 2000), and are generally more involved in marking the epistemic states of discourse participants, or expressing discourse attitudes (c.f. Bross, 2012;Gutzmann, 2009;Hogeweg, Ramachers, & Wottrich, 2011;Karagjosova, 2004;Zimmermann, 2019).…”

Section: P R E -P U B L I C a T I O N D R A F Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not when but if: Modality and future time reference in English, Dutch and German

Robertson¹,

Roberts²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, economists have used notions of linguistic relativity to suggest that grammatical constraints on Future Time Reference (FTR) affect whether people choose to take a small reward now or wait until later for a larger reward ("temporal discounting"). Economists hypothesize that habitual use of present tense constructions for FTR may cause speakers to perceive future rewards as temporally closer, and thereby as more valuable. This approach assumes that future tenses primarily encode when an event happens, which overlooks their widespread tendency to encode modal notions of probability. It additionally overlooks the importance of modal expressions in FTR. Since people discount value as a function of both temporal distance and the probability of a reward being received, it is important to understand what different FTR tenses actually encode, as well as cross-linguistic differences in the grammaticization of modality. We therefore modified the EUROTYP questionnaire to elicit future tense as well as modal FTR constructions across a range of temporal distances and probabilities for speakers of English, Dutch, and German. We find that in English tense and probability are more strictly grammaticized than in Dutch or German, and that increasing temporal distance from speaker "now" tended to cause English and German – but not Dutch – speakers to use more uncertain terms. These results highlight the importance of modality for typological linguists working on FTR, and suggest economists working on linguistic relativity and psychological discounting should consider cross-linguistic differences in the grammaticization of modality and in the modal semantics of future tenses.

show abstract

Section: P R E -P U B L I C a T I O N D R A F Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not when but if: Modality and future time reference in English, Dutch and German

Robertson¹,

Roberts²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By and large, three core functions can be posited for toch, as outlined by Hogeweg et al (2011). First, it serves as a contrastive marker of concession.…”

Section: Toch and Eigenlijkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterexpectational Translations: The Dutch Markers Toch and Eigenlijk Contrasted with Their English Correspondents

Buysse

2022

Contrastive Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Dutch particle toch and modal adverb eigenlijk both belong to the broad domain of ‘contrast’: their prototypical functions have been described as ‘concession’ and ‘counterexpectation’, respectively, and both have been attributed emphatic discourse uses (e.g. toch as a common ground reminder and eigenlijk as a reinforcement marker). This study analyses the multifunctional scope of toch and eigenlijk in Dutch and maps their translation equivalents in English through an in-depth analysis of the Dutch-English component of the Europarl corpus. For eigenlijk the most common correspondents (in fact, really, actually) belong to the core of the semantic domain of (counter)expectation, whereas none of the English correspondents of toch is able to capture the marker’s duality as both a concessive and a common ground marker. The high degree of zero correspondences in English source texts suggests the translators’ strong awareness of the markers’ pragmalinguistic contribution.

show abstract

“…Here, doch reacts to (it denies) a negative statement or question. Speaker B uses doch to indicate that s/he does not agree with the statement made by his or her conversational partner (see Hogeweg et al 2011 for a formal semantic analysis).…”

Section: German Doch and Dutch Toch Comparedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Dutch, the same function is fulfilled by (ja)wel. Hogeweg et al (2011) argue that using doch as part of a larger utterance (that is, not as an answering particle) is not possible in this particular situation, cf. (10).…”

Section: German Doch and Dutch Toch Comparedmentioning

confidence: 99%