English Modal Particles?

[HoskhMatriarch]

I always hear people be like "English doesn't have modal particles! Only German and Dutch have modal particles!" (Actually, a lot of languages besides German and Dutch have modal particles, including some really well-known ones like Ancient Greek). But occasionally, I'll see a word used in English and be like "how is that not a modal particle?" The most obvious example is the word "just". Take an example sentence, "clothes are just expensive". Supposedly, just means "only", but if I say "clothes are only expensive", that doesn't mean the same thing at all, nor do any of the other synonyms of "just", like "clothes are actually expensive" or "clothes are precisely expensive" or "clothes are by a narrow margin expensive". The word "too", despite not being near as common as "just", also seems like it would qualify, as in "So you're not going?" "I am too going!" The only thing "too" does there is serve to convey that you're contradicting what the other person said, counter to their expectations, which is pretty much what "modal" in "modal particle" means, and it shares the property of modal particles in languages like German and Dutch of not being able to be moved around much ("I am going too!" means something entirely different). You can also say "I am going!" and nothing about the statement changes, other than it doesn't sound as good. I've also seen the word "also" thrown around in the middle of sentences without having a meaning "in addition too" and I've seen "then" in the middle of sentences without having a temporal meaning, but I'll have to go seek out examples of those (and several for each if I really want to analyze it) to see if they could even qualify or if something else is going on with them. So, while I can't think of a whole ton of examples at the moment, even if English only has 2 modal particles (which I doubt would be the case, I don't think you can only have 2 in a language) the statement "English has no modal particles!" is wrong.

[qwed117]

What? I'm not sure if you are using those words accurately in regards to GenAm. If you say "the clothes are just expensive", that indicates that you didn't buy the clothes for that reason alone. "I just bought the clothes" is recent past. Your too example would be "I too am going" or "I so am going". I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to convey.

[clawgrip]

Don't forget "man" which is used often as a pragmatic particle that references neither the listener nor any other person.

[HoskhMatriarch]

What? I'm not sure if you are using those words accurately in regards to GenAm. If you say "the clothes are just expensive", that indicates that you didn't buy the clothes for that reason alone. "I just bought the clothes" is recent past. Your too example would be "I too am going" or "I so am going". I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to convey.

Well, all the things I said are accurate to me, and I don't see a place for prescriptivism about how I should be using "just" or "too" since I do use them like that and hear them used like that by other people. Also, it's "clothes are just expensive" not "the clothes are just expensive". I don't actually understand any of the explanations of the examples you gave except for the off-topic "recent past" thing that doesn't have anything to do with modal particles.

Don't forget "man" which is used often as a pragmatic particle that references neither the listener nor any other person.

Yes, "man" is cool, but I don't think it counts as modal.


I just found a paper that says that utterance-final then is a modal particle. But then, people always argue about this stuff in English so much.

[clawgrip]

I guess I'm not clear then on what specifically defines a modal particle. I understand the Asian style particles well enough, but I know almost nothing about the Dutch and German ones.

As far as I can tell, the main function of non-referential "man" is both to show that the speaker is exasperated, surprised, or some similar emotion, and to solicit understanding/sympathy and/or solidarity from the listener. It contains no semantic information at all. What disqualifies it from being a modal particle?

[Salmoneus]

You are confusing modality with pragmatics.

In "I am too going"... you are going. In "clothes are just expensive", clothes are expensive. By contrast, in "I am potentially going", we cannot say that you are actually going. In "clothes would be expensive", we cannot say that clothes are actually expensive. Your two examples are plain indicatives. It's just that they also carry pragmatic implications.

German grammarians may feel like using a word that translates to 'modal particle' to describe these words; English grammarians may use other words. This does not actually matter, however.

[I'm continually confused by the 'people' you hang out with. You're always saying "people always say..." things I've literally never heard anybody say, and "people never do..." things that everybody does...]

[clawgrip]

You are confusing modality with pragmatics.

In "I am too going"... you are going. In "clothes are just expensive", clothes are expensive. By contrast, in "I am potentially going", we cannot say that you are actually going. In "clothes would be expensive", we cannot say that clothes are actually expensive. Your two examples are plain indicatives. It's just that they also carry pragmatic implications.

German grammarians may feel like using a word that translates to 'modal particle' to describe these words; English grammarians may use other words. This does not actually matter, however.

Looking up "modal particle" and "German modal particle" on Wikipedia at least suggests that they have nothing to do with modality and are just pragmatic particles. I can only assume that the name "modal particle" comes from the non-linguistic meaning of "mood".

The modal particle page says: "They are used to indicate how the speaker thinks that the content of the sentence relates to the participants' common knowledge.[1] Languages that use a lot of modal particles in their spoken form include Dutch, German, Russian, Indonesian, Chinese and Japanese."

The German modal particle says "These words have a dual function: reflecting the mood or attitude of the speaker or narrator, and highlighting the sentence focus."

All the examples on the second page seem to support that these are pragmatic particles, not particles of grammatical modality.

[Alomar]

Yeah, these things are called modal particles in German classes. However, Handbuch zur deutschen Grammatik calls them just Particles or even "flavoring particles" and say they add attitude or emotion color to a statement. These seem like those Ancient Greek particles that do similar things.

Probably the most well known example of one is doch:
to express "validity when you assume the listener will dissent"
Das ist doch Wahnsinn!
that is PART craziness
(That's crazy, no matter what anyone says)

or mal, which softens a command or statement to make them less blunt:
Ich muss dir mal was erzählen.
I must you.DAT PART something tell
Hey, I've gotta tell ya somethin'.


So to get to your original question: yes, I think your use of just qualifies.
And to explain to others, think of it in more of the context:
person 1 "Man, I can't afford new clothes."
person 2 "I don't know what to tell you, clothes are just expensive."

[GrandPiano]

or mal, which softens a command or statement to make them less blunt:
Ich muss dir mal was erzählen.
I must you.DAT PART something tell
Hey, I've gotta tell ya somethin'.

That sounds similar to the Mandarin particle 吧 ba:

我们去打网球。
Wǒmen qù dǎ wǎngqiú.
2-PL go play tennis
We will go play tennis. (not sure what a better way to phrase this would be, but in the context I'm picturing, it would be like "play tennis" as a command, but with "we" as the subject instead of "you")

我们去打网球吧！
Wǒmen qù dǎ wǎngqiú ba!
2-PL go play tennis PART
Let's go play tennis!

Am I right?

[cntrational]

"We will go play tennis." works in English, but it sounds formal and strict.

[cntrational]

Well, all the things I said are accurate to me, and I don't see a place for prescriptivism about how I should be using "just" or "too" since I do use them like that and hear them used like that by other people.

It would be prescriptivism to say you have to speak like this, but it's not if we say it isn't how most people speak English. And since we're talking about English in general...

[clawgrip]

English has a regular tendency to use understatement and noncommittal phrases as a method of softening requests and emotionally negative statements, even when it doesn't totally make sense semantically. This use of "just" counts as an example of this, though in most other cases the phrase of understatement does not become a particle or anything.

Some examples of pragmatic understatement:
"Wait a second!" - obvious understatement
"I have a couple questions." - the number of questions could easily be significantly greater than 2 or 3
"I kind of want to go." - In some situations, this could actually mean "I really want to go, but I hesitate to state my opinion clearly because I don't know what you think"
"Just pop it up on the shelf." - "just" of course means "this is the only thing you have to do, and the word "pop" de-empasizes the effort involved (the object in question could, for example, be a heavy box that is by no means going to be "popped" up on a shelf)
"I don't really like it." - This suggests the speaker likes it, or at least doesn't hate it; they just don't "really like" it.
"It just sort of happened." - "just" again, but also "sort of" this thing didn't sort of happen, it definitely did completely happen. I think "sort of" here emphasizes the helplessness or error of the speaker
"Maybe I could come with you." noncommittal "maybe" understates the speaker's desire to go

or mal, which softens a command or statement to make them less blunt:
Ich muss dir mal was erzählen.
I must you.DAT PART something tell
Hey, I've gotta tell ya somethin'.

That sounds similar to the Mandarin particle 吧 ba:

我们去打网球。
Wǒmen qù dǎ wǎngqiú.
2-PL go play tennis
We will go play tennis. (not sure what a better way to phrase this would be, but in the context I'm picturing, it would be like "play tennis" as a command, but with "we" as the subject instead of "you")

我们去打网球吧！
Wǒmen qù dǎ wǎngqiú ba!
2-PL go play tennis PART
Let's go play tennis!

Am I right?

Yes, all the final particles in Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Singapore English, and so on should count as this type of particle. I still also believe "man" counts as this type of particle, since it is often used without any semantic information at all. No one has provided a counterargument to my claim.

[Alomar]

I still also believe "man" counts as this type of particle, since it is often used without any semantic information at all. No one has provided a counterargument to my claim.

Can you provide some examples?
The only uses that are coming to mind are "Man, I really have to pee." and the like. To me that's more of an interjection. Whereas a modal particle is like what happens if an interjection and an adverb have a baby.

[clawgrip]

Initial "man" is an interjection, but when it appears medially or finally, it is, in my opinion, a pragmatic particle.

"Listen, you've got to stop doing this."
vs.
"Listen man, you've got to stop doing this."

The addition of "man" makes it less confrontational: it softens the statement and can show that the speaker has the best interests of the listener at heart.

We can switch it around, too:

"Listen, I'm feeling real upset today."
vs.
"Listen man, I'm feeling real upset today."

Once again, the addition of man softens the confrontational sound of the statement. Like the previous example, it is appealing for acceptance through solidarity: "I know this is trouble for you, but I very much want you to consider what I'm saying"

"Don't talk to me."
vs.
"Don't talk to me, man."

Here, "man" also softens the command. The request remains the same, but it's almost like a defense for the rudeness of the statement.

Conclusion: in explicit or indirect commands, it seems to mean something along the lines of "I know this statement is rude/unwanted/etc., but I want you to consider why I am saying it"

But we also have:

"I love you."
vs.
"I love you, man."

Here, "man" turns it into an unambiguously platonic love. This could be considered a form of softening, that is, decreasing of intensity.

There are also more subtle ones:

"Check this out."
vs.
"Check this out, man."

I think this sort of thing is similar, it is showing the importance of the statement and acknowledging the closeness of the relationship between the speakers.

I will concede that it's still partially a vocative bound to its base meaning, as some people may avoid using it when addressing women, but this is by no means universal, and there are many people who will use it irrespective of the particular listener.

[Thrice Xandvii]

I'm continually confused by the 'people' you hang out with. You're always saying "people always say..." things I've literally never heard anybody say, and "people never do..." things that everybody does...

This!

I've never heard anyone say anything one way or the other about "modal" particles or any other kind of particle in English (outside of this thread that is). I've heard of discourse particles used in German, but I've never heard anyone speak of English having or not having them.

[zyma]

I'm continually confused by the 'people' you hang out with. You're always saying "people always say..." things I've literally never heard anybody say, and "people never do..." things that everybody does...

This!

[HoskhMatriarch]

I'm continually confused by the 'people' you hang out with. You're always saying "people always say..." things I've literally never heard anybody say, and "people never do..." things that everybody does...

This!

I understand the "people always say..." but where is the "people never do..." from that I've said?

[Salmoneus]

E.g. your hypothesis that non-romlang conlangs lack gender systems.

[HoskhMatriarch]

E.g. your hypothesis that non-romlang conlangs lack gender systems.

I didn't say that all non-romlang conlangs lack gender systems, just that it's not common. It is more common than I thought though, and is actually pretty close to the amount of natlangs that have gender systems. http://cals.conlang.org/feature/30/

[qwed117]

E.g. your hypothesis that non-romlang conlangs lack gender systems.

I didn't say that all non-romlang conlangs lack gender systems, just that it's not common. It is more common than I thought though, and is actually pretty close to the amount of natlangs that have gender systems. http://cals.conlang.org/feature/30/

You couldn't've been more wrong