A modal particle will here be understood as a particle which indicates the role of a proposition in the universe of discourse and with respect to speech-act participants.¹ This fits the use of the term in the descriptive traditions of those languages where these particles have been firmly recognized for a long time. These languages are at least Ancient Greek, German and Russian. Modal particles will here be illustrated from German (cf. Diewald 2022, §5). The complete set of modal particles in German comprises about 15 items (one is in another section). The most typical of these are monosyllabic and enclitic.²

The particle doch (cntrdct), approximately ‘yet, however’, is inherited from Proto-Germanic, started out as an adversative conjunction and can still be used in this function. Its contemporary use as a modal, contradicting particle is illustrated by .

Doch p means ‘p, although this is incompatible with the present state of the universe of discourse’. Thus, might be an answer to a precedent utterance ‘She doesn't know much about Paris’. In emphatic utterances – always leaving doch unstressed, as it is enclitic in this use – it would draw heightened attention to the truth of p despite whatever the interlocutor claims.

Wohl, approximately ‘presumably’, starts out in Old High German as an adverb meaning ‘well’. Its contemporary use as a modal particle is illustrated by .

Wohl p means ‘it is presumed that p’, with p being introduced in the universe of discourse as new, but tentative.

The particle eben (insist) derives from the adjective eben ‘plain’. As a modal particle, it is commonly pronounced /e:m/ ().

Eben p means ‘p is true and has been in the universe of discourse’, thus drawing the hearer's attention to the fact that p is not being presented as new, but as a matter of course. In emphatic utterances – eben itself cannot be stressed in this use, as it is enclitic –, it is used to insist on what the speaker has been saying all the time.

Some particles are limited to certain sentence types. Thus, doch only occurs in declarative and imperative clauses, wohl only in declarative and interrogative clauses, eben only in declarative clauses and yet others only in interrogative clauses. Thus, there are clear syntactic constraints on their use. They form a loose paradigm since they occupy a syntagmatic position after the finite verb and possibly some pronominal clitics; and in this position at least some of them are in opposition. Others, however, can be combined syntagmatically ().

No increased obligatoriness is observable: There is no rule requiring occupation of their syntagmatic slot (reducing transparadigmatic variability); and much less is there a rule requiring the use of a particular member of the paradigm in certain contexts (which would thus reduce intraparadigmatic variability). On balance, German modal particles are in an incipient stage of grammaticalization.

For at least some of the German modal particles, it can be proved historically that they have joined the functional domain of discourse structure by acquiring a function in relating their proposition to the universe of discourse which they did not possess before. This cannot be subsumed under desemanticization and rather seems to run against it.

Calling the development of these particles ‘pragmaticalization’ means the following: They acquire additional semantic features which relate to the status of the proposition of their clause in the universe of discourse. Since they are language signs, they have a significatum; and they fulfill such functions precisely by their significatum, thus, within semantics, not in pragmatics. They do, however, join a functional domain of language which provides an interface with the universe of discourse and, thus, with pragmatics.

¹ The term ‘modal’ does not here quite have the meaning otherwise common in linguistics, where it refers to the speakers propositional attitude, concerning typically the realization of a proposition. The modal particles concern rather the status of a proposition in the universe of discourse.

² Many of these particles have homonymous counterparts which are stressable and consequently have a different distribution.