The Norwegian tag da and the
English tag then have most likely developed from a
common historical origin through the process of semantic bleaching
and they have many overlapping functions today. This has led some
researchers to claim that the two expressions have one and the same
procedural semantics. Based on authentic corpus data on
da and a translation study, we argue that the
tags da and then cannot have the
same meaning. We propose a semantic and pragmatic analysis of the
Norwegian tag da that predicts its many functions
and we explain how da differs from the English tag
then.
NoTa-Oslo: Norwegian
Speech Corpus – the Oslo part
The
Text Laboratory. Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo. [URL]
Oslo Corpus of Tagged
Norwegian Texts, bokmål and nynorsk – the bokmål
corpus
The Text Laboratory. Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo. [URL]
The Oslo Multilingual
Corpus
(1999–2008) The Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo. [URL]
Aijmer, Karin
2013Understanding
Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic
Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Aijmer, Karin, Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, and Ad Foolen
2006 “Pragmatic
Markers in Translation: A Methodological
Perspective.” In Approaches
to Discourse Particles, ed.
by Kerstin Fischer, 101–114. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Andvik, Erik
1992A
Pragmatic Analysis of Norwegian Modal
Particles. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics Academic Publications.
Askedal, John Ole
1987 “On
the Morphosyntactic Properties and Pragmatic Functions of
Correlative Right Dislocation (Right Copying) in Modern
Colloquial
Norwegian.” In The
Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics
6, ed. by Pirkko Lilius, and Mirja Saari, 93–110. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Berthelin, Signe Rix
2018 “Midtstilt da – en
semantisk-pragmatisk redegjørelse og en sammenlikning med
etterstilt
da [Sentence-internal da – a
semantic-pragmatic account and a comparison with
da in tag
position].” Norsk Lingvistisk
Tidsskrift 36: 353–401.
Berthelin, Signe, and Kaja Borthen
2019 “The
Semantics and Pragmatics of Norwegian Sentence-Internal
jo.” Nordic
Journal of
Linguistics 42: 3–30.
Blakemore, Diane
1987Semantic
Constraints on
Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Blakemore, Diane
2002Relevance
and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of
Discourse
Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2014 “Hva betyr ‘da’,
da? [What
does the tag da
mean?]” Norsk Lingvistisk
Tidsskrift 32: 257–306.
Borthen, Kaja
2018 “Pronominal høyredislokering i norsk, det er et
interessant fenomen,
det [Pronominal right-dislocation in Norwegian, that is an
interesting phenomenon,
that].” Norsk Lingvistisk
Tidsskrift 36: 403–450.
Carston, Robyn
2002Thoughts
and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit
Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fretheim, Thorstein
1989 “The
Two Faces of the Norwegian Inference Particle
da.” In Sprechen
mit Partikeln, ed.
by Harald Weydt, 691–702. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Fretheim, Thorstein
1991 “Formal
and Functional Differences Between S-internal and S-External
Modal Particles in
Norwegian.” Multilingua 10 (1/2): 175–200.
Fretheim, Thorstein
1993 “The
Norwegian ‘Boundary Tone Agreement’
Condition.” In CLS
28, ed. by Costas Canakis, Grace P. Chan, and Jeanette Denton, 159–170. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Fretheim, Thorstein
1995 “Why
Norwegian Right-Dislocated Phrases Are Not
Afterthoughts.” Nordic
Journal of
Linguistics 18 (1): 41–54.
2000b “The
Interaction of Right-Dislocated Pronominals and Intonational
Phrasing in
Norwegian.” In Nordic
Prosody: Proceedings of the VIIIth Conference, Trondheim
2000, ed.
by Wim van Dommelen, and Thorstein Fretheim, 23–32. Bern: Peter Lang.
Fretheim, Thorstein, Stella Boateng, and Ilidikó Vaskó
2006 “English
then and Norwegian
da/så Compared: A Relevance-Theoretic
Account.” Nordic Journal of
Linguistics 29 (1): 45–93.
Fretheim, Thorstein, and Wim van Dommelen
2012 “A
Pragmatic Perspective on the Phonological Values of
Utterance-Final Boundary Tones in East Norwegian
Intonation.” The Linguistic
Review 29: 663–677.
Fretheim, Thorstein
2014 “Et Relevansteoretisk blikk på likheter og
forskjeller mellom partiklene da og
altså [A relevance-theoretical view on similarities
and differences between the particles da
and
altså
].” Norsk
Lingvistisk
Tidskrift 32: 197–256.
Fretheim, Thorstein
2015 “A
Relevance-Theoretic Perspective on the Norwegian
Utterance-Final Particles da and
altså Compared to Their English
Counterpart
then.” In Final
Particles, ed.
by Sylvie Hancil, Alexander Haselow, and Margje Post, 249–283. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Fretheim, Thorstein
2017 “The
Form and Function of Extrametrical, Unaccented Segments of
East Norwegian
Utterances.” In Nordic
Prosody: Proceedings of the XIIth Conference, Trondheim
2016, ed.
by Jardar E. Abrahamsen, Jacques Koreman, and Wim van Dommelen, 9–28. Bern: Peter Lang.
Haselow, Alexander
2011 “Discourse
Marker and Modal Particle: The Functions of Utterance-Final
then in Spoken
English.” Journal of
Pragmatics 43 (14): 3603–3623.
Haselow, Alexander
2012 “Subjectivity,
Intersubjectivity and the Negotiation of Common Ground in
Spoken Discourse: Final Particles in
English.” Language &
Communication 32 (3): 182–204.
Klein, Wolfgang, and Christine von Stutterheim
1987 “Quaestio
und referenzielle Bewegung in
Erzählungen.” Linguistische
Berichte 109: 163–183.
Kluge, Friedrich, and Elmar Seebold
2012Etymologisches
Woerterbuch der deutschen
Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lind, Marianne
1994Pragmatiske partikler i diskursanalytisk
perspektiv: jo, altså, vel, nå og
da [Pragmatic particles in a discourse analytic perspective:
jo, altså, vel, nå and
da
]. Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.
Nome, Astrid
2013Connectives in Translation: Explicitation and Relevance. Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.
Mycock, Louise
2019 “Right-Dislocated
Pronouns in British English: The Form and Functions of
ProTag
Constructions.” English
Language &
Linguistics 23 (2): 253–275.
Roberts, Craige
2012 “Information
Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory
of Pragmatics.” Semantics and
Pragmatics 5: 1–69.
Solberg, Torgerd Kristin
1990Modalpartikler i
norsk [Norwegian modal
particles]. Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986/1995Relevance:
Communication and
Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sweetser, Eve
1990From
Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects
of Semantic
Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Urbanik, Pawel
2018 “Kan ikke du stå der, da? En
sosiokognitiv analyse av finalpartikkelen
da i interrogative
kan-anmodninger [A socio-cognitive analysis of the final
particle da in interrogative
kan-requests].” Norsk
Lingvistisk
Tidsskrift 36: 299–330.
van Dommelen, Wim, Thorstein Fretheim, and Randi Alice Nilsen
1998 “The
Perception of Boundary Tone in East
Norwegian.” In Nordic
Prosody: Proceedings of the VIIth Conference, Joensuu
1996, ed.
by Stefan Werner, 73–86. Bern: Peter Lang.
van Kuppevelt, Jan
1995 “Discourse
Structure, Topicality and
Questioning.” Journal of
Linguistics 31: 109–147.
Velleman, Leah, and David Beaver
2016 “Question-Based
Models of Information
Structure.” In The
Oxford Handbook of Information
Structure, ed.
by Caroline Féry, and Shinichiro Ishihara, 86–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ward, Gregory, and Betty J. Birner
2004 “Information
Structure.” In Handbook
of Pragmatics, ed.
by Laurence R. Horn, and Gregory Ward, 153–174. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
1993 “Linguistic
Form and
Relevance.” Lingua 90 (1/2): 1–25.
Ziv, Yael
1994 “Left
and Right Dislocations: Discourse Functions and
Anaphora.” Journal of
Pragmatics 22 (6): 629–645.
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Ruskan, Anna
2024. Role of six turn-initial demonstrative and emotive particles in Lithuanian. Open Linguistics 10:1
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.