Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 34:4 (2024) ► pp.615–641

‘I think’ in Swedish L1 and L2 group interactions

| University of Helsinki
This cross-sectional study explores the phrase jag tänker ‘I think/cogitate’ in Swedish talk-in-interaction and compares it with two similar phrases, jag tycker ‘I think/find’ and jag tror ‘I think/believe/guess’. It consists of a quantitative overview of the three phrases and a qualitative, interactionally informed analysis of jag tänker in task-based group conversations with L1 and L2 speakers of Swedish. The results show that jag tänker has a stance-taking function in L1 interactions and projects more talk, which typically accounts for the reasoning behind the point the speaker is making. However, the L2 speakers do not use jag tänker as a stance-taking phrase; instead, they may deploy jag tror or jag tycker to project turns that accomplish similar actions to those that the L1 speakers accomplish with jag tänker.
Keywords: stance-taking phrases, complement-taking predicates, stance-taking, I think , L2 interaction, projection, interactional competence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Aim and research questions
  • 3.Verbs of thinking in Swedish
  • 4.Comparing L1 and L2 interaction
  • 5.Data and method
  • 6.Findings
    • 6.1Quantitative analysis
    • 6.2Qualitative analysis of jag tänker in L1 data
    • 6.3Qualitative analysis of jag tänker in L2 data
  • 7.Discussion and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Glossing abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 7 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22060.tol
References (56)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. “ I think – An English Modal Particle”. In Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Toril Swan, and Olaf Jansen Westwik, 2–44. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Jan Lindström. 2011. “Verb-first Conditionals in German and Swedish: Convergence in Writing, Divergence in Speaking”. In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer, and Stefan Pfänder, 218–262. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Left/right Asymmetries and the Grammar of Pre- vs. Post-positioning in German and Swedish Talk-in-Interaction”. Language Sciences 561: 68–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, Nicole, and Juliane House. 2010. “ I think and I don’t know in English as Lingua Franca and Native English Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (5): 1184–1200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blensenius, Kristian. 2014. Jag tänker att… [“I think that…”]. Språktidningen 1/2015. [URL]
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Silke Reineke. 2017. “Epistemische Praktiken und ihre feinen Unterschiede: Verwendungen von ich dachte in gesprochener Sprache.” In Verben im interaktiven Kontext. Bewegungsverben und mental Verben in gesprochenen Deutsch, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, Nadine Proske, and Arne Zeschel, 337–375. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Diaz, Maria Angela, Ken Lau, and Chia-Yen Lin. 2020. “Pragmatic Functions of I think in Computer-mediated, Cross-cultural Communication between Taiwanese and Japanese Undergraduate Students”. Pragmatics 30 (4): 509–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul. 2013. “Turn Design.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 131–149. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick. 2011. “Sources of Asymmetry in Human Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Jakob Steensig, Lorenza Mondada, and Tanya Stivers, 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, Sophia. 2023. “The Grammar-in-Use of Direct Reported Thought in French and German. An Interactional and Multimodal Analysis.” PhD dissertation, University of Neuchâtel/University of Hamburg.
Frommhertz, Yannick. 2022. “Thinking Things in German versus Swedish. A Cross-linguistic Comparison of Verbs of Thinking in Two Genetically Close Languages.” Studia Linguistica 761: 464–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff, and Susanna Karlsson. 2003. “Re-thinking THINK: Contrastive Semantics of Swedish and English.” In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Language Society, ed. by Cristo Moskovsky. [URL]
Hall, Joan Kelly, and Simona Pekarek Doehler. 2001. “L2 Interactional Competence and Development.” In L2 Interactional Competence and Development, ed. by Joan Kelly Hall, John Hellerman, and Simona Pekarek Doehler, 1–15. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2014. “Agreement or Crystallization: Patterns of 1st and 2nd Person Subjects and Verbs of Cognition in Finnish Conversational Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 631: 63–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hellermann, John. 2008. Social Actions for Classroom Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herder, Anke, Jan Berenst, Kees de Glopper, and Tom Koole. 2020. “Sharing Knowledge with Peers: Epistemic Displays in Collaborative Writing of Primary School Children.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 241: 100378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 99–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “I Thought It Was Very Interesting: Conversational Formats for Taking a Stance.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (15): 2194–2210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, Susanna. 2005. Modalitet i interaktion. En studie av jag tycker och tycker jag [Modality in interaction. A study of jag tycker and tycker jag ]. In Samtal och grammatik. Studier i svenskt samtalsspråk, ed. by Jan Anward, and Bengt Nordberg, 119–138. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele, and Johannes Wagner. 2011. “A Conversation-Analytic Approach to Second Language Acquisition.” In Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Dwight Atkinson, 117–142. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2010. “Clauses Emerging as Epistemic Adverbs in Estonian Conversation.” Linguistica Uralica 46 (2): 81–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolu, Jaana. 2022. “Vad tänker du om det? Verbet tänka som epistemisk markör i tidningsspråk [What do you think about it? The verb tänka as an epistemic marker in newspapers].” In Svenskan i Finland 191, ed. by Siv Björklund, Bodil Haagensen, Marianne Nordman, and Anders Westerlund, 149–162. Vasa: Svensk-Österbottniska Samfundet.Google Scholar
Lahtinen, Sinikka. 2010. “Min kompis plejar drums. Engelskans inflytande på finska högstadieelevers svenska [My friend plays the drums. English influence on Finnish upper elementary school pupils’ Swedish].” In Svenskans beskrivning 30, ed. by Cecilia Falk, Andreas Nord, and Rune Palm, 177–186. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Tsuyoshi Ono (eds). 2020. Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Social Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva, Marja Etelämäki, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2014. “Introduction.” Pragmatics 24:3: 435–452.Google Scholar
Lehti-Eklund, Hanna. 2006. “Att planera och reparera. Skillnader mellan talare av svenska som förstaspråk och andraspråk [To plan and repair. Differences between speakers of Swedish as first and second language].” In Lek och lärt. Vänskrift till Jan Einarsson, ed. by Sofia Ask, Gunilla Byrman, Solveig Hammarbäck, Maria Lindgren, and Per Stille, 120–131. Växjö: Växjö University Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan, and Anne-Marie Londen. 2008. “Constructing Reasoning. The Connectives för att (Causal), så att (Consecutive) and men att (Adversative) in Swedish Conversations.” In Constructional Reorganization, ed. by Jaakko Leino. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan, Yael Maschler, and Simona Pekarek Doehler. 2016. “A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on Grammar and Negative Epistemics in Talk-in-Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 1061: 72–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mullan, Kerry, and Susanna Karlsson. 2012. “Subjectivity in Contrast: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison of ‘I think’ in Australian English, French and Swedish.” In Subjectivity in Language and in Discourse, ed. by Nicole Baumgarten, Inke Du Bois, and Juliane House, 271–294. Brill.Google Scholar
Nelson, Marie, and Sofie Henricson. 2019. “Kognitionsverb i sverigesvenska och finlandssvenska handledningssamtal [Cognition verbs in Sweden-Swedish and Finland-Swedish supervision meetings].” Puhe ja kieli 39:1: 45–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrby, Catrin, Jan Lindström, Jenny Nilsson, and Camilla Wide. 2020. “Pluricentric Languages.” In Handbook of Pragmatics 231, ed. by Jef Verschueren, and Jan-Ola Östman, 201–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2007. “Increments in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Introductory Remarks.” Pragmatics 17:4: 505–512.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, and Evelyne Pochon-Berger. 2011. “Developing ‘Methods’ for Interaction: A Cross-Sectional Study of Disagreement Sequences in French L2.” In L2 Interactional Competence and Development, ed. by Joan Kelly Hall, John Hellerman, and Simona Pekarek Doehler, 206–243. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “The Development of L2 Interactional Competence: Evidence from Turn-Taking Organization, Sequence Organization, Repair Organization and Preference Organization.” In Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning, ed. by Teresa Cadierno, and Søren Wind Eskildsen, 233–268. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rönnqvist, Sara, and Jan Lindström. 2021. “Turn Continuations and Gesture: “And Then”-Prefacing in Multi-Party Conversations.” Frontiers in Communication 61: 670173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rönnqvist, Sara. 2021. “Det adverbiella uttrycket på något sätt i samtalsinteraktion [The adverbial expression på något sätt (’in some way’) in Swedish interaction].” Språk och stil 31:2, 39–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saarela, Jan. 2021. Finlandssvenskarna 2021 – en statistisk rapport [Finland Swedes 2021 – A statistical report]. Helsingfors: Svenska Finlands Folkting.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers. 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Skjold Frøshaug, Andrea, and Truls Stende. 2021. Does the Nordic Language Community Exist? Analysis no. 01/2021. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skogmyr Marian, Klara. 2020. The Development of Interactional Competence in a Second Language. A Multimodal Analysis of Complaining in French Interactions. Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa. 2013. “Constructing a Proposal as a Thought: A Way to Manage Problems in the Initiation of Joint Decision-Making in Finnish Workplace Interaction.” Pragmatics 23 (3): 519–544.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Jack Sidnell. 2005. “Introduction: Multimodal Interaction”. Semiotica 156–1/41: 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen. 2021. “The Emancipation of Gestures.” Interactional Linguistics 1 (1): 90–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object Complements and Conversation: Towards a Realistic Account.” Studies in Language 26 (1): 125–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Anthony Mulac. 1991. “A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English.” In Approaches to Grammaticalization: Volume II. Types of Grammatical Markers. ed. by Bernd Heine, and Elizabeth C. Traugott, 313–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toropainen, Outi, and Sinikka Lahtinen. 2013. “Argumentation på L2-svenska: inlärare skriver insändare [Argumentation in L2-Swedish: learners write readers’ letters].” In Svenskans beskrivning 33, ed. by Jan Lindström, Sofie Henricson, Anne Huhtala, Pirjo Kukkonen, Hanna Lehti-Eklund, and Camilla Lindholm. Helsingfors: Helsingfors Universitet.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1958 [2003]. The Uses of Argument. Updated Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 2005. “The Lexical Typological Profile of Swedish Mental Verbs.” Languages in Contrast 5 (1): 121–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Johannes. 2015. “Designing for Language Learning in the Wild: Creating Social Infrastructures for Second Language Learning.” In Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning, ed. by Teresa Cadierno, and Søren Wind Eskildsen, 75–104. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Rönnqvist, Sara
2024. Securing sufficient uptake and sequence progression – För att (‘because’)-prefaced self-continuations and gesture in Swedish talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 230 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 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.