Cover not available
Part of
Grammar in Action: Building comprehensive grammars of talk-in-interaction
Edited by Jakob Steensig, Maria Jørgensen, Jan K. Lindström, Nicholas Mikkelsen, Karita Suomalainen and Søren Sandager Sørensen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 37] 2025
► pp. 303–333

Chapter 10
Copula variation in Danish and the intertwined nature of grammar

 | University of Agder
This chapter explores constructions with the copula verb er ‘is’ in Danish. Practices employing zero copula assessments, stressed copulas and cases where syntax requires overt copula are described. Data are informal Danish interactions.
The constructions are analyzed using Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. It is found that in reduced or zero copula clauses, the features of the action may depend on the predicate phrase rather than the copula. Stressed er marks a turn as asserting or contrasting with something that came before. The syntactic context requiring overt copula may project turn-ending.
The aim is to discuss how the constructions studied are intertwined with other aspects of grammar and how they may fit into an interactional grammar like the Danish project Samtalegrammatik.dk.
Keywords: copula, phonology, syntax, assessments, stress, clauses
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Copula and its variation
    • 2.2Copula in Danish grammar
    • 2.3Copula in Danish phonetics and phonology
    • 2.4Copula in assessments
  • 3.Methods and data
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Copula assessments
    • 4.2Stressed er
    • 4.3Syntactically conditioned overt copula
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Copula in interaction
    • 5.2Copula in the grammar of clause types
    • 5.3Copula in the grammar of stress
    • 5.4Copula in phonology
    • 5.5Copula in Samtalegrammatik.dk
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (67)
References
Aldrup, Marit, Uwe-A. Küttner, Constanze Lechler, and Susanne Reinhardt. 2021. “Suspended Assessments in German Talk-in-Interaction.” In Prosodie und Multimodalität / Prosody and Multimodality, ed. by Maxi Kupetz, and Friederike Kern, 31–66. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles. 2002. “‘Lovely’: Turn-Initial High-Grade Assessments in Telephone Closings.” Discourse Studies 4 (1): 5–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bäckström, Linnéa. 2020. Etableringen av ha-bortfall i svenskan — Från kontaktfenomen till inhemsk konstruktion [The Rise of ha-omission in Swedish — From a Contact Phenomenon to a Language Specific Construction]. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg. [URL]Google Scholar
Basbøll, Hans. 2005. The Phonology of Danish. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergenholtz, Henning. 1992. Dansk frekvensordbog. Baseret på tekster fra danske romaner, ugeblade og aviser fra 1987-1990 [Danish Frequency Dictionary. Based on Texts from Danish Novels, Periodicals and Newspapers from 1987-1990]. Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad.Google Scholar
Bondarenko, Antonina. 2021. Verbless and Zero-Predicate Sentences: An English and Russian Contrastive Corpus Study. Paris: Université Paris Cité. [URL]Google Scholar
Brink, Lars, and Jørn Lund. 1975. Dansk rigsmål: lydudviklingen siden 1840 med særligt henblik på sociolekterne i København [Danish Standard Language: The Sound Changes since 1840 with Special Attention to the Sociolects in Copenhagen]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Brøcker, Karen Kiil, Magnus Glenvad Tind Hamann, Maria Jørgensen, Simon B. Lange, Nicholas Mikkelsen, and Jakob Steensig. 2012. “Samtalesprogets grammatik: fire fænomener og nogle metodiske overvejelser [The Grammar of Language in Interaction: Four Phenomena and some Methodological Considerations].” NyS 42: 10–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruun, Andrea. 2018. “At and og in Danish Spoken Language — a Description.” Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 5 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Christensen, Lisa, and Robert Zola Christensen. 2014. Dansk Grammatik [Danish Grammar]. 3rd ed. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Danske Ordbog. 2024. “være.” Copenhagen: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. [URL] (last visited 01/05-2024).Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1980. Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, and Alan Dench. 2006. “Introduction.” In Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, ed. by Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans, 1–40. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forsskåhl, Mona. 2008. Konstruktioner i interaktion: de e som resurs i samtal [Constructions in Interaction: de e ‘it is’ as a Resource in Conversation]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Garly, Katrine. 2019. “æv bæv — Et samtaleanalytisk indblik i vurderinger i danske, naturlige samtaler [æv bæv ‘boo hoo’ — A Conversation Analytical Perspective on Assessments in Danish, Natural Conversations].” Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 6 (2): 1–95.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1986. “Between and within: Alternative Sequential Treatments of Continuers and Assessments.” Human Studies 9 (2–3): 205–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1987. “Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments.” IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 1 (1): 1–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groot, Casper de. 1989. Predicate Structure in a Functional Grammar of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Erik, and Lars Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog [Grammar of the Danish Language]. Copenhagen: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik, and Jørn Lund. 1983. Sæt tryk på: syntaktisk tryk i dansk [Put Stress on: Syntactic Stress in Danish]. Copenhagen: Lærerforeningernes materialeudvalg.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine. 2009. “Two Answers to Inapposite Inquiries.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 159–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Negation in Interaction, in Danish Conversation.” Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 2 (12): 1–452.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, and Jakob Steensig. 2017. “Three Imperative Action Formats in Danish Talk-in-Interaction.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Liisa Raevaara, Marja-Leena Sorjonen, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 139–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hellwig, Birgit. 2006. “Field Semantics and Grammar-Writing: Stimuli-based Techniques and the Study of Locative Verbs.” In Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, edited by Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans, 321–358. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heltoft, Lars. 2011. “Lette pronomeners placering: klise og topologisk integritet [The Placement of Light Pronouns: Cliticization and Topological Integrity].” Ny forskning i grammatik 18: 61–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–23. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte. 2012. “Trykfordelingens implikaturer: betydningsbærende og meningsbærende tryk [The Implicatures of Stress Distribution in Danish Utterances — on Semantic and Pragmatic Prominence].” NyS 42: 116–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Julie Søndergård. 2021. “At være eller ikke at være. En sprogpsykologisk redegørelse for brugen af kopula i dansk talesprog [To Be or not to Be. A Language Psychology Account of the Use of Copula in Danish Spoken Language].” In 18. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog, ed. by Yonatan Goldshtein, Inger Schoonderbeek Hansen, and Tina Thode Hougaard, 269–292. Aarhus: Nordic — School of Communication and Culture.Google Scholar
Jensen, Per Anker. 2012. “Grænsefladen mellem fonologi og syntaks: evidens fra er-kontraktion og enhedstryk i dansk [The Interface between Phonology and Syntax: Evidence from er-contraction and Unit Accentuation in Danish].” NyS 42: 92–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, Maria. 2024. “A Question of Embeddedness: On Clausal and Phrasal Responses to Specifying WH-Questions in Danish Talk-in-Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 57 (3): 323–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2016. “Possessive Predicational Vocatives in Scandinavian.” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19 (2): 75–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kjær, Louise, Signe Brink, and Johanne Kølbæk. 2020. “Hvad er det? [What is it?]” Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 7 (3): 1–21.Google Scholar
Kragelund, Mathias Høyer. 2015. “Når ‘er’ ikke er der — en morfologisk undersøgelse af et dansk talesprogsfænomen [When er ‘is’ is not There — A Morphological Investigation of a Danish Spoken Language Phenomenon].” Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 2 (5): 1–18.Google Scholar
Kristensen, Line Burholt, Ruben Schachtenhaufen, and Kasper Boye. 2017. “Reduktion i udtalen af grammatiske vs. leksikalske ord [Reduction in the Pronunciation of Grammatical vs. Lexical Words].” In 16. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog, ed. by Inger Schoonderbeek Hansen, Tina Thode Hougaard, and Kathrine Thisted Petersen, 187–208. Aarhus: Nordic — School of Communication and Culture.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. “Contraction, Deletion, and Inherent Variability of the English Copula.” Language 45 (4): 715–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Michael, and Anna Sofie Hartling. 2023. “Som som præposition? En reklassificering af som og heraf afledte konsekvenser for Dansk Sprognævns sproglige rådgivning og normering [Som as Preposition? A Reclassification of som ‘as’ and its Consequences for the Advice and Standardization of the Danish Language Council].” Ny forskning i grammatik 30: 150–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ordbog over det Danske Sprog. 1954. “II. være.” Copenhagen: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. [URL] (last visited 31/07-2024).Google Scholar
Park, Innhwa, and Jacob Kline. 2020. “Incomplete Utterances as Critical Assessments.” Discourse Studies 22 (4): 441–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petersen, Kathrine Thisted. 2018. Udviklingen af inkorporation fra gammeldansk til moderne dansk: Fra umarkerede kasusformer til markeret artikelløshed og enhedstryk [The Development of Incorporation from Middle Danish to Modern Danish: From Unmarked Case Forms to Marked Lack of Articles and Unit Accentuation]. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google 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. M. Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puggaard, Rasmus. 2019. “Flexibility of Frequent Clause Openers in Talk-in-Interaction: Det ‘It, That’ and så ‘Then’ in the Prefield in Danish.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 42 (3): 291–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “A Semiotic Grammar Account of Copula Clauses in Danish.” Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 7 (4): 1–23.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley. 2017. “Indexing a Contrast: The do-construction in English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 118: 22–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2014. “Modification as a Propositional Act.” In Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space, ed. by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, and Francisco Gonzálvez García, 129–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rischel, Jørgen. 1982. “On Unit Accentuation in Danish — and the Distinction between Deep and Surface Phonology.” Annual Reports of the Institute of Phonetics, University of Copenhagen 16: 191–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samtalegrammatik.dk. 2024a. “Data.” [URL] (last visited 01/05-2024).
2024b. “Transcription Conventions.” [URL] (last visited 01/05-2024).
2024c. “Kopuladrop [Copula-drop].” [URL] (last visited 01/05-2024).
Schachtenhaufen, Ruben. 2012. “Nulrealisering af verbalformer i dansk spontantale [Zero-realization of Verbal Forms in Danish Spontaneous Speech].” Danske Talesprog 12: 126–150.Google Scholar
. 2023. Ny dansk fonetik [New Danish Phonetics]. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Modersmål-Selskabet.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. A. 1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerlund, Kristina. 2021. “Om danske unges brug af utraditionelle citatmarkører [About the Use of Untraditional Quotation Markers among the Danish Youth].” In 18. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog, ed. by Yonatan Goldshtein, Inger Schoonderbeek Hansen, and Tina Thode Hougaard, 463–78. Aarhus: Nordic — School of Communication and Culture.Google Scholar
Sørensen, Søren Sandager. 2015. “Turfinalt eller i spørgsmål i dansk interaktion [Turnfinal eller ‘or’ in Questions in Danish Interaction].” In 15. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog, ed. by Inger Schoonderbeek Hansen, and Tina Thode Hougaard, 377–398. Aarhus: Nordic — School of Communication and Culture.Google Scholar
. 2023. “Exclamative Clauses with hvor, hvilken and sikke in Danish: Insubordination and Phrasal Discontinuity.” Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 9 (1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, Karen Kiil Brøcker, Caroline Grønkjær, Magnus Glenvad Tind Hamann, Rasmus Puggaard, Maria Jørgensen, Mathias Høyer Kragelund, Nicholas Mikkelsen, Tina Mølgaard, Henriette Folkmann Pedersen, Søren Sandager Sørensen, and Emilie Tholstrup. 2013. “The DanTIN Project – Creating a Platform for Describing the Grammar of Danish Talk-in-Interaction.” In New Perspectives on Speech in Action. Proceedings of the 2nd SJUSK Conference on Contemporary Speech Habits, ed. by Jan Heegård, and Peter Juel Henrichsen, 195–226. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2005. “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (2): 131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding Is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1): 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tholstrup, Emilie. 2014. “‘Ej hvor fint’ — En undersøgelse af den danske interjektion ej [Ej hvor fint ‘Oh how fine’ — A Study of the Danish Interjection ej ‘oh’].” Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 1 (3): 2–15.Google Scholar
Thomsen, Olaf. 1972. “Nogle hyppige ord i dansk talesprog [Some Frequent Words in Danish Spoken Language].” Sprog og Kultur 27 (3–4): 85–93.Google Scholar
Zewi, Tamar. 1996. “The Definition of the Copula and the Role of the 3rd Independent Personal Pronouns in Nominal Sentences of Semitic Languages.” Folia Linguistica Historica 30 (17–1–2): 41–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar