Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

A cross-linguistic puzzle and its theoretical implications: Norwegian jo, German doch and ja, and an advertisement

  • Christoph Unger (a1)

Abstract

It has long been recognised that at least some linguistic expressions —such as the connectives but in English and mais in French, and the particles doch in German and jo in Norwegian— function to affect the audience’s inference or reasoning processes rather than, or in addition to, provide conceptual content. There is a debate, however, whether the inference procedures triggered by these linguistic expressions function primarily to affect the audience’s recognition of the communicator’s arguments or primarily to guide the audience’s comprehension process. I discuss this question with reference to an instructive example from an advertisement in Norwegian. The advertisement is an argumentative text where the modal particle jo achieves subtle argumentational and stylistic effects that differ from those achieved by the corresponding German modal particles doch or ja. I demonstrate how the procedural semantic analyses independently developed by Berthelin & Borthen (submitted) of jo and Unger (2016a, 2016b, 2016c) of ja and doch support a pragmatic-semantic account of the argumentational effects of these particles. Although the semantics I propose for the respective particles does not directly relate to argumentation, it is specific enough to affect argumentation in predictable ways. The reason for this is that comprehension procedures and argumentation procedures closely interact in processing ostensive stimuli (such as verbal utterances) for optimal relevance.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Andvik, Erik E. 1992. A Pragmatic Analysis of Norwegian Modal Particles. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Berthelin, Signe Rix. 2018. Midtstilt da – en semantisk-pragmatisk redegjørelse og en sammenlikning med etterstilt da. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 36:2.
Berthelin, Signe Rix & Borthen, Kaja. (Submitted). The semantics and pragmatics of Norwegian sentence-internal jo.
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blass, Regina. 2000. Particles, propositional attitude and mutual manifestness. In Andersen, Gisle & Fretheim, Thorstein (eds.), Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, 3952. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Borthen, Kaja. 2014. Hva betyr ‘da’, da? Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 32 (2), 257306.
Borthen, Kaja. 2018. Pronominal høyredislokering i norsk, det er et interessant fenomen, det! Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 36:2.
Burkhardt, Armin. 1994. Abtönungspartikeln im Deutschen: Bedeutung und Genese. Zeitschrift fur Germanistische Linguistik 22 (2), 129151.
Carston, Robyn. 2012. Relevance theory. In Russell, G. & Fara, D. Graff (eds.), Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language, 163176. London: Routledge.
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation equivalents. In Fetzer, Anita & Fischer, Kerstin (eds.), Lexical Markers of Common Grounds, 4766. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fretheim, Thorstein. 1991. Formal and functional differences between s-internal and s-external modal particles in Norwegian. Multilingua 10, 175200.
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Karagjosova, Elena. 2009. A unified DRT-based account of accented and unaccented middle field doch. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 33 (1–2), 7793.
König, Ekkehard. 1997. Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik 136, 5775.
Lütten, Jutta. 1979. Die Rolle der Partikeln doch, eben und ja als Konsensus-Konstitutiva in gesprochener Sprache. In Weydt, Harald (ed.), Die Partikeln der duetschen Sprache, 3038. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Mercier, Hugo & Sperber, Dan. 2009. Intuitive and reflective inferences. In Evans, J. St. B. T. & Frankish, K. (eds.), In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, Dan. 2001. An Evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Philosophical Topics 29, 401413.
Sperber, Dan, Clément, Fabrice, Heintz, Christophe, Mascaro, Olivier, Mercier, Hugo, Origgi, Gloria & Wilson, Deirdre. 2010. Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language 25 (4), 359393.
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell 2nd edn. First edition 1986.
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 2015. Beyond Speaker’s Meaning. Croation Journal of Philosophy XV (44), 117149.
Unger, Christoph. 2012. Epistemic Vigilance and the Function of Procedural Indicators in Communication and Comprehension. In Wałaszewska, Ewa & Piskorska, Agnieszka (eds.), Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, 4574. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Unger, Christoph. 2016a. Degrees of procedure activation and the German modal particles ja and doch - part 1. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 133 (1), 3145.
Unger, Christoph. 2016b. Degrees of procedure activation and the German modal particles ja and doch - part 2. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 133 (1), 4761.
Unger, Christoph. 2016c. Degrees of procedure activation and the German modal particles ja and doch - part 3. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 133 (1), 6374.
Unger, Christoph. 2018. Social costs of epistemic vigilance and premises in arguments. In Oswald, Steve & Maillat, Didier (eds.), Argumentation and Inference, vol. 2, Studies in Logic and Argumentation, 843856. London: College Publications.
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future. In Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, Leonetti, Manuel & Ahern, Aoife (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, vol. 25 (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface), 331. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Wilson, Deirdre. 2014. Relevance Theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 26, 129148.
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance Theory. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 607632. Oxford: Blackwell.
Zeevat, Henk & Karagjosova, Elena. 2009. History and Grammaticalisation of ”Doch”/” Toch. ZASPiL Nr. 51–September 2009 135.
Zimmermann, Malte. 2011. Discourse particles. In von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Claudia & Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics, vol. 2 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft HSK 33.2), 20112038. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Nordic Journal of Linguistics
  • ISSN: 0332-5865
  • EISSN: 1502-4717
  • URL: /core/journals/nordic-journal-of-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed