No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Vi snakker sådan: An analysis of the Danish discourse-pragmatic marker sådan
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 October 2021
Abstract
The last three decades have witnessed increasing interest in discourse-pragmatic markers (DPMs), both with regards to their high frequency in spoken discourse and their multifunctionality in interaction. Most studies have centered on English, with studies on Danish restricted to a handful of previous interactional discourse analyses. This paper is a preliminary investigation of the Danish word sådan (commonly glossed as ‘such’ or ‘like this/that’). A qualitative, form-based, discourse analytic approach is undertaken on over 40 minutes of naturally occurring Danish talk to argue that sådan qualifies as a DPM. In service of textual, subjective, and intersubjective macro-functions, sådan illustrates; exemplifies; marks hesitation; approximates a quantity; mitigates, hedges, or softens; and allows self-correction or self-repair. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for sådan’s place in the Danish DPM system and our understanding of DPMs across languages.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Nordic Association of Linguistics
References
Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie, Simon-Vandenbergen. 2003. The discourse particle well and its equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics 41(6), 1123–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie, Simon-Vandenbergen. 2011. Pragmatic markers. In Jan, Zienkowski, Jan-Ola, Östman & Jef, Verschueren (eds.), Discursive Pragmatics, 223–247. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 2010. Conclusive English then and Swedish då
. Languages in Contrast 10(1), 102–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 2001. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, John Edelsgaard. 1986. Adverbier – sprogvidenskabens stedbørn [Adverbs: Linguistics’ stepchildren]. Beiträge zur nordischen Philologie 15, 77–88.Google Scholar
Andersen, Torben. 1982. Modalpartikler og deres funktion i dansk [Modal particles and their function in Danish]. Iver, Kjær, Flemming, Lundgreen-Nielsen & Niels, Houkjær (eds.), Danske Studier [Danish studies], 86–95. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Axelsen, Jens. 2007. Dansk-Engelsk ordbog [Danish–English dictionary], 12th edn. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2016. Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berthelin, Signe Rix & Kaja, Borthen. 2019. The semantics and pragmatics of Norwegian sentence-internal jo
. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 42(1), 3–30. doi: 10.1017/S0332586519000052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borthen, Kaja. 2014. Hva betyr “da”, da? [What does da mean, then?]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 32, 257–306.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin & Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. [Reprint 2010] doi: 10.1515/9783110907582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2014. Quotatives: New Trends and Sociolinguistic Implications. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2007. Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(2), 155–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Tanya Karoli & Torben, Juel Jensen. 2014. Sætningsadverbialer i ledsætninger som forgrundssignal [Sentence adverbials in subordinate clauses as emphasizers]. Ny Forskning i Grammatik 22(21). doi: 10.7146/nfg.v22i21.23561.Google Scholar
Christensen, Tanya Karoli & Torben, Juel Jensen. 2015. Grammatisk variation og forandring i moderne dansk [Grammatical variation and change in modern Danish]. In Frans, Gregersen & Tore, Kristiansen (eds.), Hvad Ved Vi Nu - Om Danske Talesprog? [What do we know now – about spoken Danish?], 203–219. København: Sprogforandringscentret.Google Scholar
Christensen, Tanya Karoli & Torben, Juel Jensen. 2018. Og Sådan Noget I Den Stil: Generelle udvidere i moderne dansk talesprog [‘And something like that in that way’: General extenders in modern spoken Danish]. In Tanya Karoli, Christensen, Christina, Fogtmann, Torben Juel, Jensen, Martha Sif, Karrebæk, Marie, Maegaard, Nicolai, Pharao & Pia, Quist (eds.), Dansk til det 21. Århundrede: Sprog og Samfund [Danish for the 21st century: Language and society], 73–91. København: University Press.Google Scholar
Corrigan, Karen P. & Chloé, Diskin. 2020. ‘Northmen, Southmen, comrades all’? The adoption of discourse like by migrants north and south of the Irish border. Language in Society 49(5), 745–773. doi: 10.1017/S0047404519000800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer. 2000. The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like
. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(1), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra Faith. 2005. Like: Syntax and Development. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra Faith. 2007.
Like and language ideology: Disentangling fact from fiction. American Speech 82(4), 386–419. doi: 10.1215/00031283-2007-025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra Faith. 2017. Discourse-pragmatic Variation in Context: Eight Hundred Years of LIKE (Studies in Language Companion Series 187). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidsen-Nielsen, Niels. 1996. Discourse particles in Danish. In Elisabeth, Engberg-Pedersen, Michael, Fortescue, Peter, Harder, Lars, Heltoft & Lisbeth Falster, Jakobsen (eds.), Content, Expression and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar (Studies in Language Companion Series 29), 283–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davydova, Julia & Isabelle, Buchstaller. 2015. Expanding the circle to learner English: Investigating quotative marking in a German student community. American Speech 90(4), 441–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DDO
[Den Danske Ordbog]. Copenhagen: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. https://ordnet.dk/ddo/ordbog?query=s%C3%A5dan (accessed 9 April 2018).Google Scholar
Denis, Derek & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2016. Innovation, right? Change, you know? Utterance-final tags in Canadian English. In Pichler (ed.), 86–112.Google Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1946. Elementær dansk grammatik [Elementary Danish grammar]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Diskin, Chloé. 2017. The use of the discourse-pragmatic marker ‘like’ by native and non-native speakers of English in Ireland. Journal of Pragmatics 120, 144–157. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diskin, Chloé & Stephen, Levey. 2019. Going global and sounding local: Quotative variation and change in L1 and L2 speakers of Irish (Dublin) English. English World-Wide 40(1), 53–78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.00022.dis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drengsted-Nielsen, Claus. 2014. Grammatik på dansk [A grammar in Danish], 2nd edn. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert, Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Stephan, Scheuetze-Coburn, Susanna, Cumming & Danae, Paolino. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Edwards, Jane A. & Lampert, Martin D. (eds.), Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Emmertsen, Sofie & Trine, Heinemann. 2010. Realization as a device for remedying problems of affiliation in interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction 43(2), 109–132. doi: 10.1080/08351811003738059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Fortescue, Michael, Harder, Peter, Heltoft, Lars & Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster. 1996. Content, Expression and Structure (Studies in Danish Functional Grammar), vol. 29. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Kathleen & Barbara, Bell. 1995. Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: The case of be + like
. American Speech 70(3), 265. doi: 10.2307/455900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne & Marina, Yaguello. 2004. Discourse markers across languages. In Carol Lynn, Moder & Aida, Martinovic-Zic (eds.), Discourse Across Languages and Cultures (Studies in Language Companion Series), 129–148. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38(1–4), 19–33.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2006. Towards a theory of discourse markers. In Kerstin, Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (Studies in Pragmatics), 189–204. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein. 2014. Et relevansteoretisk blikk på likheter og forskjeller mellom partiklene da og altså [A Relevance-theoretic look at the similarities and differences between the particles da and altså]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 32, 197–256.Google Scholar
Fruehwald, Josef & Wallenberg, Joel C.. 2013. Optionality is stable variation is competing grammars. Presented at the 25th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Formal Ways of Analyzing Variation (FWAV) Workshop, Háskóli Íslands (University of Iceland). http://conference.hi.is/scl25/call-for-papers/.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2008. Modal particles and context updating: The functions of German ja, doch, wohl and etwa. In Heinz, Vater & Ole, Letnes (eds.), Modalverben und Grammatkalisierung, 153–177. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 1998. The use of Finnish nyt as a discourse particle. In Jucker & Ziv (eds.), 83–96.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. In Allerton, D. J, Edward, Carney & David, Holcroft (eds.), Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas, 57–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Lars, Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det Danske Sprog, 3 vols. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Hasund, Ingrid Kristine. 2003. The Discourse Markers like in English and liskom in Norwegian Teenage Language: A Corpus-based, Cross-linguistic Study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Heegård, Jan. 2015. Ordvarighed og grammatisk og pragmatisk funktion. Tilfældet egentlig [Pronunciation length and grammatical and pragmatic function: The case of egentlig]. NyS, Nydanske Sprogstudier 1(49). doi: 10.7146/nys.v1i49.22904. http://www.nys.dk/article/view/22904 (21 February 2021).Google Scholar
Heegård, Jan & Janus, Mortensen. 2014. Fonetisk reduktion og kommunikative kontraster: Tilfældet faktisk [Phonetic reduction and communicative contrasts: The case of faktisk]. Ny Forskning i Grammatik 22(21). doi: 10.7146/nfg.v22i21.23564. https://tidsskrift.dk/nfg/article/view/23564 (21 February 2021).Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine & Jakob, Steensig. 2018. Justifying departures from progressivity: The Danish turn-initial particle altså. In Heritage & Sorjonen (eds.), 109–132. doi: 10.1075/slsi.31 (6 March 2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrichsen, Peter Juel. 1998. Peeking into the Danish living room: Internet access to a large speech corpus. Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics (NODALIDA 1998), 109–119. Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W98-1612.pdf.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (eds.). 2018. Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-initial Particles Across Languages (Studies in Language and Social Interaction 31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slsi.31 (6 March 2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In Fox, Barbara A. (ed.), Studies in Anaphora (Typological Studies in Language 33). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster. 1995. Tag sprog alvorligt! En oversigt over funktionel grammatik [Take language seriously! An overview of functional grammar]. NyS, Nydanske Sprogstudier 20(20), 11. doi: 10.7146/nys.v20i20.13371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte. 2006. ‘Egentlig’ og ‘faktisk’ og to slags spørgsmål polyfoniteoretisk anskuet [Egentlig and faktisk and two types of questions polyphony theoretically examined]. Sproglig Polyfoni: Arbejdspapirer 6, 27–52.Google Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte. 2009. Context sensitive changes: The development of the affirmative markers godt ‘good’ and vel ‘well’ in Danish. In Maj-Britt, Mosegaard Hansen & Jacqueline, Visconti (eds.), Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics, 63–79. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte. 2013a. Ordklasseproblemer, tilfældet sådan [Word classification problems, the case of sådan]. LexicoNordica (Leksikografi Og Lingvistik i Norden) 20, 55–74.Google Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte. 2013b. Stress distribution in phrases with predeterminant sådan in Danish. In Jan, Heegård & Peter Juel, Henrichsen (eds.), New Perspectives on Speech in Action: Proceedings of the 2nd SJUSK Conference on Contemporary Speech Habits (Copenhagen Series in Language 43), 89–102. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur Press. http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4186710 (7 April 2019).Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Smith, Sara W.. 1998. And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In Jucker & Ziv (eds.), 171–201.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Yael, Ziv. 1998a. Discourse markers: Introduction. In Jucker & Ziv (eds.), 1–12.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Ziv, Yael (eds.). 1998b. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003.
Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Krylova, Elvira. 2016. Danske modalpartikler som indikatorer på afsenders forskellige kommunikationsstrategier [Danish modal particles as indicators of speakers’ various communicative strategies]. Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication 1, 87–95.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Larsen, Anne. 2015. ‘Mathilde bor på Amager og sådan noget’. Danske påhængsudtryks interaktionelle funktioner i interviewsituationen [‘Mathilde lives on Amager and something like that’: Danish general extenders’ interactional functions in the interview situation]. NyS, Nydanske Sprogstudier 47(47), 65–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levey, Stephen. 2006. The sociolinguistic distribution of discourse marker like in preadolescent speech. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-cultural and Interlanguage Communication 25(4), 413–441. doi: 10.1515/MULTI.2006.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ljungqvist, Marita. 2010. A Relevance-theoretic analysis of the pragmatic marker ba in Mandarin Chinese/
. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 38(2), 261–287.Google Scholar
. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 38(2), 261–287.Google ScholarLundskær-Nielsen, Tom & Philip, Holmes. 2010. Danish: A Comprehensive Grammar (Routledge Comprehensive Grammars), 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian & Johannes, Wagner. 2010. Transcribing, searching and data sharing: The CLAN software and the TalkBank data repository. Gesprächsforschung 11, 154–173.Google ScholarPubMed
Maschler, Yael & Deborah, Schiffrin. 2015. Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In Deborah, Tannen, Hamilton, Heidi E. & Deborah, Schiffrin (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn., 189–221. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Meehan, Teresa. 1991. It’s like, ‘What’s happening in the evolution of like?’: A theory of grammaticalization. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 16, 37–52.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2002. All the same? The emergence of complementizers in Bislama. In Tom, Güldemann & Manfred, von Roncador (eds.), Reported Discourse: A Meeting Ground for Different Linguistic Domains (Typological Studies in Language 52), 341–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.52.21mey.Google Scholar
Mortensen, Janus. 2012. Epistemisk positionering i dansk talesprog [Epistemic positioning in spoken Danish]. NyS, Nydanske Sprogstudier 42(42), 62. doi: 10.7146/nys.v42i42.13674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt. 1998. The Function of Discourse Particles: A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French (Pragmatics & Beyond N.S., 53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Cliodhna & Helene, Joffe. 2020. Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19, doi: 10.1177/1609406919899220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 2005. And stuff und so: Investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11), 1845–1864. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Yong-Yae. 1998. A discourse analysis of contrastive connectives in English, Korean, and Japanese conversation: With special reference to the context of dispreferred responses. In Jucker & Ziv (eds.), 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, Henriette Folkmann. 2014. Om konstruktionen sån en N i danske samtaler [On the construction sån a N in Danish conversations]. Skrifter om Samtalegrammatik 1(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike. 2010. Methods in discourse variation analysis: Reflections on the way forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(5), 581–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike. 2013. The Structure of Discourse-pragmatic Variation (Studies in Language Variation 13). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike (ed.). 2016. Discourse-pragmatic Variation and Change in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popescu-Belis, Andrei & Sandrine, Zufferey. 2011. Automatic identification of discourse markers in dialogues: An in-depth study of like and well
. Computer Speech & Language 25(3), 499–518. doi: 10.1016/j.csl.2010.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathje, Marianne. 2006. Og sådan noget – et ungdomssprogligt fyldudtryk? [‘And something like that: A youth language filler word?’]. In Anita Ågerup, Jervelund, Marianne, Rathje & Jørgen, Schack (eds.), Vi skriver dig til. Festskrift til Vibeke Sandersen i anledning af 70-års-dagen [We write to you: A Festschrift for Vibeke Sandersen on the occasion of her 70th birthday], 145–159. København: Dansk Sprognævn.Google Scholar
Rathje, Marianne. 2011. Quotations and quotatives in the speech of three Danish generations. In Frans, Gregersen, Jeffrey, Parrott & Pia, Quist (eds.), Language Variation: European Perspectives II. Selected Papers from the 5th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe, 71–82. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1981. The Pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Language 57(4), 959–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholman, Merel C. J., Hannah, Rohde & Vera, Demberg. 2017. “On the one hand” as a cue to anticipate upcoming discourse structure. Journal of Memory and Language 97, 47–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2017.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneskov, Randi Marie. 2008. Små elementer - store effekter: Om nok, vist og vel samt to af deres formodede franske ækvivalenter [Small elements – big effects: On nok, vist and vel with two of their supposed French equivalents]. Ny Forskning i Grammatik 16(15). doi: 10.7146/nfg.v16i15.23763. https://tidsskrift.dk/nfg/article/view/23763 (21 February 2021).Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2005.
So who? Like how? Just what? Journal of Pragmatics 37(11), 1896–1915. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation, 1st edn. Malden, MA. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Derek, Denis. 2010. The stuff of change: General extenders in Toronto, Canada. Journal of English Linguistics 38(4), 335–368. doi: 10.1177/0075424210367484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Rachel, Hudson. 1999. Be like et al. beyond America: The quotative system in British and Canadian youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(2), 147–172.Google Scholar
Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics (Learning About Language). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen & Jessica, Robles. 2013. Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities, 2nd edn. New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert. 1988.
Like is, like, focus. American Speech 63(3), 234. doi: 10.2307/454820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vivien, Ler Soon Lay. 2006. A Relevance-theoretic approach to discourse particles in Singapore English. In Kerstin, Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (Studies in Pragmatics), 149–166. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Waters, Cathleen. 2016. Practical strategies for elucidating discourse-pragmatic variation. In Pichler (ed.), 41–56.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 1988. A Relevance-theoretic approach to commentary pragmatic markers: The case of actually, really and basically
. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38(1/4), 235–260.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986. Introduction (to special issue on particles). Journal of Pragmatics 10, 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Linda & Rolf, Kroger. 2000. Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781452233291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoning et al. supplementary material
Schoning et al. supplementary material
PDF
416.3 KB