Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:09:09.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The semantics and pragmatics of Norwegian sentence-internal jo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2019

Signe Rix Berthelin  and
Kaja Borthen
Signe Rix Berthelin*
Affiliation:
Department of Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Kalvskinnet, NO-7012 Trondheim, Norway
Kaja Borthen*
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Literature, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Dragvoll, NO-7049 Trondheim, Norway
*
Emails for correspondence: [email protected] and [email protected]
Emails for correspondence: [email protected] and [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The paper proposes a refined analysis of the semantics and pragmatics of the Norwegian non-truth-conditional adverb jo ‘after all, of course’. According to the literature, jo indicates that the proposition is ‘given’ in some sense or other. Based on new empirical investigations, we argue that the Relevance-theoretic notion mutual manifestness (Sperber & Wilson 1986/1995, Blass 2000) accurately captures the givenness aspect of jo, and we demonstrate through authentic examples what it means for a proposition to be mutually manifest. In addition to mutual manifestness, jo signals that the proposition is a premise for deriving a conclusion. The conclusion often – but not always – opposes someone’s view. We argue that the frequent opposition interpretations are a consequence of the nature of the procedures encoded by jo. In addition to clarifying the semantic and pragmatic properties of jo, the paper sheds light on the Relevance-theoretic notion procedural semantics as well as illustrating its usefulness in the study of pragmatic particles.

Keywords

discourse particlesepistemic vigilancemodal particlesmutual manifestnesspragmatic particlesprocedural semanticsRelevance Theory
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , May 2019 , pp. 3 - 30
Copyright
© Nordic Association of Linguistics 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

CORPORA

BigBrother Corpus. The Text Laboratory. Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo. http://www.tekstlab.uio.no/nota/bigbrother/, March 2013.Google Scholar
NoTa–Oslo: Norwegian Speech Corpus – the Oslo part. The Text Laboratory. Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo. http://www.tekstlab.uio.no/nota/oslo/index.html, March 2013.Google Scholar
Oslo Corpus of Tagged Norwegian Texts, bokmål and nynorsk – the bokmål corpus. The Text Laboratory. Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo. http://www.hf.uio.no/iln/tjenester/kunnskap/sprak/korpus/skriftsprakskorpus/oslo/index.html, March 2013.Google Scholar
Oslo Multilingual Corpus. The Text Laboratory. Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo. http://www.hf.uio.no/iln/tjenester/kunnskap/sprak/korpus/flersprakligekorpus/omc/index.html, March 2013.Google Scholar

REFERENCES

Andvik, Erik E. 1992. A Pragmatic Analysis of Norwegian Modal Particles (SIL International Publications in Linguistics 113). Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2010. Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2001. You don’t say? Synthese 128, 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berthelin, Signe Rix. 2017. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Uummarmiutun Modals. Ph.D. dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
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(2), 353–401.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blass, Regina. 2000. Particles on higher level explicature and mutual manifestness. In Andersen, Gisle & Fretheim, Thorstein (eds.), Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude (Pragmatics and Beyond), 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blass, Regina. 2012. Particles and strengthening in argumentation: Examples from German. Presented at Interpreting for Relevance: Discourse and Translation, University of Warsaw, Poland.Google Scholar
Bokmålsordboka [Bokmål dictionary]. 2017. The Language Council of Norway & University of Bergen. https://ordbok.uib.no/ (accessed February 2017).Google Scholar
Borthen, Kaja. 2014. Hva betyr ‘da’ da? [What does da mean?]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 32(2), 257–306.Google Scholar
Borthen, Kaja & Knudsen, Cecilie Slinning. 2014. Semantiske og pragmatiske aspekter ved trykklett visst [Semantic and pragmatic aspects of unaccented visst]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 32(2), 360–411.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2005. Modality and the concept of force-dynamic potential. In Klinge, Alex & Henrik Müller, Høeg (eds.), Modality: Studies in Form and Function, 49–80. London & Oakville, CT: Equinox.Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram. 1978. Ausdrucksweisen der Sprechereinstellung im Deutschen un Englischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, Peter. 2006. The Architecture of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2006. Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 37–69.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2008. Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese 165, 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2016. The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua 175–176, 154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3), 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein. 1991. Formal and functional differences between S-internal and S-external modal particles in Norwegian. Multilingua 10–12, 175–200.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein. 2014. Response words are anaphors. In Burridge, Kate & Benczes, Réka (eds.), Wrestling with Words and Meanings: Essays in Honour of Keith Allan, 198–218. Victoria, Australia: Monash University.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3), 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hagen, Kristin. 2008. Transkripsjonsveiledning for NoTa–Oslo [Transcription guide for NoTa–Oslo]. Accessible via Brukerveiledning BigBrother [usermanual for BigBrother], Tekstlaboratoriet. http://www.tekstlab.uio.no/nota/bigbrother/brukerveiledning/index.html#transkripsjonene (accessed November 2018).Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 359–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, Marianne. 1994. Pragmatiske partikler i diskursanalytisk perspektiv: Jo, altså, vel, nå og da [Pragmatic particles in a discourse analytic perpsective: jo, altså, vel, nå, and da]. MA dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2005. On defining modality again. Language Sciences 27(2), 165–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nynorskordboka [Nynorsk dictionary]. 2017. The Language Council of Norway & University of Bergen. https://ordbok.uib.no/ (accessed March 2018).Google Scholar
Solberg, Torgerd Kristin. 1990. Modalpartikler i norsk [Modal particles in Norwegian]. MA dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 2005. Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? In Carruthers, Peter, Laurence, Stephen & Stich, Stephen (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents, 53–68. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Clément, Fabrice, Heintz, Christophe, Mascaro, Olivier, Mercier, Hugo, Origgi, Gloria & Wilson, Deirdre. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language 25(4), 359–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
The Text Laboratory [Tekstlaboratoriet]. 2010–2017. The Text Laboratory. Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo. http://www.hf.uio.no/iln/english/about/organization/text-laboratory/ (accessed January 2013).Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen (Linguistische Arbeiten 223). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, Christoph. 2018. A cross-linguistic puzzle and its theoretical implications: Norwegian ‘jo’, German ‘doch’ and ‘ja’, and an advertisement. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 41(3), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2001. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 33(9), 1391–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 25), 3–31. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2012. Modality and the conceptual–procedural distinction. In Walaszewska, Ewa & Piskorska, Agnieszka (eds.), Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, 23–43. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2016. Reassessing the conceptual–procedural distinction. Lingua 175–176, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90(1–2), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance Theory. In R. Horn, Laurence & Ward, Gregory (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar