Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:01:03.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2018

Christoph Unger
Christoph Unger*
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Department of Language and Literature, Trondheim, 7491, Norway. christoph.unger@ntnu.no
Get access

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.

Keywords

modal particlesargumentationcomprehensionprocedural meaningrelevance theoryNorwegianGerman
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , December 2018 , pp. 309 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2018 

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

REFERENCES

Andvik, Erik E. 1992. A Pragmatic Analysis of Norwegian Modal Particles. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Berthelin, Signe Rix. 2018. Midtstilt da – en semantisk-pragmatisk redegjørelse og en sammenlikning med etterstilt da. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 36:2.Google Scholar
Berthelin, Signe Rix & Borthen, Kaja. (Submitted). The semantics and pragmatics of Norwegian sentence-internal jo.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blass, Regina. 2000. Particles, propositional attitude and mutual manifestness. In Andersen, Gisle & Fretheim, Thorstein (eds.), Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, 39–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Borthen, Kaja. 2014. Hva betyr ‘da’, da? Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 32 (2), 257–306.Google Scholar
Borthen, Kaja. 2018. Pronominal høyredislokering i norsk, det er et interessant fenomen, det! Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 36:2.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, Armin. 1994. Abtönungspartikeln im Deutschen: Bedeutung und Genese. Zeitschrift fur Germanistische Linguistik 22 (2), 129–151.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2012. Relevance theory. In Russell, G. & Fara, D. Graff (eds.), Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language, 163–176. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation equivalents. In Fetzer, Anita & Fischer, Kerstin (eds.), Lexical Markers of Common Grounds, 47–66. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein. 1991. Formal and functional differences between s-internal and s-external modal particles in Norwegian. Multilingua 10, 175–200.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Karagjosova, Elena. 2009. A unified DRT-based account of accented and unaccented middle field doch. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 33 (1–2), 77–93.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1997. Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. Germanistische Linguistik 136, 57–75.Google Scholar
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, 30–38. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 2001. An Evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Philosophical Topics 29, 401–413.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Clément, Fabrice, Heintz, Christophe, Mascaro, Olivier, Mercier, Hugo, Origgi, Gloria & Wilson, Deirdre. 2010. Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language 25 (4), 359–393.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell 2nd edn. First edition 1986.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 2015. Beyond Speaker’s Meaning. Croation Journal of Philosophy XV (44), 117–149.Google Scholar
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, 45–74. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Unger, Christoph. 2016a. Degrees of procedure activation and the German modal particles ja and doch - part 1. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 133 (1), 31–45.Google Scholar
Unger, Christoph. 2016b. Degrees of procedure activation and the German modal particles ja and doch - part 2. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 133 (1), 47–61.Google Scholar
Unger, Christoph. 2016c. Degrees of procedure activation and the German modal particles ja and doch - part 3. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 133 (1), 63–74.Google Scholar
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, 843–856. London: College Publications.Google 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, vol. 25 (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface), 3–31. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2014. Relevance Theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 26, 129–148.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance Theory. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zeevat, Henk & Karagjosova, Elena. 2009. History and Grammaticalisation of ”Doch”/” Toch. ZASPiL Nr. 51–September 2009 135.Google Scholar
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), 2011–2038. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar