Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries
Edited by Daniël Van Olmen and Jolanta Šinkūnienė
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 325] 2021
► pp. 385–414

Chapter 14
The Norwegian tag da in comparison to English then

| Norwegian University of Science and Technology
| Freie Universität Berlin

The Norwegian tag da and the English tag then have most likely developed from a common historical origin through the process of semantic bleaching and they have many overlapping functions today. This has led some researchers to claim that the two expressions have one and the same procedural semantics. Based on authentic corpus data on da and a translation study, we argue that the tags da and then cannot have the same meaning. We propose a semantic and pragmatic analysis of the Norwegian tag da that predicts its many functions and we explain how da differs from the English tag then.

Keywords: pragmatic particle, tag, multifunctionality, translation, right-dislocation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Existing accounts of the Norwegian tag da
  • 3.Similarities between Norwegian da and English then
  • 4.The tags da and then in translation
  • 5.Uses of the Norwegian tag da not found for the English tag then
    • 5.1A second tag da2
    • 5.2Relationships between da1, da2 and the English tag then
  • 6.The tag da and its connection to pronominal right-dislocation in Norwegian
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 13 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.325.14bor
References

Corpora

NoTa-Oslo: Norwegian Speech Corpus – the Oslo part
The Text Laboratory. Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo. [URL]
Oslo Corpus of Tagged Norwegian Texts, bokmål and nynorsk – the bokmål corpus
The Text Laboratory. Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo. [URL]
The Oslo Multilingual Corpus
(1999–2008) The Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo. [URL]
Aijmer, Karin
2013 Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin, Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, and Ad Foolen
2006 “Pragmatic Markers in Translation: A Methodological Perspective.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 101–114. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Andvik, Erik
1992 A Pragmatic Analysis of Norwegian Modal Particles. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics Academic Publications.Google Scholar
Askedal, John Ole
1987 “On the Morphosyntactic Properties and Pragmatic Functions of Correlative Right Dislocation (Right Copying) in Modern Colloquial Norwegian.” In The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics 6, ed. by Pirkko Lilius, and Mirja Saari, 93–110. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.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: 353–401.Google Scholar
Berthelin, Signe, and Kaja Borthen
2019 “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Norwegian Sentence-Internal jo .” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 42: 3–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987 Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
2002 Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blass, Regina
2000 Particles, Propositional Attitude and Mutual Manifestness. In Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, ed. by Gisle Andersen, and Thorstein Fretheim, 39–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borthen, Kaja
2014 “Hva betyr ‘da’, da? [What does the tag da mean?]” Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 32: 257–306.Google Scholar
2018 “Pronominal høyredislokering i norsk, det er et interessant fenomen, det [Pronominal right-dislocation in Norwegian, that is an interesting phenomenon, that].” Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 36: 403–450.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002 Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein
1989 “The Two Faces of the Norwegian Inference Particle da .” In Sprechen mit Partikeln, ed. by Harald Weydt, 691–702. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991 “Formal and Functional Differences Between S-internal and S-External Modal Particles in Norwegian.” Multilingua 10 (1/2): 175–200.Google Scholar
1993 “The Norwegian ‘Boundary Tone Agreement’ Condition.” In CLS 28, ed. by Costas Canakis, Grace P. Chan, and Jeanette Denton, 159–170. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1995 “Why Norwegian Right-Dislocated Phrases Are Not Afterthoughts.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18 (1): 41–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 “Intonation and the Procedural Encoding of Attributed Thoughts: The Case of Norwegian Negative Interrogatives.” In Current Issues in Relevance Theory, ed. by Villy Rouchota, and Andreas H. Jucker, 205–236. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000a “Procedural Encoding of Propositional Attitude in Norwegian Conditional Clauses.” In Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, ed. by Gisle Andersen, and Thorstein Fretheim, 53–84. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000b “The Interaction of Right-Dislocated Pronominals and Intonational Phrasing in Norwegian.” In Nordic Prosody: Proceedings of the VIIIth Conference, Trondheim 2000, ed. by Wim van Dommelen, and Thorstein Fretheim, 23–32. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein, Stella Boateng, and Ilidikó Vaskó
2003 “ Then – Adverbial Pro-Form or Inference Particle? A Comparative Study of English, Ewe, Hungarian, and Norwegian.” In Meaning through Contrast, Vol. 2, ed. by Katarzyna Jaszczolt, and Ken Turner, 51–74. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein
2006 “English then and Norwegian da/så Compared: A Relevance-Theoretic Account.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29 (1): 45–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein, and Wim van Dommelen
2012 “A Pragmatic Perspective on the Phonological Values of Utterance-Final Boundary Tones in East Norwegian Intonation.” The Linguistic Review 29: 663–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein
2014 “Et Relevansteoretisk blikk på likheter og forskjeller mellom partiklene da og altså [A relevance-theoretical view on similarities and differences between the particles da and altså ].” Norsk Lingvistisk Tidskrift 32: 197–256.Google Scholar
2015 “A Relevance-Theoretic Perspective on the Norwegian Utterance-Final Particles da and altså Compared to Their English Counterpart then .” In Final Particles, ed. by Sylvie Hancil, Alexander Haselow, and Margje Post, 249–283. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “The Form and Function of Extrametrical, Unaccented Segments of East Norwegian Utterances.” In Nordic Prosody: Proceedings of the XIIth Conference, Trondheim 2016, ed. by Jardar E. Abrahamsen, Jacques Koreman, and Wim van Dommelen, 9–28. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander
2011 “Discourse Marker and Modal Particle: The Functions of Utterance-Final then in Spoken English.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (14): 3603–3623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Subjectivity, Intersubjectivity and the Negotiation of Common Ground in Spoken Discourse: Final Particles in English.” Language & Communication 32 (3): 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang, and Christine von Stutterheim
1987 “Quaestio und referenzielle Bewegung in Erzählungen.” Linguistische Berichte 109: 163–183.Google Scholar
Kluge, Friedrich, and Elmar Seebold
2012 Etymologisches Woerterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lind, Marianne
1994 Pragmatiske partikler i diskursanalytisk perspektiv: jo, altså, vel, nå og da [Pragmatic particles in a discourse analytic perspective: jo, altså, vel, nå and da ]. Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.Google Scholar
Nome, Astrid
2013 Connectives in Translation: Explicitation and Relevance. Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.Google Scholar
Mycock, Louise
2019 “Right-Dislocated Pronouns in British English: The Form and Functions of ProTag Constructions.” English Language & Linguistics 23 (2): 253–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige
2012 “Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics.” Semantics and Pragmatics 5: 1–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solberg, Torgerd Kristin
1990 Modalpartikler i norsk [Norwegian modal particles]. Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Urbanik, Pawel
2018 “ Kan ikke du stå der, da? En sosiokognitiv analyse av finalpartikkelen da i interrogative kan-anmodninger [A socio-cognitive analysis of the final particle da in interrogative kan-requests].” Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 36: 299–330.Google Scholar
van Dommelen, Wim, Thorstein Fretheim, and Randi Alice Nilsen
1998 “The Perception of Boundary Tone in East Norwegian.” In Nordic Prosody: Proceedings of the VIIth Conference, Joensuu 1996, ed. by Stefan Werner, 73–86. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
van Kuppevelt, Jan
1995 “Discourse Structure, Topicality and Questioning.” Journal of Linguistics 31: 109–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Velleman, Leah, and David Beaver
2016 “Question-Based Models of Information Structure.” In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, ed. by Caroline Féry, and Shinichiro Ishihara, 86–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, and Betty J. Birner
2004 “Information Structure.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn, and Gregory Ward, 153–174. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua 90 (1/2): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziv, Yael
1994 “Left and Right Dislocations: Discourse Functions and Anaphora.” Journal of Pragmatics 22 (6): 629–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar