Volume 39, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919



In this article we conduct a pragmatic analysis of the Dutch utterance-final particle (lit. ‘hear’). Apparently, has contradictory uses. It ex-presses politeness (involvement, togetherness), but it can also contribute to the face-threatening force of an utterance. We argue that there is a core meaning that all uses share, which is that by adding , speakers claim a proposition at issue to be part of the common ground. This core meaning will be shown to account for ’s key characteristics. expresses involvement and is often attached to speech acts that are intrinsically polite, such as apologizing and giving compliments. Also, while never occurs in interrogative sentences, it can be used with a certain type of directive speech acts, namely those that are in the interest of the hearer or are presented as having shared interests.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2010Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baranova, Julija & Mark Dingemanse
    2016 “Reasons for requests.” Discourse Studies18 (6): 641–675. 10.1177/1461445616667154
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616667154 [Google Scholar]
  3. van Bergen, Geertje & Lotte Hogeweg
    2021 “Managing interpersonal discourse expectations: a comparative analysis of contrastive discourse particles in Dutch.” Linguistics59 (2): 333–360. 10.1515/ling‑2021‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0020 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, Herbert
    2012 “Wordless questions, wordless answers.” Questions: formal, functional and interactional perspectivesed. byJan de Ruiter. 81–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.006 [Google Scholar]
  6. Evans, Nicholas, & David Wilkins
    2000 “In the mind’s ear: the semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages.” Language76 (3): 546–592. 10.2307/417135
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417135 [Google Scholar]
  7. Haverkate, Henk
    1979Impositive sentences in Spanish: theory and description in linguistic pragmatics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. de Hoop, Helen, Jetske Klatter, Gijs Mulder & Tijn Schmitz
    2016 “Imperatives and politeness in Dutch.” Linguistics in the Netherlands331: 41–53. 10.1075/avt.33.04hoo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.33.04hoo [Google Scholar]
  9. Kirsner, Robert S.
    2014Qualitative-quantitative analyses of Dutch and Afrikaans grammar and lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.67
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.67 [Google Scholar]
  10. Kirsner, Robert S. & Jeanine Deen
    1990 “Het mes snijdt aan twee kanten: on the semantics and pragmatics of the Dutch sentence-final particle hoor.” The Low Countries: Multidisciplinary Studiesed. byM. Bruijn Lacy. 1–12. Lanham: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kirsner, Robert S., Vincent J. van Heuven & Renée van Bezooijen
    1994 “Interaction of particle and prosody in the interpretation of factual Dutch sentences.” Linguistics in the Netherlands111: 107–118. 10.1075/avt.11.12kir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.11.12kir [Google Scholar]
  12. Kirsner, Robert S. & Vincent J. van Heuven
    1999 “How Dutch final particles constrain the construal of utterances: experiment and etymology.” Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics: selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference, Amsterdam, July 1997ed. byKaren Van Hoek, Andrej Kibrik & Leo Noordman. 165–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.176.13kir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.176.13kir [Google Scholar]
  13. Levinson, Stephen
    2012 “Interrogative intimations: on a possible social economics of interrogatives.” Questions: formal, functional and interactional perspectivesed. byJan de Ruiter. 11–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Lison, Pierre & Jörg Tiedemann
    2016 “Open Subtitles 2016: extracting large parallel corpora from movie and TV subtitles.” Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016)ed. byNicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Sarav Goggi, Marko Grobelnik, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Helene Mazo, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis. Paris: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Levshina, Natalia
    2017 “Online film subtitles as a corpus: an n-gram approach.” Corpora12 (3): 311–338. 10.3366/cor.2017.0123
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2017.0123 [Google Scholar]
  16. Mazeland, Harrie
    2010 “Hoor als tag: een beroep op sequentie-overstijgende relevanties.” Studies in Taalbeheersing 3ed. byWilbert Spooren, Margreet Onrust & José Sanders. 271–284. Assen: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mulder, Gijs
    1998 Indirecte en directe directieven in het Spaans: een analytisch en empirisch onderzoek naar taalhandelingen in het Spaans. DissertatieUniversiteit van Amsterdam. Den Haag: Holland Academic Graphics. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/004_fulltext.pdf
  18. 1999 “Directieven in het Spaans: een model voor empirisch onderzoek naar taalhandelingen.” Gramma/TTT7 (2): 117–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. O’Driscoll, Jim
    2017 “Face and (im)politeness.” The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politenessed. byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Dániel Z. Kádár. 89–118. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  20. Van Olmen, Daniël
    2010 “Imperatives of visual versus auditory perception as pragmatic markers in English and Dutch.” English Text Construction3 (1): 74–94. 10.1075/etc.3.1.05van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.3.1.05van [Google Scholar]
  21. 2013 “The imperative of say as a pragmatic marker in English and Dutch.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics25 (3): 247–287. 10.1017/S1470542713000123
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542713000123 [Google Scholar]
  22. Van Olmen, Daniël & Simone Heinold
    2017 “Imperatives and directive strategies from a functional-typological perspective: an introduction.” Imperatives and directive strategiesed. byDaniël van Olmen & Simone Heinold. 1–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.184.01van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.184.01van [Google Scholar]
  23. Philippa, Marlies, Frans Debrabandere, Arend Quak, Tanneke Schoonheim & Nicoline van der Sijs
    2003–2009Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Repp, Sophie
    2013 “Common ground management: modal particles, illocutionary negation and verum.” Beyond Expressives: explorations in use-conditional meaninged. byDaniel Gutzmann & Hans-Martin Gärtner. 231–274. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004183988_008
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004183988_008 [Google Scholar]
  25. San Roque, Lila, Kobin H. Kendrick, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Asifa Majid
    2018 “Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction.” Cognitive Linguistics29 (3): 371–406. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0034 [Google Scholar]
  26. Scollon, Ron & Suzanne Wong Scollon
    2001Intercultural communication: a discourse approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Searle, John
    1969Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  28. 1979Expression and meaning: studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  29. Searle, John & Daniel Vanderveken
    1985Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  31. Wiltschko, Martina
    2021The grammar of interactional language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108693707
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108693707 [Google Scholar]
  32. WNT = Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal
    WNT = Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal 1882–2001 Leiden: Instituut voor de Nederlandse Taal. gtb.ivdnt.org
  33. van der Wouden, Ton
    2002 “Partikels: naar een partikelwoordenboek voor het Nederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde71: 20–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. van der Wouden, Ton & Ad Foolen
    2015 “Dutch particles in the right periphery.” Final particlesed. bySylvie Hancil, Alexander Haselow & Margje Post. 221–247. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110375572‑010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110375572-010 [Google Scholar]
  35. Vuillermet, Marine
    2018 “Grammatical fear morphemes in Ese Ejja: making the case for a morphosemantic apprehensional domain.” Morphology and emotions across the world’s languagesed. byMaïa Ponsonnet and Marine Vuillermet. 256–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sl.00010.vui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.00010.vui [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus; discourse particles; politeness; speech acts; subtitles
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error