1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 7, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 7 Number 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article examines how the two Swedish modal particles (approx. ‘as both you and I think/know’) and (approx. ‘this is an appropriate description of the circumstances’) are used to index different aspects of common ground (Diewald & Fischer 1998; Diewald 2006; Fischer 2007). It addresses the question of what aspects of common ground are indexed by these modal particles and how the indexical information about the argumentative situation is stored: Is it encoded in some kind of construction (Goldberg 1995) or is it organized in frames (Fillmore 2006 [1982])? By analyzing the indexical function of modal particles in terms of different aspects of common ground (Clark 1996) in two different registers, namely caregiver–child interaction and teenager interaction, we suggest that these aspects can be thought of as a sub-frame within a (Fischer 2006); the aspects of common ground to which the speakers appeal to in different situations are organized and stored in the sub-frame.

© 2015 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.06alm
2015-12-30
2024-12-02

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.06alm
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K
    (1977) Partiklarna ju och väl. [The particles ju and väl]. Nysvenska studier, 57, 205–216. Uppsala: Adolf Noreen-sällskapet,
     [Google Scholar]
  2. (1996) Swedish modal particles in a contrastive perspective. Language Sciences, 18, 393–427. doi: 10.1016/0388‑0001(96)00027‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(96)00027-7 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alm, M
    (2012) Why not Swedish modal particles?In J. Brandtler , D. Håkansson , S. Huber , & E. Klingvall (Eds.), Discourse and pragmatics: A festschrift in honor of Valéria Molnár (pp.29–52). Lund University.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergman, B
    (2007) Ordens ursprung: etymologisk ordbok över 2200 ord och uttryck. [The origin of the words: etymological dictionary of 2200 words and expressions]. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D. , & Conrad, S
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, H.H
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  7. Diewald, G
    (2006) Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 403–425). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2008) Die Funktion “idiomatischer“ Konstruktionen bei Grammatikal­i­sierungs­prozessen: illustriert am Beispiel der Modalpartikel ruhig . [The function of “idiomatic” constructions in grammaticalization processes: Using the example of ruhig ]. In A. Stefanowitsch & K. Fischer (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik (pp. 33–57). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Diewald, G. , & Fischer, K
    (1998) Zur diskursiven und modalen Funktion der Partikeln aber, auch, doch und ja in Instruktionsdialogen. [On the discourse and modal function of the particles aber, auch, doch and ja in instruction dialogues]. Linguistica, 38, 75–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Doherty, M
    (1985) Epistemische Bedeutung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, C.J
    (2006 [1982]) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fischer, K
    (2000) From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110828641
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110828641 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2006) Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 427–447). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2007) Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation equivalents. In A. Fetzer & K. Fischer (Eds.), Lexical markers of common grounds (pp. 47–66). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2014) Discourse markers. In K.P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Pragmatics of discourse (pp. 271–294). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fischer, K. , & Alm, M
    (2013) A radical construction grammar perspective on the modal particle-discourse particle distinction. In L. Degand , B. Cornillie , & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description (pp. 47–87). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.234.03fis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234.03fis [Google Scholar]
  17. Foolen, A
    (1989) Beschreibungsebenen für Partikelbedeutungen. [Description levels for particle meanings]. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln (pp. 305–317). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, A.E
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hellquist, E
    (1970) Svensk etymologisk ordbok. [Swedish etymological dictionary]. 3rd edition. Lund: Gleerup.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hentschel, E
    (1986) Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln: Ja, doch, halt und eben. [The function and history of German particles: ja, doch, halt and eben ]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111371221
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111371221 [Google Scholar]
  21. Heritage, J
    (2012) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lindner, K
    (1991) Wir sind ja doch alte Bekannte. The use of German ja and doch as modal particles. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German (pp. 163–202). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.12.07lin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.12.07lin [Google Scholar]
  23. Lindström, J
    (2008) Tur och ordning: Introduktion till svensk samtalsgrammatik. [According to turn: Introduction to Swedish discourse grammar.] Stockholm: Norstedts akademiska förlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. MacWhinney, B
    (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Nilsson, J
    (2005) Adverb i interaktion. [Adverbs in interaction]. Göteborg: Institutionen för svenska språket, Gothenburg University.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Saari, M
    (1979) Om adverben ju, nog och väl . [On the adverbs ju, nog and väl ]. InFestskrift till Björn Pettersson 29.12.1979. (pp. 219–243). Tammerfors: Skrifter utgivna vid institutionen för filologi II vid Tammerfors Universitet, nordisk filologi. 4.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (1995) “Jo, nu kunde vi festa nog”: Synpunkter på svenskt språkbruk i Sverige och Finland. [PRT we knew how to party PRT]. Folkmålstudier, 36, 75–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Strömqvist, S. , Richthoff, U. , & Andersson, A.-B
    (1993) Strömqvist’s and Richthoff’s corpora: A guide to longitudinal data from four Swedish children. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 66.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Teleman, U. , Hellberg, S. , & Andersson, E
    (Eds.) (1999) Svenska Akademiens grammatik IV. Satser och meningar. [The Grammar of the Swedish Academy. IV. Clauses and sentences]. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Thurmair, M
    (1989) Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. [Modal particles and their combinations]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111354569
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354569 [Google Scholar]
  31. Weydt, H
    (2006) What are particles good for?In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 205–217). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Wirdenäs, K
    (2002) Ungdomars argumentation: Om argumentationstekniker i gruppsamtal. [Teenager’s argumentation: About argumentation techniques in group discussions]. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Zeevat, H
    (2006) A dynamic approach to discourse particles. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 133–148). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Oxford Dictionaries. English
    : www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/well
  35. SAOB Svenska Akademiens ordbok [Extensive Dictionary of the Swedish Academy]: g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/
     [Google Scholar]
  36. SAOL Svenska Akademiens ordlista [Simple Dictionary of the Swedish Academy], 13th edition: www2.svenskaakademien.se/svenska_spraket/svenska_akademiens_ordlista/saol_13_pa_natet/ordlista
     [Google Scholar]
  37. NE Nationalencyklopedins svenska ordbok [Nationalencyklopedin’s Swedish Dictionary] (only available with subscription): www.ne.se/info/privat
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.06alm
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): common ground; construction grammar; modal particles; register; Swedish

Most Cited

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