Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.2011, Síða 53

Orðmðuögnin er það ekki 51
Utterances. Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Essays in Honour of Thorstein Fretheim, bls.
175-189. Novus, Osló.
Svennevig, Jan. 2008. “Ikke sant” som respons i samtale. Janne Bondi Johannessen og
Kristin Hagen (ritstj.): Sprák i Oslo. Ny forskning omkring talesprák, bls. 127-138.
Novus, Osló.
Þorleifur Hauksson og Þórir Óskarsson. 1994. íslensk stílfrœði. Styrktarsjóður Þórbergs
Þórðarsonar og Margrétar Jónsdóttur, Háskóla Islands, og Mál og menning, Reykja-
vík.
Þóra Björk Hjartardóttir. 2006. Halar í samtölum. íslenskt mál 28:18—55.
Þórunn Blöndal. 20053. Lifandi mál. Inngangur að orðræðu- og samtalsgreiningu. Rann-
sóknarstofnun Kennaraháskóla Islands, Reykjavík.
Þórunn Blöndal. 2005b. Orðræðugreining og setningagreining. Höskuldur Þráinsson
(ritstj. og aðalhöfundur): Setningar. Handbók um setningafræði, bls. 677-695. íslensk
tunga III. Almenna bókafélagið, Reykjavík.
Þórunn Blöndal. 2006. „ ... og við bara alveg ókei... “. Vangaveltur um tíðni og hlutverk
ókei í íslensku talmáli. Skíma 29, 2:17-20.
SUMMARY
Keywords: interactional grammar, discourse particles, tags, response tokens, emphatic
agreement, epistemic authority
This paper discusses the usages and the function of the pragmatic marker er þad ekki in
Modern Icelandic authentic conversations. The marker has a double function as a tag and
as a response token. As a tag its main function is to appeal to the interlocutor for a con-
firmation of evaluative statement or shared knowledge. As a response token it is used to
express emphatic agreement with the interlocutor’s previous proposition and as such func-
tions as a marker of showing common ground and solidarity between the speaker and the
hearer. Moreover, the agreement is very often found to be grounded in the speaker’s
tndependent prior opinion or knowledge on the matter discussed, most often implicit
referred to in the foregoing conversation. Hence erþaðekki as a response token signals íhe
speaker’s re-confirmation of his or her own prior attitude. The speaker therefore can be
said to claim his/her epistemic authority on the topic since (s)he first brought it up in the
conversation; a topic which the interlocutor has interpreted and elaborated on further.
Þóra Björk Hjartardóttir
islensku- og menningardeild
Háskóla íslands
ÍS-101 Rjeykjavík, ÍSLAND
thorah@hi.is