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.

中文翻译：

---

一个跨语言谜题及其理论意义：挪威语 jo、德语 doch 和 ja，以及一个广告

人们早就认识到，至少有一些语言表达——比如连接词但用英语和迈斯在法语中，粒子医生在德语和乔在挪威语中——作用是影响观众的推理或推理过程，而不是提供概念性内容。然而，这些语言表达所触发的推理过程是否主要是为了影响听众对交流者论点的认识，还是主要是为了指导听众的理解过程，存在争议。我参考挪威广告中的一个有启发性的例子来讨论这个问题。广告是一种议论文，其中情态助词乔达到微妙的论证和文体效果，不同于相应的德国情态粒子所达到的效果医生要么雅. 我展示了由 Berthelin & Borthen 独立开发的程序语义分析（已提交）乔和昂格尔 (2016a, 2016b, 2016c)雅和医生支持对这些粒子的论证效果的语用语义解释。尽管我为各个粒子提出的语义与论证没有直接关系，但它足够具体，可以以可预测的方式影响论证。其原因是理解程序和论证程序在处理明示刺激（例如口头表达）时密切相互作用以获得最佳相关性。