<!-- image -->

## Øv - a problem for categorization

Ehm Hjorth Miltersen Aarhus University e.hjorth@hotmail.com

Abstract: Th e Danish word øv is traditionally categorized as an interjection. However, in a set of data primarily from chat conversations, several instances of øv do not match any traditional defi  nition of interjections: It is syntactically integrated  and  thus  does  not  constitute  a  full  utterance  on  its  own,  and  its semantic-pragmatic use is  more  nuanced  than  'expressing  an  aspect  of  the speaker's  mental  state' . Th e  main  part  of  the  article  is  a  functionally-based analysis of these instances of øv , the insights from which are used to question the general practice of lexical categorization. I argue that a pragmatically based model of categorization is better able to account for the full range of uses for a word form.

## 1. Introduction

It is a common and usually undisputed practice to sort lexemes into lexical categories  (or  parts  of  speech,  or  word  classes,  or  syntactic  categories  etc. depending  on  the  theoretical  framework).  While  the  universality  and  the exact boundaries of the individual categories are frequently discussed topics, the labels of noun, verb, adjective, and so on, are widely used. Even theories that seek to describe and categorize linguistic units in other terms tend to use the traditional classes in some way, if only as easy short-hands.

Despite  the  almost  axiomatic  usage  of  lexical  categories,  it  is  also common knowledge that some words can function as members of more than one category, and that some words do not fi  t neatly into any one category. However, it is o ft en the case that the word in question can be seen as belonging mostly  to  one  specifi  c  category,  or  as  derived  from  a  word  clearly  fi  tting into one category. In this article, I will argue that this is not the case for the Danish word øv. Øv is  traditionally defi  ned as an interjection ( Den Danske Ordbog ' Th e Danish Dictionary'; Hansen and Helto ft 2011:1140). However, in  data  I  have  collected  primarily  from  1-on-1  chat  messages  between  18 individuals, øv is used in several ways that do not fi  t any traditional defi  nition of interjections, neither Danish nor cross-linguistic. I argue that it does not fi  t into any other traditionally defi  ned category either. Th e bulk of this article will be a functionally-based analysis of the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of several instances of øv found in my data. With the result of this analysis as motivation, the fi  nal part of the article will discuss the categorization of øv , and briefl  y the practice of categorization in general.

## 2. Interjections

Linguists  categorize  and  have  categorized  lexemes  based  on  a  wide  range of  features.  Some  have  taken  the  morphology  and  infl  ection  of  a  lexeme to  be  the  most  crucial  defi  ning  characteristic,  others  focus  on  syntactic distribution, others again semantics, and so on. Although some theoretical frameworks weigh some of these features heavier than others as criteria, most also acknowledge that any one criterion is insuffi cient on its own, and most linguists at least consider all these aspects in their categorization (Lehmann 2013:142). Just as the diff  erent criteria are prioritized diff  erently, the defi  nitions of specifi  c categories can vary from theory to theory and also from language to language. Since this article will frequently refer to 'traditional categories' and 'traditional defi  nitions' , this section will provide an overview of what is meant by that with respect to interjections, cross-linguistically and specifi  cally for Danish interjections. Th e account for Danish interjections will be based primarily on Hansen and Helto ft ' s 2011 reference grammar Grammatik over det Danske Sprog ('Grammar of the Danish Language'; henceforth HH). Th e cross-linguistic account will draw on several diff  erent authors.

As Ameka (1992:101) states, the interjections category is o ft en unaddressed in  traditional  grammars. Th e  term  has  been  used  by  diff  erent  scholars  for a  wide range of items, and cross-theoretically there is considerable overlap between interjections and other categories. Some even consider interjections paralinguistic, and their semantics and functions have been wildly discussed as  well.  Amidst  this  mess,  however,  it  is  still  possible  to  fi  nd  claims  about interjections that are mostly agreed upon. Most accounts distinguish between primary and secondary interjections. Primary interjections are usually defi  ned as 'not used otherwise' , are typically short in form and without infl  ectional or  derivational  morphology,  and  may  exhibit  phonology  and  morphology not found otherwise in the language in question (Hansen 1998:38; Wilkins 1992:124). Some examples from English are 'Wow!' and 'Ugh!' .  Secondary interjections, on the other hand, '[belong] to other word classes' , or are entire phrases that 'may conventionally be used as exclamations' (Hansen 1998:38; see  also  Wilkins  1992:125).  English  examples  are  'Nice!' ,  as  a  case  of  an adjective used as an interjection, or 'Oh my God!' , as a case of a phrase used as such. Following this common practice, this article will be referring to primary interjections when using the term 'interjections' .

Th e term interjections is used to refer to grammatical categories on various levels,  ranging  from  lexical  class,  to  minor  or  peripheral  clause  type,  over particles,  pragmatic  markers,  and  discourse  markers  (cf.  Ameka  1992, Norrick 2009, Fraser 1990, Hilmisdóttir 2007, Hansen 1998, among others). Ameka (1992:107), who classifi  es interjections as a lexical class and a type of pragmatic markers, further defi  nes them as a subcategory of what he calls routines. Routines are, together with particles, a subtype of pragmatic markers, defi  ned  by  their  ability  to  occur  alone  as  a  complete  utterance,  whereas particles  are  syntactically  integrated. Th e  ability  to  constitute  a  complete utterance on their own is also a widely, if not universally, accepted syntactic criterion for interjections. HH state that this is the primary, and historically the sole, criterion for the category, although HH do not consider all one-word utterances  ( etfeltshelheder )  interjections  (Hansen  and  Helto ft 2011:1133). Among their  examples  of  non-interjections  are  performative  routines  like Skål! ('Cheers!');  imperative  verbs;  and  what  they  consider  adjectives  with ellipsis, like Fedt ! (Literally 'Fat!' , used with a meaning similar to ' Awesome!'). 1 Although interjections can constitute a whole utterance, HH state that they can also be adjacent to another utterance that they frame or comment on. In that case they have one possible syntactic position, immediately preceding the utterance ('le ft of  the  sentence' ,  Hansen and Helto ft 2011:1131). In Danish grammatical tradition, this is  called  the  le ft interjectional  position  ( venstre interjektionalplads ,  Hansen  and  Helto ft 2011:328). Th is  utterance  may  be a  sentence  or  an  infi  nite  element  such  as  an  adverbial  or  a  noun  phrase: for  instance aha in, aha, det er en andengradsligning! 'aha,  it  is  a  quadratic equation!' ;  nå in  nå,  nu  til  sagen! 'well,  let's  get  to  it!' (Hansen and Helto ft 2011:1139).  A  subset  of  interjections,  which  HH  call  neutral  interjections, can also be placed at the very end of the utterance, in the right interjectional position ( højre interjectionalplads , Hansen and Helto ft 2011:1125). Th is group mainly contains answer tokens such as yes , no and okay.

Regarding the semantics and pragmatics of interjections, most accounts are compatible with the claim that they express an aspect of the speaker's mental state in a spontaneous and instinctive way. 'Expressing a mental state' can be  seen  simply  as  conveying  an  emotion  or  change  in  the  speaker's  mind (such  as  obtaining  new  information,  being  surprised,  feeling  pain),  and additionally, as Cruz (2009:25) defi  nes it, as encoding the speaker's attitude towards  something.  Some  argue  that  interjections  are  semantically  vague, which enables them to be used in many diff  erent, even mutually exclusive contexts (Cruz 2009:244). Others, such as Wierzbicka (1992), have attempted to give more specifi  c semantic accounts of individual interjections. Wilkins (1992:153), following Wierzbicka's work with interjections and her Natural Semantic  Metalanguage  programme,  argues  that  interjections  are  'built semantically  out  of  basic  deictic  elements' .  For  instance,  the  interjection yippee can  be  semantically  defi  ned  as  'Something here has  made me feel excited here and now and I say 'yippee' to show my feelings now ' (Wilkins 1992:132).  As  for  pragmatics,  Ameka  (1992:109)  distinguishes  between interjections  and  other  types  of  routines  (formulae)  in  that  interjections 'are spontaneous immediate responses to situations while the formulae are intentional and socially expected reactions to situations' . He thus limits the term interjections to what can be called response cries like wow! and ouch! , and  excludes  answer  tokens    ( yes , no ),  greetings,  and  other  items  such  as sorry from the category, all of which many other authors do call interjections. Cf.  HH's  categorization  of  answer  tokens  as  neutral  interjections  -  though they  also  state  that  answer  tokens  can  function  as  performative  routines (Hansen  and  Helto ft 2011:1134).  Neutral  interjections  are  one  of  HH's two subtypes of interjections, containing ja,  jo 'yes' , nej 'no' , okay, and nå. 2 Th e other subtype is subjective interjections, which are further divided into the groups emotive interjections, which are used to express the speaker's emotional mental state, and communicative interjections, which are used to characterize the adjacent utterance in terms of its discursive function, e.g. as an objection to  something in the preceding context (Hansen and Helto ft 2011:1132). In comparison,  Ameka  (1992:114)  divides  interjections  into  three  categories: expressive,  which  are  'vocal  gestures'  expressing  the  speaker's  emotive  or information  state,  such  as  'Wow!'  or  ' Aha!';  conative,  which  'demand  an action or response' from the recipient, such as 'Sh!' or 'Huh?'; and phatic, which establishes and maintains communicative contact, e.g. backchannels and continuers  such  as  'mhm'  and  some  uses  of  'yeah' .  Wilkins  (1992:153)  holds  that interjections 'are speech acts, […] convey complete propositions and have an illocutionary purpose' , while others, such as McGregor (1997:129, 118), argue that  they  cannot  have  truth  value  or  express  'most  of  the  major  speech  act  types' . 3

In  summary,  the  most  crucial  and  most  commonly  agreed  on  criteria  for interjections are that they can (and must) constitute a full utterance on their own, i.e. they are not syntactically integrated in a larger structure, and that they express an aspect of the speaker's mental state. In the rest of the article, I will show that øv does not fulfi  ll the fi  rst criterion, and that the second criterion is not very useful for defi  ning a lexical category.

## 3. Case study: øv

## 3.1. Data and method

Th e  data  used  for  the  present  study  (henceforth  'my  own  data')  consist primarily  of  written  conversations  conducted  through  the  chat  application Facebook Messenger. Part of the data are also Facebook messages, but written in private 'groups' rather than in the chat application. Th is part of the data was  kindly  provided  by  Maria  Jørgensen.  See  Jørgensen  (2017)  for  her treatment of the data. Th e conversations were volunteered by the participants and contain messages from 18 individuals. Apart from this, one example is a headline from the website of the Danish public service Danmarks Radio at dr.dk; another is from a TV reality show, both publicly available online. In addition to my own data, I look at examples from two corpora: SamtaleBank, a subsection of TalkBank, which is a corpus of video and audio recordings of spoken conversations, available at samtalebank.talkbank.org; and KorpusDK, a selected collection of written texts, available at ordnet.dk/korpusdk.

Traditionally, the form øv is  categorized as an interjection. According to its entry in Den Danske Ordbog (DDO), etymologically it is 'sound mimicking' , and  it  is  'used  to  express  vexation/disappointment  [da.  æ rgrelse ]  and displeasure. ' DDO's phonetic transcription of øv is [œw], and DDO lists æv [ ε w] as a synonym. My data contains instances of æv , but much fewer than øv . I have no instances of æv used in a way that øv is not, but I also do not have of æv used in all the ways I have seen øv used. Th erefore I will not exclude the possibility of the two forms being distinct, whether syntactically, semantically, or pragmatically, but for the purposes of this analysis I will assume that æv is in free variation with øv .

Øv fulfi  lls the traditional criteria for an interjection: It is short, does not infl  ect, can constitute a whole utterance on its own, and it can express the speaker's mental  state.  However,  in  my  data øv occurs  in  syntactically  integrated positions,  and  in  uses  that  are  more  nuanced  than  simply  expressions  of displeasure.  I  observe  three  types  of  'non-prototypical'  uses  of øv :  as  a predicate complement; as a head with a prepositional phrase complement; and as a nominal modifi  er. In the rest of this section, I characterize and exemplify these types in terms of their syntax and semantic-pragmatic functions. I do this  through  a  functionally-based  analysis.  By  functionally-based,  I  mean that I consider øv ' s function, particularly its pragmatic function, most salient for its defi  nition and classifi  cation. Consequently, considering the context of specifi  c instances of øv is crucial for the analysis, as the function of something is only apparent in context. It would be impossible for someone encountering a hammer for the fi  rst time to determine how to use it and why, without also having access to nails and some sort of surface to hammer those nails into. As Givón (2014:50) states:

'[g]rammar is not, primarily, about extracting the information of 'who did what to whom when and where and how' . Rather, the functional scope of grammar is […] about the coherence relations of the information in the clause to its surrounding discourse' .

Th erefore, while my analyses are of single utterances, the context of these will always be taken into account.

Sections  3.2.  through  3.6.  address  the  diff  erent  types  of  uses  found  in  the data,  3.2.  being  a  brief  account  of  prototypically  interjectional  use.  All Danish  examples  are  accompanied  by  my  own  glossing  and  translation. Where appropriate, the instances of øv will be translated into various English expressions with an approximate meaning in the context of the given example.

## 3.2. Øv as prototypical interjection

All examples elicited by a search for øv in the two corpora fi  t the traditional defi  nition  of  interjections. 4 Examples  are  given  in  (1-6). Th roughout  the article,  the  word øv is  glossed  ØV ,  as  no  simple  translation will do; for the same reason all prepositions are glossed PREP .

## (1) anne\_og\_beate.cha

| 89   | *BE:   | jeg skal aflevere den °for at komme I must hand.in it.C PREP to come til eksamen° m PREP exam   |
|------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 90   |        | (0.8)                                                                                           |
| 91   | *AN:   | det er en obliga # torisk en → it COP a mandatory one                                           |
| 92   | *BE:   | &=hostm cough                                                                                   |
| 93   |        | (0.6)                                                                                           |
| 94 Ò | *AN:   | ej øv EJØV                                                                                      |

BE: 'I have to hand it in to attend the exam'

AN: 'it is a mandatory one'

(BE coughs)

AN: 'aw man'

(SamtaleBank)

- (2) Hun ved,     hun skal  sige nej. Men tænker:  øv . she   knows  she   must  say  no.   but   thinks     ØV

'She knows she must say no. But thinks: darn'

- (3) øv   det  ved    du ikke noget  om ØV  it.N know you not  any.N PREP 'Boo, you don't know anything about that. '

(KorpusDK)

My  own  data  contains  similar  examples,  all  from  written  Facebook  chat messages:

- (4) A: […] så jeg synes det   var  meget ubehageligt so  I     think  it.N was  very    unpleasant-N B: øv L ØV A: '[…] so I thought it was very unpleasant. ' B: øv L
- (5) Åh   øv, jeg ville    være sikker på     ikke at komme ÅH ØV I      wanted be    sure    PREP not   to come for sent og  så er jeg  30 min for tidligt … too late and so am I    30  min too  soon ' Aw man, I wanted to be sure I was not late, and then I am 30 minutes early …'
- (6) nej, øv  hvor  kan man          godt mærke no   ØV where can PRO.GEN good feel at    vi   ikke var        der… that  we  not   were there 'No, øv , you can sure feel we were not there … '

## 3.2.1. Syntax

In all examples, øv functions as a full utterance. In (1) and (5), øv is preceded by another interjection, i.e. the interjection ej in (1) and the interjection åh in  (5),  and  the  examples  can  be  interpreted  as  two  adjacent  interjections (followed by a clausal utterance in (5)). In (4) øv is adjacent to an emoticon. In (2) øv stands alone, embedded in a clause as reported speech. In (3) and (6), øv is followed by an adjacent utterance in accordance with HH's account. In the cases where øv is followed by an utterance, that utterance can stand alone and is syntactically independent from øv .

## 3.2.2. Semantics and pragmatics

In all cases, øv expresses displeasure. In examples (2-3) and (5-6), the speaker is  expressing  displeasure  over  something  aff  ecting  them,  while  (1)  and  (4) are  responses  to  the  recipient  relaying  something  negative  they  have  been aff  ected  by.  In  the  latter  case,  the  displeasure  being  expressed  can  still  be seen as part of the speaker's mental state, if it is assumed that the responses are expressions not just of sympathy, but of empathy: Th e speaker shares the recipient's attitude towards the described situation. In fact, if the traditional view that interjections express the speaker's mental state is assumed, this is the only possible interpretation. Alternatively, (1) and (4) can be interpreted as indexing the recipient rather than the speaker, this diff  erence being inferable from the context. Th is would give øv a very diff  erent semantic and pragmatic value than traditionally described. Th is interpretation seems plausible in light of the analysis of my own data, but for now I draw no premature conclusions. Instead I move on to the non-traditional examples of øv .

## 3.3. Øv as predicate complement

In several instances, øv resembles a predicate complement:

- (7) det  er øv  at    du  skal   holde  igen   med  træning it.N is  ØV that you must hold    again PREP training 'It is frustrating that you need to hold back on working out. '
- (8) Er det  øv? is   it.N ØV 'Is it øv? '
- (9) han er super øv! he   is   super  ØV 'He is super annoying!'
- (10) men er det  ikke lidt        øv at  komme but   is  it.N  not   slightly  ØV to  come med   en  tegning? PREP  a   drawing 'But is it not somewhat bad style to bring a drawing?'
- (11) Jeg bliver     faktisk  rigtig øv     når    hun siger det I     become  actually really ØV      when she says      it.N 'I actually get really upset when she says that. '

(7) through (10) are written messages from private Facebook chats, while (11) is  the  sole  spoken  example  in  my  data,  uttered  by  a  contestant  on  the  TV reality show Paradise Hotel . In my experience, all the written examples are also common in casual speech.

## 3.3.1. Syntax

Syntactically, øv in these examples acts as a predicate complement. In (7-10), øv is  assigned  to  the  role  of  predicate  complement  by  the  copula er 'is' .  In (11), the verb bliver 'becomes' also designates øv as the predicate complement. In Danish, the material fi  lling the predicate complement position is o ft en an adjective, and the above examples are some of several cases of øv behaving something like an adjective. As (9) and (10) show, øv is  even  gradable  like an adjective, here modifi  ed by the adverbs super and lidt ' a  little' .  In  (7-10), øv could be replaced by an adjective of similar meaning, such as ubehageligt 'unpleasant' , and largely retain the meaning of the sentence (the case of (11) is slightly diff  erent and is addressed further below):

- (7') det er ubehageligt at du skal holde igen med træning
- (8') Er det ubehageligt?
- (9') han er super ubehagelig!
- (10') men er det ikke lidt ubehageligt at komme med en tegning?

Unlike prototypical adjectives, øv does not infl  ect to agree with its subject. 5 For some Danish adjectives, this infl  ection is optional, but it does not seem to be even possible for øv ; at least in my data, the form * øvt does not occur. 6

## 3.3.2. Semantics and pragmatics

While  the  meaning  expressed  by  these  instances  of øv are  all  related  to displeasure, it is slightly more nuanced than simply an expression of the speaker experiencing  displeasure. Th is  is  in  part  due  to øv ' s  role  as  a  complement rather than a complete utterance: being syntactically connected to the subject of the sentence, øv characterizes this subject as something causing displeasure. Depending on the pragmatic context, diff  erent actors may be the one who experiences this displeasure. In (7) and (8), the aff  ected party is the recipient, and the utterances are used to express sympathy with them, as in (7), or ask if there is reason to sympathize, as in (8). Although the focus here is on the recipients themselves, note that the construction det er øv 'it  is øv ' (with or without a following subordinate clause) can also be used to describe something about a person's situation. An example from a written chat conversation is given as (12):

- (12) Men vi  er  tjekket   ud  så har but   we are checked  out so have ikke noget værelse, så  det  er lidt       øv . not   any     room       so  it.N is slightly ØV 'But we are checked out, so we haven't got a room, so that is a little annoying. '

In (9) there is no overt indicators as to who is aff  ected, the sole focus lying on the subject being unpleasant. (10) is a proposal that a third party may be displeased by the speaker giving him a drawing for his birthday.

While øv in (11) is still predicated of the subject, jeg 'I' , the meaning is not that the speaker is a cause of displeasure. Rather, the adverbial subordinate clause når hun siger det 'when she says that' specifi  es a circumstance that causes the speaker (i.e. the subject) displeasure. Consequently, øv cannot be replaced by ubehagelig and retain the meaning of the utterance. Th e  sentence jeg  bliver faktisk rigtig ubehagelig når hun siger det would indeed mean that the subject becomes  unpleasant  towards  others  'when  [the  other  person]  says  that' . On the other hand, øv can still be replaced by another adjective that is also semantically related to øv : the sentence jeg bliver faktisk rigtig ærgerlig ('cross') når hun siger det would have a similar meaning to (11).

## 3.4. Øv as head with prepositional phrase

Øv can also precede a prepositional phrase:

- (13) øv   med  det  ked       af      det  hed ØV PREP it.N KED 7 PREP  it.N ness 'Sucks about that sadness [i.e. it sucks that you are sad]'
- (14) øv    til      det første ØV  PREP it.N  fi  rst-DEF ' Øv to the fi  rst part. '
- (15) øv for     dig ØV PREP  you 'Sucks for you. '
- (16) Øv  for     hans headset ØV PREP his     headset 'Sucks about his headset. '
- (17) Æv  på      dig ÆV PREP  you 'Boo on you.'

All examples are written Facebook chat messages.

## 3.4.1. Syntax

In  all  the  examples  in  this  group, øv appears  with  a  prepositional  phrase consisting of a preposition and a nominal (on the structure of the prepositional phrase, see Hansen and Helto ft 2011:103). Th e nominal (henceforth N) can be a noun with or without modifi  ers, or a pronoun. Some restrictions apply as to when it can be a noun or a pronoun, but these appear to be semantic or pragmatic in nature (cf. Hansen and Helto ft 2011:278). As for what material role øv plays  in  these  examples, and considering øv ' s  possible  paradigmatic relationship with adjectives discussed above, it is relevant to ask whether other adjectives can occur in constructions like this. While to my ear the sentences ubehageligt med N and ubehageligt for dig are grammatical, I am more doubtful about ?ubehageligt til N and ?ubehageligt på dig. Again, this may be a question of semantic or pragmatic restrictions.

In example (13), the construction matches what HH calls antisubject (Hansen and Helto ft 2011:1227). I will not go into their full and somewhat complicated account  of  antisubject  here,  but  according  to  this  interpretation  of  (13), the utterance is semantically equivalent with Det ked af det hed er øv ' Th at sadness  is  ØV' .  However,  according  to  HH's  account,  only  the  preposition med 'with' forms antisubjects, while my data shows examples of constructions with various other prepositions, which, as will be shown in 3.4.2., have very similar meanings to (13). Based on my observations, these are fairly common expressions in Danish, both with øv and with other elements in its place (e.g. godt for dig ' good for you' or hvad sker der for det? 'what's up with that?'), but to my knowledge, these phenomena are not described in any Danish reference grammar. HH do describe a related construction, that of antiobjects, being formed  with  prepositions  other  than med ,  but  antiobjects  are  somewhat diff  erent  from  the  prepositional  phrase  constructions  in  examples  (14-17). Th erefore, I will treat examples (13-17) as instances of a novel construction and analyze them independently of the notion of antisubject and antiobject, though keeping in mind that the phenomenon may be related to the former.

Øv in (13-17) seems to be the core constituent of the utterances, wherefore I argue that øv should be seen as a syntactic head with a prepositional phrase complement.  Another  interpretation  is  it  being  a  variant  of  the  predicate complement constructions, with an ellipted dummy subject and copula. Th is works for most of the examples:

- (13') Det er øv med det ked af det hed 'It sucks that you are sad'
- (15') Det er øv for dig 'It sucks for you. '
- (16') Det er øv for hans headset 'It sucks about his headset. '

As  mentioned  above,  these  three  examples  are  the  ones  where  a  similar meaning  is  obtained  if  the  adjective ubehageligt is  used  in øv 's  place  -  in the remaining two examples, there also seems to be a diff  erence in how and whether an ellipsis analysis makes sense. In the case of (14), the utterance could be interpreted as (Jeg siger) 'øv' til det første '(I say) 'ØV' to the fi  rst part' , i.e. as the speaker summarizing their reaction to one part of the earlier discourse (cf. 3.4.2). However, (17) seems less probable as a case of ellipsis: ? (Det er) øv på dig '(It  is)  ØV  on  you'  does  not  clarify  the  meaning  of  the utterance compared to the original example. Since all the examples in this group have comparable meanings, and further since the ellipsis analysis is not uncontroversial in grammatical theory in general, I will avoid assuming that any of the examples (13-17) are instances of ellipsis. While there might be diff  erence between the constructions with med, for ,  or no preposition as opposed to those with til or på , I will, in this article, interpret øv as the head in all examples, no ellipsis involved.

Finally, this leaves of course the question of what exactly øv is the head of. It might be seen as heading the clause, which per Hengeveld (1992:68) would make øv a  verb.  However,  there  is  otherwise  little  reason  to  call øv a  verb: it  neither  infl  ects  like  one  nor  does  it  refer  to  an  action.  Further,  verbless utterances are perfectly common in Danish, especially in casual conversation (Samtalegrammatik.dk 2017a; Helto ft 2015). For this reason, I will simply call øv in these constructions a head with a prepositional phrase complement.

## 3.4.2. Semantics and pragmatics

Here as well, øv indicates  that  something or someone has caused someone else displeasure. Th e specifi  c preposition determines who aff  ects whom. Th is seems largely semantically encoded in the prepositions, but it is possible for the same preposition to be used with diff  erent meanings, suggesting that the pragmatic context is also crucial.

Th e construction øv med N in (13) is used when the recipient has talked about N, and N or some situation relating to N has a negative impact on the recipient. Th e speaker can use the construction to express sympathy for the recipient.

At  fi  rst  glance øv  til  N in  (14)  has  the  same  function,  only  in  cases  where the recipient has talked about both N and one or more other things, and the speaker wants to comment specifi  cally on N. However, as mentioned above, øv' s  syntactic behavior is diff  erent in adjacency with til as opposed to med . Th e fact that ? Det er øv til N may not be a possible construction, but Det er øv med N seems to be, suggests that øv med N is more 'predicate-like' , while the meaning expressed by øv til N is  more along the lines of 'I say øv to N' (cf. Wierzbicka (1992) and Wilkins (1992) on the semantics of interjections). Nevertheless, the illocutionary function of øv til N is also to express sympathy with the recipient.

Øv for  N is  also  used  to  express  sympathy  but  has  two  possible  meanings depending on the semantics of the nominal. In (15), dig 'you' is not the source of displeasure, but rather the person aff  ected by it. It expresses that it is bad to be in the recipient's situation. Th is cannot be the case for (16), as hans headset 'his  headset'  is  not  an  animate  being  capable  of  subjective  experience,  and the  context  -  the  recipient  having  just  mentioned  that  someone's  headset has  broken  -  suggests  that  it  should  be  interpreted  the  same  way  as  if  the preposition med had been used. Th e diff  erence seems to depend on whether the nominal is animate or inanimate, and not whether it is a noun phrase or a pronoun: In øv for hans headset , the noun phrase could be replaced by the pronoun det and the utterance would retain its meaning. It is unclear whether the reverse is true, i.e. whether øv for n [ animate ] can only mean that N is experiencing displeasure, and there are no concrete examples in my data to examine with this question in mind.

Example (17) suggests that this animacy restriction is not universal for all prepositions: Here, the speaker uses æv på dig to signal that the recipient has done something that causes the speaker displeasure. Th is is a similar meaning as the øv med N construction, except that the aff  ected party is the speaker, not the recipient. Th us (17) is not an expression of sympathy, but in terms of illocutionary acts rather an accusation or reproach. My data has no examples of øv på N where N is a noun, so further research is necessary to determine if the construction can only mean that N is a cause of displeasure.

Returning  to  the  issue  that  it  seems øv can  be  replaced  by  an  adjective  in constructions with med or for but not in constructions with til or på , in til ' s case it may be explained by øv here having a more prototypically interjectionlike  function  than  in  the  other  examples. Øv på dig is  less  straightforward to explain, but it was suggested to me that it may be a calque from English (cf. Shame on you ), making it syntactically anomalous. Øv på dig may also be dialectical, sociolectal, or even idiolectal, as, based my own casual investigation, it is not accepted by all speakers.

## 3.5. Øv as nominal modifi  er

In the last type of constructions, øv acts as a modifi  er inside a noun phrase:

- when  you  fi  nd  out  that  I  am  fully

```
(18) Jeg har   ha ft en   mega         øv   dag, I      have had   an   extremely  ØV day med   dårlig undervisning PREP bad     teaching 'I have had a really bad day with bad teaching' (19) En underlig følelse  af  øv   når    man a    weird      feeling  of  ØV  when  PRO.GEN fi  nder ud  af         at     jeg er fi  nds    out PREP   that   I     am fuldt vaccineret fully  vaccinated ' A  weird  feeling  of øv vaccinated. '
```

- (20) Drake            har det  altid   værre: 5 sange Drake[name] has it.N  always worse  5 song-PL der           redder       din   øv-dag PRO.REL save your  ØV-day 'Drake is always feeling worse: 5 songs that will save your sucky day'

(18)  and  (19)  are  written  chat  messages,  while  (20)  is  the  headline  of  an entertainment article on dr.dk (Danmarks Radio 2017).

## 3.5.1. Syntax

While øv modifi  es  a  nominal  in  all  these  examples,  the  constructions  are syntactically  diverse.  In  (18), øv modifi  es dag the  same  way  an  adjective might: cf. en mega træls dag 'a really unpleasant day' , en mega god dag 'a really good day' . In (20), øv also modifi  es dag, but as part of a compound. Th e two morphemes are linked by a hyphen, suggesting some degree of disconnect between them. Here, øv cannot be replaced with just any adjective: *træls-dag; 8 *trælsdag; *dejlig-dag 'nice-day' . Several adjectives do form compounds with dag ( dagligdag ' everyday' ; fridag lit. 'free day' , 'day off   ') but the formation is not unrestrictedly productive, while noun -dag compounding arguably is. In (19), øv is in a prepositional phrase with af, modifying følelse 'feeling' . Again øv is not replaceable with an adjective ( *en underlig følelse af underlig 'a weird feeling of weird'), being in a usually nominal position (cf. en underlig følelse af ærgelse 'a weird feeling of vexation'). A diff  erence between this group and the previous ones is that the modifi  ed nominal is a new entity introduced to the discourse. In the previous examples, the entity associated with øv was preestablished in the discourse. Th is was signaled syntactically by anaphora or by the speaker repeating the phrasing used by the recipient. In contrast, the indefi  nite article en is used in (18) and (19). Being the headline of an article, (20) begins a new discourse.

## 3.5.2. Semantics and pragmatics

In all three examples, øv acts as a modifi  er that indicates something is a cause of displeasure. In (18) and (20), dag ' day' is modifi  ed to mean 'an unpleasant day' . In (19), øv also modifi  es (en underlig) følelse , but just like the syntax is diff  erent, so are the semantics slightly diff  erent from the other two examples. Th e  feeling  is  not  necessarily  unpleasant;  rather  the  situation  the  speaker describes is. Th e  'feeling of øv '  is  weird  because the situation is essentially good, but its consequences are negative. Th e semantic and syntactic diff  erences may be related, as a prepositional phrase following the head noun can be said to have larger scope and be less closely connected to the head than a modifi  er preceding it (Rijkhoff   2008:14).

## 3.6. A misfi  t

One frequently occurring construction is similar to the examples of øv as a predicate complement and as a head with a prepositional phrase, but it is not straightforward to place in either group. An example from my data is given as (21):

<!-- formula-not-decoded -->

At fi  rst glance, it resembles the predicate complement construction with the subject and copula ellipted. Upon closer examination, however, it may share more characteristics with the prepositional phrase construction.

A traditional interpretation of (21) might be as an interjection + a free-standing nominal. Intonation may play a role for how to interpret the syntax of the construction. Of course, (21) being a written example, there is no intonation to  base  an  interpretation  on.  However,  I  have  informally  observed  spoken examples of øv at S, where it has sounded to me to be uttered without a break in intonation. For the sake of this analysis, I will go with this admittedly imperfect theory about the intonation. Ideally, a formal analysis of the intonation of øv at S -constructions should be conducted in the future to investigate the matter closer. For now, I will discuss example (21) using the information available.

On  the  role  of  intonation  for  interjections,  HH  state  that  a  continuous intonation  pattern  encompassing  both  interjection  and  adjacent  utterance ('utterance  topic')  signals  a  connection  between  the  two,  making  them interpretable as one utterance (Hansen and Helto ft 2011:1115). But in øv at I er syge , øv appears integrated into the clause rather than simply connected to it. Consider HH's example nåh, et lille lam ' aww, a little lamb' (Hansen and Helto ft 2011:1113). 9 Both here and in (21) the utterance topic acts as a nominal; in (21) it is a subordinate clause, in HH's example a bare noun phrase. DDO states that a subordinate clause introduced by at o ft en acts as the true subject of the clause. If øv had the same function as HH's nåh , an utterance of the form øv, I er syge would be less marked. Given this and the fact that the form øv at S where S is a clause is frequent in my data and general observations, I hold that it is a construction type diff  erent and separate from HH's example.

Following this analysis, example (5) øv hvor kan man godt mærke at vi ikke var der could be interpreted the same way, as an interjection with a complement, rather than an interjection commenting on an utterance topic as per HH. Both at I er syge and hvor kan man godt mærke at vi ikke var der could stand alone as an exclamation expressing a degree of surprise or intensity with stress on at and kan , respectively. Assuming the traditional defi  nition of interjections, HH's analysis makes sense, but if øv can function as shown in section 3.4., the other interpretation may be more likely. It seems to me that there would be a diff  erence in the stress pattern between the utterances with øv and without øv , so a closer study of the intonation could be relevant.

In summary, I fi  nd two possible interpretations of øv at I er syge , not counting the traditional one: i) øv as a predicate complement with dummy subject and copula ellipted, or ii) an independent interjection with a complement, perhaps the same construction as the one in 3.4. with the preposition ellipted. Which of the analyses is more appropriate may depend on the pragmatic function(s) of the construction, but since examples in sections 3.3. and 3.4. both are used the same way as (21) - as sympathizing responses - there does not seem to be enough basis for a decisive conclusion.

## 3.7. Summary: Characteristics of øv

According to my analysis, øv can appear in more positions than 'le ft of the utterance' , appearing syntactically integrated into the clause. It can resemble an  adjective  in  predicate  complement  position  or  modifying  a  nominal, or  resemble  a  modifying  noun  inside  a  prepositional  phrase  or  part  of  a compound. It can also fulfi  ll a function not resembling that of any specifi  c other lexical category: In the examples in section 3.4., øv is placed to the le ft , but I argue that it acts as a head in a syntactic unit with the prepositional phrase, rather than as an adjacent utterance.

Øv fails Ameka's criteria of being a 'spontaneous immediate response' , as its syntactic  integration  suggests  more  planning  than  that  -  at  the  very  least, nothing suggests that øv is any more 'spontaneous' than any given adjective, noun, or word of any other category. As for HH's distinction between emotive and communicative function, øv straddles the two: it both expresses emotion on the speaker's part and is a reaction to previous discourse. In this sense, øv is  also  problematic  with  regards  to  HH's  distinction  between  subjective interjections  as  opposed  to  neutral  interjections  as  responses  to  previous utterances (cf. Hansen and Helto ft 2011:§2). Additionally, øv can be part of the starting utterance in a new discourse. It also fulfi  lls both Ameka's expressive and phatic functions. When it acts as a head, øv ' s pragmatic function fi  ts Cruz' (2009) description of interjections as encoding the speaker's attitude towards something, if the intended meaning is interpreted as 'I say øv to N' . However, when it is in predicate or modifi  er position, it has this function only to the extent that an adjective also encodes the speaker's attitude towards something (the attitude being having the opinion that something is e.g. annoying or red in color) - or even to the extent that a noun encodes the speaker's attitude that the object the noun in question denotes exists in the world. Given that

'encoding the speaker's attitude towards something' could in this sense be true for almost any word, it is not a suffi ciently salient criterion for defi  ning a lexical category.

If øv does not fi  t the traditional defi  nition of an interjection, how can its usage be characterized instead? In all its syntactic functions, øv is  semantically similar to an adjective like ubehagelig(t) 'unpleasant' , though examples like (11) show that  they  are  not  synonymous,  nor  syntactically  interchangeable.  Instead,  I argue that øv has something to do with a subjective experience of displeasure; pragmatically, it indicates that some specifi  c thing is unpleasant. Th is does not contradict DDO's account of øv as  'expressing vexation or displeasure' , but øv ' s function in my data is more nuanced than that, as it can assign the feeling of displeasure to either the speaker, the recipient, or both or neither.

In his proposal of interjections as deictics, Wilkins argues that interjections may originate  from  imperative  verbs  and  that  'it  is  just  a  short  step  from having  one  [argument  fi  lled]  by  extra-linguistic  context  […]  to  having  all arguments  fi  lled  by  extra-linguistic  context'  (1992:131).  Following  this, øv as a traditionally defi  ned interjection would inherently index elements of the speech situation, resulting in a meaning a la ' I am feeling displeasure about something here and now ' . If øv as examined in the present article is derivative from this usage, the same deictic elements would be in play. It may explain cases like (11): If øv indexes the speaker as experiencing something unpleasant, then the speaker being the subject of øv would not make the speaker the cause in an unmarked situation. Compare en øv dag or en træls dag ' an unpleasant day' , with the semantically dubious #en ærgerlig dag ' a vexed day' . Ærgerlig can replace øv in some circumstances but not others, relating to the two possible meanings of ærgerlig: Det er ærgerligt means something akin to 'it is too bad' , i.e. the subject is a cause of disappointment, while jeg er ærgerlig means 'I am vexed' ,  i.e.  the  subject  is  disappointed. 10 Similarly, øv can  describe  both  the cause and the aff  ected, but more fl  exibly than ærgerlig(t) , requiring no change in morphological form. Th is characterization of both øv and ærgerlig(t) would be in keeping with Hengeveld and Rijkhoff  's (2005) view that hidden features of multifunctional words are triggered by contextual cues and only surface in  context. Th e  fl  exibility  of øv could  be  explained  by  deictic  information already  being  present  in øv .  Alternatively,  consider  McGregor's  (2013:245) view that  nothing  is  hidden  in  a  lexeme  (multifunctional  or  not)  and  that particular meanings are the compounded results of its semantics, its syntactic environment, and pragmatic inferences. Following this, the diff  erent meanings of øv would be due to semantic and pragmatic restrictions imposed by the context, such as people being unlikely to disparage themselves, or, in the case of the uses of diff  erent prepositions, the animacy of the subject.

## 4. Categorizing øv

Having analyzed diff  erent examples of øv , I now turn to how - or whether - to place øv in a lexical category. Th e fact that øv need not stand alone would per Ameka's criterion make it a particle. His description of particles 'expressing speaker  attitudes  or  perspectives  towards  a  proposition'  matches  what øv seems to do in the discussed examples (Ameka 1992:107). However, particles do not normally have the adjective-like or nominal-like functions, nor the full  syntactic  distribution  pattern øv does,  which  counts  against  grouping them together. Øv in diff  erent positions seems to act more like a prototypical interjection, more like an adjective, occasionally more like a nominal (without otherwise bearing any striking resemblance to a noun). Th is could be a reason to assign several category labels to øv , arguing for overlapping categories; or more conservatively, calling øv an  'interjection with adjectival function' or something similar. But in my view øv 's resemblance to either interjections or adjectives is not strong enough to justify categorizing it as such. I argue for this in the next two sections.

## 4.1 Øv as an adjective

Th roughout my analysis, I have compared øv to adjectives. Yet, there are key diff  erences between the two. As stated earlier, øv does not infl  ect like most adjectives. Syntactically, øv is sometimes but not always interchangeable with an adjective. Th is does not necessarily exclude øv from the category: As Cro ft (2001:75) points out, distributional analysis 'o ft en reveals covert categories' . Th ese subcategories may  diff  er in their infl  ectional and  distributional patterns.  Consider  that  semantic  restrictions  infl  uence  the  order  in  which adjectives  can  appear  as  modifi  ers  in  noun  phrases  (Hansen  and  Helto ft 2011:529; Bache 1978). For instance, the noun phrase a big red dog / en stor, rød hund is the unmarked choice compared to a red big dog / en rød, stor hund in both English and Danish. It could be that øv is  part  of  a  subcategory  of adjectives with fewer options for infl  ection and syntactic placement. In terms of semantics, øv indicates a subjective experience of displeasure. 'Indicating subjective experiences/properties' also characterizes a possible subcategory of  adjectives  that  can  be  used  as  exclamations  (i.e.  interjectionally): Th e utterance Træls! (similar  in  meaning  to ubehagelig ,  cf.  note  8)  is  common, while ? Rød! 'Red!' would require very specifi  c circumstances. Th is may also be the rule determining which adjectives can occur in øv ' s place in the discussed examples.

But once subcategorization is accepted, we are quickly faced with the challenge of deciding how similar or diff  erent lexemes need to be to justify calling them the  same  category,  subclasses  of  the  same  category,  or  separate  categories. While a subcategory of 'adjectives of subjective experience' can be proposed, the correlation it predicts is not perfect. Recall the end of 3.7. on the meanings of ærgerligt versus ærgerlig and corresponding uses of øv ,  as  well  as  questionable utterances like ? ærgerligt til N and *ærgerlig til N . If the subcategory status of a given adjective determines whether it can be used like øv , this would imply that ærgerlig(t) changes subcategory depending on its gender infl  ection. Th is seems like a problematic implication. Some do argue that infl  ection can make a diff  erence in categorization, e.g. that gerund and participium verbal forms are better considered nouns and adjectives, respectively, but for ærgerlig(t) the pattern is not extendable to other adjectives, weakening that interpretation. Th e analysis of øv as an adjective also fails to explain examples like (19) and (20) where øv syntactically behaves nothing like an adjective and in fact more like a noun. Overall, I see no clear and unambiguous pattern for ø v ' s likeness to an adjective and would not categorize it as such.

## 4.2. Øv as an interjection

As the main point of this article, I argue that øv does not match the traditional defi  nition  of  an  interjection.  However,  before  discounting  that  label,  it is  relevant  to  ask  whether  the  features  of øv are  shared  with  other  forms traditionally  called  interjections.  If  so,  the  problem  might  be  addressed  by redefi  ning the category.

In  my  own  data  and  the  corpora,  the  discussed  constructions  seem  much less frequent with other interjections than øv .  My data has two instances of the form yay , which is not Danish in origin, that resemble the prepositional phrase construction:

- (22) Yay for    dig! yay PREP you 'Yay for you!'
- (23) Yay  til       det   sidste       og    øv   til yay  PREP it.N  last-DEF and ØV PREP det  første
3. it.N fi  rst-DEF 'Yay to the last part and øv to the last part. '

Following my own intuition, however, øv in  the  predicate  compliment and prepositional phrase constructions can be replaced with another interjection such as wow or nå , under the right circumstances. DDO also recognizes nå as a modifi  er in the compound nå-generation 'indiff  erent-generation' , structurally identical to example (20). Yet, some of the sentences would probably be less intuitively understandable than their øv counterparts. A sentence er det nå ? 'is  it nå? '  might  require  a  qualifying  explanation  to  determine  whether nå expresses  indiff  erence  or  disappointment  or  something  else,  while  I  doubt that ? nå at I er syge ' nå that you are sick' would be accepted at all. Using nå

in the prepositional phrase construction also seems unlikely, and I personally would struggle to accept several interjections as replacing øv as  a  predicate complement: e.g. ? Det er pyha 'it is phew'; ? Det er bøh 'it is boo' . 11

As with the adjective category, this does not necessarily mean øv does  not belong to a subcategory of interjections. If øv indicates a subjectively unpleasant experience,  perhaps  only  interjections  expressing  subjective  experiences can be used in this way - in other words, those with emotive or expressive function. Th is excludes e.g. bøh 'boo' . However, it does not explain why nå is only possible in some of the constructions discussed, as this interjection can express a subjective experience e.g. of indiff  erence. While nå also has other, more  discursive  functions,  its  presence  in  a  compound  like nå-generation suggests that at least it can function like øv (cf. note ii). Likewise, pyha 'phew' , which  might  be  unacceptable  in  all  the  discussed  constructions,  expresses relief. HH mention pyha as an example of an interjection without illocutionary function, enabling it to be inserted amidst an utterance: det var, pyha, godt at vi nåede toget 'it was, phew, good that we made the train' (Hansen and Helto ft 2011:1142). While there is nothing inherent in pyha 's  semantics that would make it less illocutionary than øv (and I fi  nd HH's example awkwardly worded at best), it cannot be denied with absolute certainty that this could explain the diff  erence in syntactic distribution. Regardless, nå is a harder fi  t. Further study may uncover a clearer pattern and provide basis for redefi  ning the interjections category, including possible semantic or functional subcategories, but for now it seems hard to fi  t øv into a paradigm of interjections as traditionally defi  ned.

## 5. Final remarks

In conclusion, øv does not fi  t easily into any traditional lexical category. It is not the only word, neither in Danish nor other languages, for which this is the case. Instead of treating these cases as misfi  ts or exceptions to the existing classifi  cation  system,  it  might  make  more  sense  to  reconsider  the  system altogether. Categorizing individual lexemes tells us something about certain aspects of their behavior, depending on which criteria we use to categorize them, making it somewhat of a circular practice. Many lexemes, øv included, are  multifunctional. Th is  is  not  necessarily  a  problem  for  describing  those lexemes, but if we are to categorize them, too heavily overlapping categories render  themselves  useless.  An  approach  to  this  is  to  consider  individual lexemes unspecifi  ed and only having the potential for being categorized in context  (see  e.g.  Jensen  2016).  However,  this  approach  does  not  eliminate the need for categorization, only postpones it. While there may be languages whose individual lexemes can carry out any possible function, this is clearly not  always  the  case,  and øv specifi  cally  carry  out  functions  that  are  not straightforwardly  defi  nable  as  either  interjectional  or  adjectival  or  similar. As  mentioned,  categorization  can  be  done  on  the  basis  of  many  diff  erent criteria. Staying with the pragmatic-functional focus of my own analysis, an alternative to the above is doing away with the traditional categories altogether and instead creating new, pragmatic categories. Th is has already been done in various grammatical theories: In Moore and Carling (1982:161) a radical form of instructional semantics would describe all words as having procedural as opposed to declarative meaning, being 'instructions' to the recipient as to how to interpret and react to utterances. Meaning is seen not as fi  xed and stored in the forms themselves, but instead as triggered in the mind of the recipient and more dependent on context. Other proposals are Cro ft ' s (2001) Radical Construction Grammar and McGregor's (1997) Semiotic Grammar. By  adopting  a  pragmatic  categorization  system,  it  becomes  less  crucial  to distinguish between paralinguistic and 'wholly' linguistic behavior, as things like laugher, hesitation markers, body language etc. are certainly meaningful and can too be analyzed as a kind of instructions, while analyzing them as linguistic signs in the traditional sense may be harder to argue for (Hansen 1998:245). However, many existing theories only briefl  y or not at all address 'minor word classes' such as interjections, and therefore cases like øv , or they, despite their innovative approach to categorization, use the traditional labels, the defi  nitions of which restrict how e.g. øv can possibly be described. Th e use of the traditional categories has a long history. Eschewing them altogether would  be  a  massive  undertaking  -  but  perhaps  worthwhile  in  creating  a complete and satisfactory functionally-based model of categorization.

## Notes

- 1 HH's account contrasts with that of Christensen and Christensen, which consider expletives and formulaic social expressions interjections (2014:156).
- 2 For meanings and uses of nå, see samtalegrammatik.dk 2013a, 2013b, and 2017b; and Mølgaard  2016. For meanings and uses of okay, see Mortensen and Mortensen 2009.
- 3 Note that McGregor states that all utterances do have illocutionary force.
- 4 An exception may be Øv for alle! in KorpusDK, which could be analyzed as an instance of the construction described in section 3.4.
- 5 Th is also seems to be the case for newer adjectives borrowed from English, e.g. nice and cool.
- 6 According to DDO certain adjectives such as lilla cannot take the -t suffi x, but in my experience the form lillat is acceptable to some speakers, whereas øvt has not been accepted by anyone I have asked.
- 7 Th e lexeme ked is an adjective that only exists in idiomatic expressions such as ked af det 'sad' and some derivations such as (at) kede '(to) bore' .
- 8 According to DDO træls is associated with unpleasantness, monotony, etc.
- 9 Note that the comma does not mark a break in intonation.

- 10 Note the animacy diff  erence between det and jeg, and the ungrammaticality of *hun er ærgerligt 'she is ærgerlig-N' (but det er ærgerligt med hende 'it is too bad with her').
- 11 'Boo'  is  here  meant  in  the  sense  of  a  scary  sound,  not  as  the  disapproving exclamation.

## References

- Ameka,  Felix.  (1992).  Interjections: Th e  universal  yet  neglected  part  of  speech, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 18, 101-118.
- Cro ft ,  William. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Th eory in Typological Perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Bache,  Carl.  (1978). Th e  order  of  premodifying  adjectives  in  present-day  English. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.
- Cruz, Manuel Padilla. (2009). Might interjections encode concepts? More questions than answers. Lods Papers in Pragmatics 5(2), 241-270.
- DDO = Den Danske Ordbog.
- Den Danske Ordbog. lilla. Retrieved April 22th 2017 at http://ordnet.dk/ddo/ ordbog?select=at,1&query=lilla
- Den Danske Ordbog. at. Retrieved April 18th 2017 at http://ordnet.dk/ddo/ ordbog?select=at,1&query=at
- Den Danske Ordbog. øv. Retrieved April 3th 2017 at http://ordnet.dk/ddo/ ordbog?select=at,1&query=øv
- Fraser, Bruce. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 383-395.
- Danmarks Radio. (2017). Drake har det altid værre: 5 sange der redder din øv-dag. Retrieved April  3rd  at  http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/kultur/anbefalinger/drake-hardet-altid-vaerre-5-sange-der-redder-din-oev-dag
- Givón, Talmy. (2014). Th e Functional Approach to Grammar. In: Tomasello, M. (ed.). Th e New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Volume I. New York: Psychology Press.
- Hansen, Erik. and Lars Helto ft . (2011). Grammatik over det Danske Sprog . Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
- Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. (1998). Function of Discourse Particles .  Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Helto ft ,  Lars.  (2015).  Talesprogets  grammatikaliserede  enheder. Ny  Forskning  i Grammatik 22, 93-112.
- Hengeveld, Kees. and Jan Rijkhoff  . (2005). Mundari as a fl  exible language. Linguistic Typology 9(3), 406-431.
- Hengeveld, Kees. (1992). Non-verbal Predication: Th eory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- HH = Hansen, Erik and Lars Helto ft .
- Hilmisdóttir,  Helga.  (2007). A  sequential  analysis  of nú and núna in  Icelandic conversation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Dissertation.

- Jensen, Eva Ska ft e. (2016). Ordklassepotentiale. Ny forskning i grammatik 23, 92-106. Jørgensen, Maria. (2017). Samtalegrammatik i skri ft lig online interaktion: En digitalsamtaleanalytisk  undersøgelse  af  udvalgte  samtalegrammatiske  fænomener  på Facebook. Aarhus: Aarhus University. Dissertation.
- McGregor, William B. (1997). Semiotic Grammar . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Lehmann, Christian. (2013). Th e nature of parts of speech. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 66(2), 141-177.
- McGregor, William B. (2013). Lexical categories in Gooniyandi, Kimberly, Western Australia. In: Rijkhoff  , J. and van Lier, E. (eds.). Flexible Word Classes: Typological studies of underspecifi  ed parts of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Mortensen, Janus and Sune Sønderberg Mortensen (2009). Okay i engelsk og dansk. In: Th erkelsen, R. and Jensen, E.S. (eds.). Dramatikken i grammatikken . Roskilde: Roskilde Universitet.
- Moore,  Terence.  and  Christine  Carling.  (1982). Understanding  language .  London: Macmillan.
- Mølgaard,  Tina.  (2016). N ↑ Å ↓ :  (Stigende  kontur  e ft erfulgt  af  faldende  kontur) . Samtalegrammatik.dk. Retrieved May 2nd 2017 at http://samtalegrammatik.au.dk/ opslag-enkelt-visning/artikel/naa-stigende-kontur-e ft erfulgt-af-faldende-kontur/
- Norrick, Neal R. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 866-891.
- Rijkhoff  , Jan. (2008). Synchronic and diachronic evidence for parallels between noun phrases and sentences. In: Josephson, F. and Söhrman, I. (eds.). Interdependence of  Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Samtalegrammatik.dk. (2013b). Nå (stigende kontur). Retrieved May 2nd 2017 at http:// samtalegrammatik.au.dk/opslag-enkelt-visning/artikel/naa-stigende-kontur/
- Samtalegrammatik.dk. (2013a). Nå (jævn kontur). Retrieved May 2nd 2017 at http:// samtalegrammatik.au.dk/opslag-enkelt-visning/artikel/naa-jaevn-kontur/
- Samtalegrammatik.dk. (2017a). Generelt om sætninger .  Retrieved May 2nd 2017 at http://samtalegrammatik.au.dk/former/saetninger/generelt-om-saetninger/
- Wierzbicka, Anna. (1992). Th e semantics of interjection. Journal of Pragmatics 18(23), 159-192.
- Samtalegrammatik.dk. (2017b). Nå som ski ft emarkør .  Retrieved May 2nd 2017 at http:// samtalegrammatik.au.dk/opslag-enkelt-visning/artikel/naa-som-ski ft emarkoer/
- Wilkins, David P. (1992). Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 119-158.