5.2.1 Flexible referential scope

F–det can have both relatively narrow and very broad referential scope. In this paper, F–det with clear reference (see Section 5.2.2) is characterized either as having narrow, state-of-affairs or discourse reference, or as having an expletive function; these are all exemplified below. Their distribution is seen in Table 6.

Table 6. Distribution of referential scope in F–det.

In (1) below, F–det is used with both broad and narrow use, the former having state-of-affairs scope. Grammatically, det with narrow scope clearly differs from det with broad scope, in that it exhibits neuter gender agreement with a noun phrase, while grammatical gender is not relevant to det with broad scope (Kappelgaard & Hjorth Reference Kappelgaard and Hjorth2017:23).

1. (1) Sam2 | preben_og_thomas | l.299

   
   
   
   
   
   

In (1), the interlocutors are discussing the house that Preben’s daughter and son-in-law have recently bought, and how they will need to build rooms in the basement to increase the living area of the property. F–det is used twice in (1) with varying referential scope. In line 5, F–det is used with reference to huset ‘the house’. It is the grammatical subject, which is almost always the case when F–det has narrow referential scope. Huset ‘the house’ is the discourse topic, but it has not been mentioned either explicitly or with an anaphor for a while, with the interaction instead revolving around sub-topics such as the basement, the rooms, etc. Huset ‘the house’ is thus in itself only semi-active as this point, and Preben appears to think that the anaphor may be an insufficient reference, as he refreshes it with a full mention of huset ‘the house’ in extraposition following the clause proper in line 6. The reference of F–det in line 5 is thus simultaneously anaphoric and cataphoric, referring to both the semi-active discourse topic and the explicit extraposition. Such an anaphoric–cataphoric split reference can be illustrated as in Figure 1, which shows how the intended reference of F–det in line 5 is huset ‘the house’, the last explicit mention of which is approximately 30 seconds earlier in the interaction. As a range of related referents have become topics, huset ‘the house’ is at this point dynamically active. Analyzing F–det in Figure 1 as a cataphor is admittedly a post hoc measure; it was probably not conceived as such, but that is how it is eventually presented to the hearer. It was presumably conceived as an anaphor only, with the extraposition added as a repair strategy. A plausible explanation for this is that for det to be parsed as a neuter gender reference, an available neuter gender referent needs to be highly active.

Figure 1. Illustration of narrow anaphoric–cataphoric split reference.

The reference of the other example of F–det in (1) cannot be equally clearly delimited. In line 2, F–det is the object of a subordinate clause (line 3). This F–det is semantically incompatible with huset ‘the house’, and grammatically incompatible with værelser ‘rooms’ of line 1 (as that would have required an oblique case third person plural pronoun dem ‘them’). Rather, F–det refers to the state-of-affairs of the previous clause (line 1), i.e. the conceptual content of the predicate nødt til å ha nogen værelser ‘need to have some rooms’. The given topic of the clause in line 2 does not refer to a nominal-type entity, but rather the assertion of the preceding clause. This use of broad reference topics is mentioned surprisingly little in the grammatical literature (although see Houser, Mikkelsen & Toosarvandani Reference Houser, Mikkelsen, Toosarvandani, Bainbridge and Agbayani2007), although it does surface in text linguistic literature on cohesion (e.g. Ulbæk Reference Ulbæk2005:44). From an interactional, pragmatic point of view, they are to be expected: clauses build upon each other and will be naturally prone to include relevant portions of the discourse space or pragmatic presupposition with a reference that is as light as possible.

The excerpt in (2) contains two further instances of F–det referring to states-of-affairs:

1. (2) Samtalebank | samfundskrise | l.278

   
   
   
   
   
   

In (2), Asta and Lis discuss how much the value of stocks have dropped in the wake of the financial crisis. In lines 1–4, Asta says that stocks have dropped to half of their previous value, and in lines 5–6, Lis repeats this information to clarify her understanding. In line 4, F–det refers to the state-of-affairs in the preceding clause in line 3, i.e. the complex predicate er faldet til det halve ‘have fallen to half’; F–det is not compatible with any other linguistic element in the immediately preceding discourse. The grammatical role of F–det in line 4 is subject predicate. The state-of-affairs reference is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Illustration of state-of-affairs reference.

F–det refers to the state-of-affairs and not the entire preceding clause, as the grammatical subject of line 3 ( aktierne ‘the stocks’) is repeated in line 4; in fact, the subject is repeated with a stronger reference in line 4, being referred to with a pronoun de ‘they’ in line 3 but a full noun aktierne ‘the stocks’ in line 4. Grimes (Reference Grimes1975) notes that referents are generally coded with progressively weaker references within the same identification span of the referent; this would indicate that part of the communicative purpose of the clause in line 4 is to clarify the pronominal reference in line 3. In line 5, after uttering the realization token nåja (Emmertsen & Heinemann Reference Emmertsen and Heinemann2010), Lis reformulates the gist of Asta’s turn in order to display her understanding, in what Heritage & Watson (Reference Heritage, Watson and Psathas1979) call an upshot formulation. The preferred response to an upshot formulation is a confirmation (ibid.), but rather than awaiting confirmation from Asta, Lis produces one herself in line 6. The most likely referent of F–det in line 6 is the state-of-affairs of the directly preceding clause.

The excerpt in (3) contains an instance of F–det referring to the conceptual content of a longer stretch of discourse:

1. (3) AULing | par_ved_spisebord | l.394

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

In (3), Adam is summarizing the plot of the film The Imitation Game to Eva, in which the protagonist builds the world’s first computer in order to decode messages that the Allies intercepted from Germans during the Second World War. This film has been the discourse topic for a while at this point in the interaction, with various sub-topics being introduced and discussed along the way. Prior to the sequence in (3), Adam has explained the notion of decoding messages, when Eva asks in line 2 what decoding has to do with the world’s first computer. Adam responds in lines 5–14 by explaining what is meant by computer in this context. In lines 15–17, Eva wraps up the discourse topic with a particle indicating her understanding m:, followed by an assessment of the plot. F–det in line 17 does not refer to any specific predicate-type or nominal-type referent. It clearly does not refer to the discourse topic filmen ‘the film’, as that would require uter gender agreement. Rather, it refers to the entire preceding stretch of discourse, scoping over several turns-at-talk, presumably including not just the sequence included in (3), but what precedes it as well. The discourse reference of this F–det is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Illustration of discourse reference.

F–det with discourse reference tends to be the grammatical subject of the carrier clause. This pattern is functionally motivated: when F–det has discourse reference, the clause typically provides an assessment of the discourse topic of the preceding stretch of interaction. These tend to be predicative clauses, often with the format F–det + copula verb + assessment (Garly Reference Garly2018:37). Assessments are a typical resource for closing storytelling sequences (Goodwin & Goodwin Reference Goodwin and Goodwin1987, Garly Reference Garly2018:17).

Thus, F–det with either narrow or discourse reference tends to act as the grammatical subject of its carrier clause, but this is not the case when F–det refers to states-of-affairs. In fact, when a clause contains det referring to states-of-affairs, it generally occupies F of said clause, no matter what its grammatical role is. In these cases, the information structural function of the word overshadows the grammatical role in the clause. This is demonstrated in (4):

1. (4) AULing | par_ved_spisebord | l.250

   
   
   
   
   

In (4), Eva and Adam talk about some small hairs that Eva has found in her food. Adam suggests that the hairs might come from Eva’s shirt, and she responds in line 5 by saying that she had not thought of this but that it might very well be the case. F–det in line 4 is the grammatical subject of the clause. It refers cataphorically to the assertion in the subordinate clause de:t din trøje ‘it’s your shirt’. Line 5 begins with the realization token nåja (Emmertsen & Heinemann Reference Emmertsen and Heinemann2010), which is lengthened. There are two instances of det in line 5; an expletive subject and a broad anaphoric reference to the preceding state-of-affairs. The latter is not prosodically emphasized, and information structurally it is the clause’s topic. The grammatical literature would suggest that the expletive subject is the textually unmarked F here (e.g. Heltoft Reference Heltoft, Heltoft and Andersen1986), but in this case topical det is in F. This indicates that – at least in the case of det – information structure is weighted higher than grammatical role when it comes to choosing a clause opener. Theories on information structure have long assumed that a clause tends to take the preceding clause’s message (rheme, assertion, focus, etc.) as its starting point, and clauses containing F–det with broad referential scope are a dedicated construction for doing just that.

5.2.2 Unclear reference and grammatical role

In the examples analyzed above, the references and grammatical roles of F–det are relatively clear. However, there are also examples of F–det having unclear reference, typically because the original clause format is abandoned before the clause is finished. In some cases, this obscures whether F–det was pronominal or expletive, which grammatical role was intended, etc. These examples can illuminate some features of the use of F–det. (5) illustrates a clause format being abandoned, leaving F–det with unclear reference. In (5), there is an instance of F–det which may be either pronominal or expletive:

1. (5) Samtalebank | samfundskrise | l.411

   
   
   
   
   

In (5), Asta and Lis are comparing the financial crisis of the late ‘00s with the oil crisis in the 1970s. The two are talking about how high interests during the oil crisis were tax deductible, so that if your interest was at 20%, you only had to pay around 10%. Asta makes this point in lines 4–5. The clause in line 4 has F–det. It is the grammatical subject of the clause, as observable from the fact that no other nominal constituent follows the verb. This format is abandoned before the clause is finished, and after a brief pause, the clause is reformulated as conditional. Since the clause in line 4 is never finished, the function of F–det is never clarified; since we are privy to the intended message as it appears in line 5, we might assume that it would have been an expletive subject. But it could also have been an anaphor with broad referential scope or a cataphor to be expanded upon in extraposition, as shown in the constructed examples in (6a, b):

1. (6)

   
   

F–det’s flexibility in referential scope is an advantage to language users. As evidenced by lines 4–5 in (5), language users often do not have a finished format for a clause by the time they start uttering it; rather, clauses take shape as they are being uttered (Auer Reference Auer2009), and sometimes the originally chosen format for a clause only reveals itself to be impractical when the clause is being spoken. Given this insight, it is very practical for language users to have a standardized clause format that is also highly flexible, which is the case for clauses with initial F–det.

An example of a clause with F–det in which the grammatical role is unclear can be seen in (7):

1. (7) AULing | par_ved_spisebord | l.283

   
   
   
   
   
   

The interaction in (7) takes place just before that in (3); Eva has just said that she wants to see the film The Imitation Game, and Adam brings up that she mentioned the day before that she did not want to see it. In line 2, Eva begins uttering a clause in which she intends to say that she changed her mind (as evidenced by line 6), but this format is abandoned, presumably due to extensive overlap from Adam in which he reenacts her saying previously that she does not want to see the film. In lines 4–6, Eva delivers the message with a new format: in line 4, jeg ‘I’ is F in the superordinate clause, while in line 6, the subordinate clause uses a format with F–det. While the subordinate clause has main clause constituent order (as is frequently the case in talk-in-interaction; see note 7), Eva’s turn in lines 4–6 clearly constitutes a single prosodic unit.

The clause in line 2 has F–det, with reference to the state-of-affairs in the previous clause in line 1. Since the format in line 2 is abandoned before the clause is finished, the grammatical role of F–det is unclear. Jeg ‘I’ is the grammatical subject, and det is rather a constituent in a subordinate clause which is ultimately never realized (this is known as a knude construction or sentence intertwining; e.g. Jakobsen Reference Jakobsen, Devriendt, Goossens and van der Auwera1995, Jensen Reference Jensen2002). Depending on how the clause would have been formed, it could have been subject, object, or prepositional object of that subordinate clause, as shown in the constructed examples in (8a–c). In these examples, the canonical position of the prefield constituent is indicated with 0, following Jakobsen (Reference Jakobsen, Devriendt, Goossens and van der Auwera1995).

1. (8)

   
   
   

While the clause in line 2 in (7) was in all probability not abandoned due to the format, but rather due to Adam’s overlapping parody, it remains the case that a standardized clause format with a semantically and syntactically flexible first position is very advantageous to language users when interacting in real time.

As mentioned above, det does not take case inflection, as opposed to most other personal pronouns in Danish. This serves to make F–det more functionally flexible, and may serve to explain why the F–det construction is so frequent. Speakers of Danish appear to find the construction highly intuitive, and they are not discouraged when F–det fulfills a grammatical role which has a canonical position much further into the clause. This may precisely be because the grammatical role of F–det does not need to be specified before beginning the clause. F–det can be considered a place-holder of sorts for clauses which are to some extent based on part of the active discourse space, which is the case for most clauses in talk-in-interaction; note that this is a different place-holder function from the purely syntactic one attributed to expletive subjects (e.g. Hammarberg & Viberg Reference Hammarberg and Viberg1977). From the vantage point of information packaging, the reference of F–det is generally initially vague, and only becomes clear in the context of its carrier sentence.

There are advantages to using F–det for both the speaker and the hearer. If F–det refers to a specific nominal-type referent, it will normally quickly be identifiable as such on the basis of gender agreement, particularly since uter gendered nouns are more frequent than neuter gendered ones (approx. 75% of nouns are uter gendered; Hansen Reference Hansen1967:29). F–det with broad referential scope is thus quickly identifiable as such, and a light anaphor for this purpose is necessary to solve what Levinson (Reference Levinson and Palmer1995:95) calls the ‘bottleneck in human communication’: the conceptual structure of a message is generally much more complex than what can be extrapolated from the linguistic substance itself, which is why languages need generalized patterns dedicated to e.g. indicating a relationship between a clause and the preceding clause. The F–det format is an example of such a pattern, which is explainable in part by Levinson’s (Reference Levinson and Palmer1995, Reference Levinson2000) I-heuristic: ‘minimal forms warrant maximal interpretations’ (Reference Levinson and Palmer1995:97). In other words, for the hearer, F–det can easily be parsed as having broad reference, precisely due to its flexibility in referential scope.

5.2.3 Expletive function and cataphoric reference

Expletive subjects are frequently found in F. While such expletive subjects are always grammatical subjects, it is not similarly the case that expletive subjects are always Fs, as illustrated in e.g. (4) above (see also Bohnacker & Lindgren Reference Bohnacker and Lindgren2014). Their function is to satisfy the syntactic requirement for a subject in clauses which do not have an obvious semantic subject. Det is traditionally thought of as the only expletive subject, although Hansen & Heltoft (Reference Hansen and Heltoft2011:1212) note that der ‘there’ is also leaning towards a purely expletive function. The majority of clauses with expletive subjects either have an overt copula verb or direct juxtaposition of subject and subject predicate due to copula deletion.Footnote ⁸ As such, the referential content of expletive det can often be equated to its predicate. An example can be seen in (9):

1. (9) Samtalebank | preben_og_thomas | l.365

   
   
   
   
   
   

In (9), as in (1), Preben and Thomas are discussing the house that Preben’s son-in-law just bought, and how making changes to a house can increase its selling price. In the sentence in lines 5–6, the subject as well as F is det. The assertion in line 5 is that det is a good investment; in the course of on-line parsing, the clause can be heard as syntactically and possibly pragmatically complete by the end of line 5, but not prosodically so (see Ford & Thompson Reference Ford, Thompson and Ochs1996). At this point, F–det is not analyzable to the hearer as an expletive, but rather a broad-reference anaphor. Given the full context, F–det emerges as an expletive, but can still be analyzed as referring cataphorically to the subordinate clause in line 6 å gå å lave sånoget selv ‘to be doing such stuff yourself’, which is in itself an explicit form of the discourse topic. Both parses are illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. As illustrated in these figures, in the course of on-line parsing, det is first analyzable as referring to the preceding discourse, but eventually as an expletive with cataphoric reference to the subordinate clause – which is in itself an overt mention of the discourse topic. The structure is similar to that in (1) above, in that the subordinate clause is there to clarify the reference of det. The speaker’s inclusion of this clarification indicates that the discourse topic may not be considered an easily retrievable referent on the basis of only a light anaphor.

Figure 4. Illustration of reference of det after line 5.

Figure 5. Illustration of reference of det given full context.

The expletive function of F–det in talk-in-interaction is similar to the previously discussed functions in that it does not need to be decided by the speaker when they start uttering the clause. Their conceptual content differs, in that a well-formed non-expletive F–det has recoverable anaphoric reference, while expletive F–det does not. For both types, however, it is the case that this reference is only clarified by the context. It was mentioned above that non-expletive F–det is used whenever a connection is explicitly made to some aspect of the preceding discourse; expletive F–det, on the other hand, is used when there is no part of the pragmatic presupposition to draw upon in making an assertion, i.e. when a clause is purely focal. This extends the flexibility of F–det further, and suggests that Danish talk-in-interaction does not simply have a preferred ordering of elements on the basis of their contribution to the information structure of the clause, but rather a preference against clause-initial focal elements, even when there are no topical elements.

5.3.1 Temporal specification

The most common function of F–så is to indicate that the conceptual content of the current clause follows or follows from what has been said in the immediately preceding discourse. It may temporally follow, in that the state-of-affairs being described occur after previously described states-of-affairs. It may follow from, in that it is true or contextually relevant as a result of something previously said (on the relationship between truth and contextual relevance, see Sweetser Reference Sweetser1990:113ff.). This section covers temporal specification, while the next will cover conditional specification. There is quite a bit of overlap between the two; for example, a state-of-affairs may be relevant in the context of another precisely because it temporally follows it. The ambivalence of F–så suggests that the two are also conceptually closely related.

Temporal F–så is associated with storytelling sequences, as illustrated in (10):

1. (10) Samtalebank | anne_og_beate | l.190

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

In (10), Anne and Beate are negotiating a common understanding of what happened the previous Saturday night, when the two were supposed to meet up but failed to do so due to a series of misunderstandings. The sequence seen in (10) mostly consists of Beate presenting the events of that night chronologically, frequently using F–så to indicate temporal progression. The clauses with F–så (lines 1, 7, 12, 14, 17, 18) constitute new events in the story, while the other clauses consist of disruptions in the temporal progression of the story. In line 1, Beate references a phone call she made to Anne; the phone call is a progression in the ongoing story, and thus has F–så. Lines 2–6 relay the contents of the phone call, and do not in themselves include temporal progressions in the story; none of these clauses have F–så. The only full clause by Anne (line 7) also has F–så, as it is a contribution to Beate’s story which modifies Beate’s understanding of the events. Beate indicates in lines 9–11 that her understanding has changed, before progressing with the story in line 12. Accordingly, the clause in line 12 has F–så, but the ones in lines 9–11 do not. Lines 14-15 are also a progression of the story with F–så. Line 15 is not a progression of the story, but an explanation for the message in line 14, and thus does not have F–så. Lines 16-18 are all progressions in the story, and all have F–så. It may not always be the case that progressions in storytelling have F–så, but there is a strong tendency. Since turns-at-talk in storytelling sequences generally consist of many clauses, temporal F–så tends to occur turn-internally.

5.3.2 Conditional specification

In addition to temporal specification, F–så is often used for specifying a conditional relationship with the preceding discourse. This usage is more likely than temporal F–så to occur turn-initially, as it is not associated with storytelling sequences. The function of conditional F–så may be formalized as in (11):

1. (11)

   

This use of F–så is probably formed on the basis of analogy with conditional clauses with the hvis p så q ‘if p then q’ format. In such conditionals, the protasis is syntactically in the extraposition, while the apodosis has F–så (e.g. Diderichsen Reference Diderichsen1962:204), which follows Haiman’s (Reference Haiman1978) claim that conditionals typologically behave like topics. Clauses with conditional F–så are pragmatically analogous to conditional clauses (as characterized by Comrie Reference Comrie, Traugott, Meulen, Reilly and Ferguson1986), but instead of the protasis being found in extraposition, it is found in a different clause or across several clauses, possibly in the speech of another speaker.

Several instances of turn-initial conditional F–så can be seen in (12):

1. (12) Samtalebank | samfundskrise | l.278

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

In (12), Asta and Lis are discussing the state of the stock market. In the preceding discourse, Lis has mentioned a friend who lost 50,000 DKK of a 300,000 DKK savings account due to the stock market crash. Asta is making the point that many people had it much worse, and that many people’s stocks dropped to half. In line 7, Lis concludes that her friend was actually comparatively lucky. In this brief example, F–så is used four times. In line 3, Lis starts her turn with the realization token nåja, used to indicate that a problem in her epistemic access has been solved (Emmertsen & Heinemann Reference Emmertsen and Heinemann2010). The rest of the clause is an upshot formulation (Heritage & Watson Reference Heritage, Watson and Psathas1979), also used to indicate that Lis’ understanding is now up to date. In line 5, Asta begins another clause with F–så and the expletive subject der ‘there’; she abandons this format in favor of another, which also has F–så, but with generalized du ‘you’ as its grammatical subject. If analyzed as conditional, the protasis to this clause consists of the assertion in lines 1–2, as illustrated in (13):

1. (13)

   

The clause in line 7 also has F–så. It is not clear if this clause constitutes a separate turn from the one in lines 3–4, as Lis has been speaking in overlap with Asta almost throughout Asta’s turn in lines 5–6. The scope of the protasis in this clause is not clearly delimited but refers to at least the assertion in lines 1–2 and presumably also her own realization in lines 3–4.

In (14), several examples are shown of turn-internal F–så. When F–så appears turn-internally, it is difficult to distinguish between temporal and conditional readings:

1. (14) Samtalebank | anne_og_beate | l.243

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

In (14), as in previous examples, Anne and Beate are discussing the events of the previous Saturday night. Anne says that she called various friends of hers, but that all of them were busy with something. She also did not know the karate guys (line 6) that Beate was with at the time, so she decided to go to sleep. In line 1, Anne initiates a clause with F–så, but abandons the format after the finite verb. She initiates another clause with F–så in line 2, which may be identical to the clause that she originally intended in line 1. The clause in line 2 is a quotative construction which is common among younger speakers of Danish (Rathje Reference Rathje, Gregersen, Parrott and Quist2011). The quote in such a construction does not need to be represented speech but can also be represented thought (Rathje Reference Rathje2009), as is the case here. F–så in line 2 can be analyzed as indicating either temporal or conditional specification. (14) is part of a longer storytelling sequence, so F–så in line 2 may indicate that the clause temporally follows the previously covered events, as discussed above, or may indicate that the represented thought follows as a result of the preceding discourse, i.e. that all of the friends that Anne called already had other plans. The two meanings are interrelated to the point of being interchangeable.

F–så in line 4 is more easily recognizable as having conditional meaning, since it does not describe an event per se, and has no temporal position in the storytelling sequence. It constitutes represented thought, but can easily be analyzed as a consequence of the clause in line 1, as illustrated in (15):

1. (15)

   

The clause in line 8 also has F–så. Here, the temporal and conditional meanings are also hard to tease apart. The clause is part of a storytelling sequence and can reasonably be analyzed as temporally following the preceding parts of the sequence: the decision to go to sleep temporally follows the decision not to go out. It can also be analyzed as conditionally following the preceding, as the decision to go to sleep may follow as a result of deciding not to go out. As with F–det, it is probably the case that the frequency and semantic flexibility of the F–så clause format are mutually strengthening. Due to its semantic flexibility, it can effectively be used as a placeholder by the speaker before they have decided upon the full format of a clause, as long as they have decided the primary pragmatic function of the clause, i.e. to provide an assertion which somehow follows (from) the preceding discourse. The extreme frequency of the construction leads to polysemy, which is to be expected (e.g. Langacker Reference Langacker, Kardela and Persson1995; see Geeraerts Reference Geeraerts1993 for a critical discussion of the notion of polysemy).

Finally, it is worth noting that while it is fully grammatical for both temporal and conditional F–så to occur in the canonical position for adverbs in the clause model, they are only rarely found outside of F in the data set. This further indicates that the unmarked prefield is not the clause’s subject, but rather a fitting discourse structuring device.

5.3.3 Topic continuation

The final frequent function that F–så has can be referred to as topic continuation. This use of F–så has the function of indicating that the assertion of the carrier clause provides additional information about a discourse topic. Thus, it clarifies the interactional purpose of its carrier clause.

This function is illustrated in (16):

1. (16) AULing | sofasladder | l.107

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

In (16), Clara has just asked Ditte how it is going with a mutual acquaintance of theirs. Ditte tells Clara of some embarrassing pictures she has uncovered of him from when he had his Confirmation, a common rite of passage for adolescents in Danish society. The sequence contains two instances of F–så. In lines 5–6, Ditte explains how his hair was dyed black at the time, and was very long, which she indicates with an arm gesture. The clauses in lines 5–6 provide closely related assertions. In the following clause by Ditte, in lines 12–13, she explains how he wore large glasses in the picture. Taken together, the clauses in lines 5–6 and 12–13 constitute a three-part list of physical features found in these pictures; Jefferson (Reference Jefferson and Psathas1990) notes a general preference for three-part lists, and similar sequences are also analyzed by Selting (Reference Selting, Femø Nielsen and Wagner2007) in her work on list construction in German talk-in-interaction. The clauses in lines 6 and 12–13 have F–så, indicating that the clauses provide additional information about the discourse topic.

F–så indicating topic continuation is typically found turn-internally, as the additional information typically modifies a discourse topic introduced by the same speaker. It is often but not always preceded by å ‘and’, with the possible implication that a constructional status of å så is emergent; such a construction may be most prevalently associated with lists, but such a claim must be verified by an independent study. As with temporal and conditional så, topic continuation så typically occurs either in F or not at all, although it is not syntactically restricted to F. This is functionally motivated, since its meaning is primarily modal, and an indication of the rhetorical function of a clause is most informative if preceding the assertion.

None of the functions of F–så are topical in the traditional sense. The temporal and conditional uses can be said to have anaphoric reference, as their meanings are specified by the surrounding discourse; temporal F–så, for instance, is specified on the basis of the temporal setting of the preceding discourse. Topic continuation F–så has no phoric reference, as its specific meaning does not lie in any of the preceding or following discourse. Generally, this means that F–så does not conform to any traditional notions of topicality. For speakers, however, it is a useful tool for grounding a clause in the surrounding discourse, either by specifying its relation to what precedes it, or by indicating the interactional purpose of the carrier clause.