Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Jeg burde ha hørt mer på henne i stedet for å avbryte. - I should have listened to her more instead of interrupting.

Burde is the past form of bør, and in this structure (burde ha + past participle) it expresses a missed obligation or regret: I should have….

Jeg bør høre mer på henne = I should listen to her more (now / in the future).
Jeg burde ha hørt mer på henne = I should have listened to her more (but I didn’t; I regret it).

So burde here looks back on something that didn’t happen the way it should have.

Why is it burde ha hørt and not just burde hørt?

The pattern for should have done in Norwegian is:

modal verb + ha + past participle

Here: burde (modal) + ha + hørt (past participle).

You can hear people say Jeg burde hørt mer på henne in casual speech, but the more complete and standard form is Jeg burde ha hørt mer på henne, directly matching English I should have listened.

What exactly is hørt, and how is it related to å høre?

Hørt is the past participle of the verb å høre (to hear / to listen). The main forms are:

Infinitive: å høre
Past (preterite): jeg hørte (I heard)
Past participle: hørt

With ha, you get the perfect: jeg har hørt (I have heard / I have listened).
With burde ha, you get the regret form: jeg burde ha hørt (I should have listened).

Why is it hørt mer på henne and not something like hørt henne mer?

In Norwegian, when you mean listen to (someone’s advice, opinions, feelings), you normally say høre på + person, not høre + person.

høre henne = to hear her (physically hear her voice)
høre på henne = to listen to her (pay attention / take her seriously)

So hørt mer på henne means listened more to her, which matches the intended meaning of regretting not listening to what she said.

Why do we use the preposition på after høre here?

Some Norwegian verbs form fixed combinations with certain prepositions; these behave a bit like single units in meaning.

høre på noen = listen to someone
tenke på noe = think about something
stole på noen = trust someone

So på is simply part of the expression høre på, and you generally have to include it when the meaning is listen to rather than just hear.

Why is it henne and not hun?

Hun and henne are two different cases of the same pronoun:

hun = subject form (she)
henne = object form (her)

In this sentence, henne is the object of høre på, so you need the object form:

Jeg hører på henne. = I listen to her.
Hun hører på meg. = She listens to me.

Can I move mer and say Jeg burde ha hørt på henne mer? Is there a difference?

Yes, Jeg burde ha hørt på henne mer is also correct and natural.

Jeg burde ha hørt mer på henne (very common, slightly emphasizes how much you listened)
Jeg burde ha hørt på henne mer (very natural too, slightly emphasizes her as the person you should have listened to more)

Both word orders are acceptable in normal Norwegian; the meaning is essentially the same.

What is the difference between i stedet for and istedenfor?

Both i stedet for and istedenfor are used in Bokmål and mean instead of.

i stedet for (three words) is a bit more formal and is what many style guides recommend, especially before a verb: i stedet for å avbryte.
istedenfor (one word) is common in everyday writing and speech, especially before nouns: istedenfor kaffe.

In this sentence, i stedet for å avbryte is the most standard spelling.

Why do we need å in i stedet for å avbryte?

Å is the infinitive marker in Norwegian, similar to to before a verb in English (to interrupt).

avbryte by itself is a bare infinitive form.
å avbryte is the full infinitive, used when the verb acts more like a noun (a verbal noun phrase): instead of interrupting.

After i stedet for, when it’s followed by a verb, you normally use å + infinitive: i stedet for å + verb.

Why doesn’t the sentence say i stedet for å avbryte henne (interrupt her)?

It could say i stedet for å avbryte henne; that would also be correct.

However, since henne has just been mentioned (hørt mer på henne), it’s very clear who is being interrupted. Repeating henne is not necessary and can feel a bit heavy.

So:

i stedet for å avbryte = instead of interrupting (her – understood from context)
i stedet for å avbryte henne = instead of interrupting her (explicit, but slightly more repetitive here)

What time frame or nuance does Jeg burde ha hørt mer på henne express?

This form (burde ha + past participle) expresses:

a situation in the past
where you did not do something you ought to have done
and you now regret or criticize that fact

So it naturally implies: I didn’t listen enough to her, and that was a mistake. It’s counterfactual, just like English I should have listened more to her.

Could I say Jeg skulle ha hørt mer på henne instead of Jeg burde ha hørt mer på henne? What’s the difference?

You can say Jeg skulle ha hørt mer på henne, and it’s grammatically correct. The nuance is slightly different:

burde ha hørt – focuses on moral judgment or wisdom: it would have been the right / sensible thing to do (regret).
skulle ha hørt – can suggest a stronger external expectation or plan: I was supposed/expected to listen more to her but didn’t.

In everyday speech, the two can overlap, but burde ha hørt is the most typical choice for a personal regret about what would have been wise.