1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Uralic Linguistics
  4. Volume 3, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2772-3720
  • E-ISSN: 2772-3739
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The goal of the paper is to examine the use of the particle ‘at all; ever; generally; absolutely (not)’ in questions in Estonian everyday face-to-face and telephone conversations. The analysis is based on the methodological framework of interactional linguistics.

The particle is found to serve three central functions in questions: (a) marking topic shifts and topic changes, (b) intensifying doubt or challenges, (c) emphasizing someone’s norm-violating behavior. Questions containing the particle can be divided into two groups: neutral information-seeking questions and multifunctional questions that perform several social actions simultaneously. The particle is commonly backward looking and serves both interpersonal and textual functions. Its use is often associated with non-preference, disagreement, or contradiction.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00031.raa
2024-11-08
2024-12-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jul.00031.raa
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Athanasiadou, Angeliki
    2007 On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences29(4). 554–565. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  2. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting
    2018 Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139507318
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139507318 [Google Scholar]
  3. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Sandra A. Thompson & Barbara A. Fox
    2023 Do English affirmative polar interrogatives with any favor negative responses?InGalina B. Bolden, John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds.), Responding to polar questions across languages and contexts (Studies in Language and Social Interaction 35), 350–376. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.35.12cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.35.12cou [Google Scholar]
  4. Edwards, Derek
    2000 Extreme case formulations: softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction33(4). 347–373. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01 [Google Scholar]
  5. EKSS = Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat
    EKSS = Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat 2009 [Explanatory Dictionary of the Estonian Language]. https://www.eki.ee/dict/ekss/
  6. Englert, Christina
    2010 Questions and responses in Dutch conversations. Journal of Pragmatics42(10). 2666–2684. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Erelt, Mati
    2010 Vastandavatest sidesõnadest eesti keeles [On adversative conjunctions in Estonian]. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics (2). 55–68. 10.12697/jeful.2010.1.2.04
     https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2010.1.2.04 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2017 Öeldis [Predicate]. InMati Erelt & Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks [Syntax of the Estonian language] (Eesti keele varamu III), 93–239. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Heinemann, Trine
    2010 The question-response system of Danish. Journal of Pragmatics42(10). 2703–2725. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hennoste, Tiit
    2000 Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde IV. Suulise kõne erisõnavara 3. Partiklid [Introduction to Spoken Estonian IV. Vocabulary of Spoken Estonian 3. Particles]. Akadeemia81. 1773–1806.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2012 Küsimuse vorm, episteemiline staatus ja episteemiline hoiak [The form of asking questions, epistemic status and epistemic stance]. Keel ja Kirjandus8–91. 674–695. 10.54013/kk658a9
     https://doi.org/10.54013/kk658a9 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2023 Suuline keel [Spoken language]. InHelle Metslang (ed.), Eesti grammatika [Estonian grammar], 997–1181. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hennoste, Tiit, Olga Gerassimenko, Riina Kasterpalu, Mare Koit, Andriela Rääbis & Krista Strandson
    2008 From human communication to intelligent user interfaces: Corpora of spoken Estonian. InProceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). Marrakech, Morocco. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/pdf/518_paper.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2009 Küsimused eestikeelses infodialoogis I. Küsimuste vorm [Questions in Estonian information dialogues. Part I: Form of questions]. Keel ja Kirjandus51. 341–359.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hennoste, Tiit, Külli Habicht, Helle Metslang, Külli Prillop, Kirsi Laanesoo, David Ogren, Liina Pärismaa, Elen Pärt, Andra Rumm, Andriela Rääbis & Carl Eric Simmul
    2020 Diskursusemarker (ma) arvan (et) [The discourse marker (ma) arvan (et) ‘I think’]. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat651. 63–90. 10.3176/esa65.03
     https://doi.org/10.3176/esa65.03 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hennoste, Tiit, Andriela Rääbis & Kirsi Laanesoo
    2013 Küsimused eestikeelses infodialoogis II. Küsimused ja tegevused [Questions in Estonian institutional information-seeking dialogues II. Questions and social actions]. Keel ja Kirjandus11. 7–28. 10.54013/kk662a2
     https://doi.org/10.54013/kk662a2 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2017 Polar questions, social actions and epistemic stance. STUF — Language Typology and Universals70(3). 523–544. 10.1515/stuf‑2017‑0023
     https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2017-0023 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hennoste, Tiit, Andriela Rääbis & Andra Rumm
    2019 Estonian declarative questions: Their usage and comparison with vä- and jah-questions. Journal of Pragmatics1531. 46–68. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.010 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hennoste, Tiit, Andriela Rääbis, Andra Rumm & Kirsi Laanesoo
    2023 The division of labor between the particles jah and jaa ‘yes’ as responses to requests for confirmation in Estonian. InGalina Bolden, John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds.), Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts (Studies in Language and Social Interaction 35), 210–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.35.07hen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.35.07hen [Google Scholar]
  20. Heritage, John
    1984 A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. InJ. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction), 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2010 Questioning in medicine. InAlice F. Freed & Susan Ehrlich (eds.), Why do you ask? The function of questions in institutional discourse, 42–68. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2012 Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1). 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heritage, John & Steven Clayman
    2010 Talk in action. Interactions, identities, and institutions (Language in Society 38). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444318135
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318135 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, John & Chase Wesley Raymond
    2021 Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction54(1). 39–59. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155 [Google Scholar]
  25. Huhtamäki, Martina, Jan Lindström & Anne-Marie Londen
    2020 Other-repetition sequences in Finland Swedish: Prosody, grammar, and context in action ascription. Language in Society49(4). 653–686. 10.1017/S0047404520000056
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000056 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hutchby, Ian & Robin Wooffitt
    2006 Conversation analysis. Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Jefferson, Gail
    1984 On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. InJ. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction), 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.014 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kasterpalu, Riina & Tiit Hennoste
    2016 Estonian aa: a multifunctional change-of-state token. Journal of Pragmatics1041. 148–162. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  29. Keevallik, Leelo
    2003 From interaction to grammar: Estonian finite verb forms in conversation (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34). Uppsala.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 2010 Marking boundaries between activities: The particle nii in Estonian. Research on Language and Social Interaction43(2), 157–182. 10.1080/08351811003737697
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003737697 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2011 The terms of not knowing. InTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 184–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kolsar, Kaidi
    2017 Partikkel okei suulises argisuhtluses [Particle okay in spontaneous spoken Estonian]. BA thesis. Tartu Ülikool.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Koshik, Irene
    2005 Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.16
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.16 [Google Scholar]
  34. Laanesoo, Kirsi
    2012 Pööratud polaarsusega retoorilised küsimused argivestluses [Reversed polarity rhetorical questions in Estonian everyday interaction]. Keel ja Kirjandus71, 499–517. 10.54013/kk656a2
     https://doi.org/10.54013/kk656a2 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2017 A miks sa torusse ei räägi? Miks-küsilausetega tehtavad suhtlustegevused argitelefonivestlustes [Social actions conducted by why-interrogatives in Estonian everyday telephone conversations]. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat131, 89–105. 10.5128/ERYa13.06
     https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa13.06 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2018 Polüfunktsionaalsed küsilaused eesti argivestluses [Multifunctional interrogatives in Estonian everyday interaction] (Dissertationes linguisticae Universitatis Tartuensis 33). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
  37. Laanesoo, Kirsi, Tiit Hennoste, Andriela Rääbis, Andra Rumm, Andra Annuka-Loik & Piret Upser
    2023 Displaying uncertainty and avoiding disaffiliation with Estonian response particle mhmh ‘uh-huh’. InAbstracts: 18th International Pragmatics Conference, Brussels 9–14 July 2023, 13551. Université libre de Bruxelles.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Labov, William & David Fanshel
    1977 Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2013 Action formation and ascription. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 103–130. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch6
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch6 [Google Scholar]
  40. Maynard, Douglas W.
    1980 Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica30(3–4). 263–290. 10.1515/semi.1980.30.3‑4.263
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1980.30.3-4.263 [Google Scholar]
  41. Metslang, Helle
    1981 Küsilause eesti keeles [Interrogative sentence in Estonian]. Tallinn: Valgus.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 2017 Kommunikatiivsed lausetüübid [Communicative types of sentences]. InMati Erelt & Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks [Syntax of the Estonian language] (Eesti keele varamu III), 515–536. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. InJ. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction), 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008 [Google Scholar]
  44. 1986 Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies9(2/3). 219–229. www.jstor.org/stable/20008968. 10.1007/BF00148128
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  45. Prillop, Külli, Tiit Hennoste, Külli Habicht & Helle Metslang
    2021 Ei saa me läbi “Pragmaatika” korpuseta. Korpuspragmaatika ja pragmaatikakorpus [We can’t get by without the pragmatics corpus. Corpus pragmatics and the pragmatics corpus]. Mäetagused811. 161–176. 10.7592/MT2021.81.pragmaatika
     https://doi.org/10.7592/MT2021.81.pragmaatika [Google Scholar]
  46. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Rauniomaa, Mirka
    2007 Stance markers in spoken Finnish: Minun mielestä and minusta in assessments. InRobert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164), 221–252. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.09rau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.09rau [Google Scholar]
  48. Rossi, Giovanni
    2018 Composite social actions: The case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction51(4). 379–397. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1524562
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1524562 [Google Scholar]
  49. Rumm, Andra
    2019 Avatud küsimused ja nende vastused eesti suulises argivestluses [Wh-questions and their responses in Estonian everyday interaction] (Dissertationes linguisticae Universitatis Tartuensis 36). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
  50. Räsänen, Sanna
    2019 Kielteistä affektia ilmaisevat kysymysrakenteet Juhani Ahon, Minna Canthin ja Maiju Lassilan teosten dialogissa [Interrogative constructions that express negative affect in the dialogue of novels by Juhani Aho, Minna Canth and Maiju Lassila]. Pro gradu — tutkielma. Itä-Suomen yliopisto. urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:uef-20191276
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Rääbis, Andriela, Tiit Hennoste, Andra Rumm & Kirsi Laanesoo
    2019 They are so stupid, so stupid. Emotional affect in Estonian school-related complaints. Journal of Pragmatics1531. 20–33. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.016 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Volume 1: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  53. Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks
    1973 Opening up closings. Semiotica8(4). 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  54. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987 Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sidnell, Jack
    2010 Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Stivers, Tanya
    2010 An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics42(10). 2772–2781. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  57. Stivers, Tanya & Nick J. Enfield
    2010 A coding scheme for question-response sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics42(10). 2620–2626. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  58. Svennevig, Jan
    2004 Other-repetition as display of hearing, understanding and emotional stance. Discourse Studies6(4). 489–516. 10.1177/1461445604046591
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604046591 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2013 Reformulation of questions with candidate answers. International Journal of Bilingualism17(2). 189–204. 10.1177/1367006912441419
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006912441419 [Google Scholar]
  60. Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2015 Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  61. Vatanen, Anna & Mirka Rauniomaa
    2023 Using conversation analysis for examining extended timeframes and participant orientation to overall structural organisations. NORDISCO, the 7th Nordic Interdisciplinary Conference on Discourse and Interaction. Tampere, Finland, 15–17 November 2023. Abstract book, 34–35. Tampere University.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. VISK = Auli Hakulinen, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho
    2004 Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Verkkoversio, 1.11.2008. scripta.kotus.fi/visk
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00031.raa
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Estonian; everyday conversation; intensifier; particle; question

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error