headerpos: 17406
 
 
 

Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat
The Yearbook of the Estonian Mother Tongue Society
ISSN 2228-1215 (electronic)   ISSN 0206-3735 (print)

Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat
The Yearbook of the Estonian Mother Tongue Society
ISSN 2228-1215 (electronic)   ISSN 0206-3735 (print)

Publisher
Journal Information
» History
» Editorial Policy
» Editorial Board
» Abstracting/Indexing
Guidelines for authors
» For Authors
» Instructions to authors
» For Review
List of Issues
» 2018
» 2017
» 2016
» 2015
» 2014
Vol. 59, Issue 1
» 2013
» 2012
» 2011

DIREKTIIVSED MIS- JA MIDA-KÜSILAUSED SUULISES SUHTLUSES; pp. 103–126

(Full article in PDF format) doi:10.3176/esa59.05


Authors

Kirsi Laanesoo

Abstract

Directive what interrogatives in Estonian spoken interaction
The article focuses on a construction that begins with the interrogative pronoun mis (what in nominative) or mida (what in partitive) and functions as a prohibition or a reproach (e.g. what are you yelling). These directive interrogatives are addressed to a person who is present in the ongoing conversation or to a third party. For this research 36 directive interrogatives beginning with mis or mida were analysed. The purpose of this research was to study what social ACTIONS these interrogatives perform in everyday Estonian interaction and to find out what characteristics distinguish these directive interrogatives from real questions. Directive interrogatives beginning with mis and mida are multifunctional; they carry out different ACTIONS simultaneously, but in different cases one ACTION is primary, others are secondary. According to the primary ACTION, the interrogatives can be divided into prohibitions and reproaches. At the same time, these interrogatives can carry out secondary ACTIONS such as expressing statements or accusations. Also, these interrogatives are used in playful contexts to tease other discourse participants. The analysis shows that directive interrogatives differ from real questions mainly in prosody and semantics. Directive interrogatives have a distinct intonation that comes from specific stress and pitch accents. Semantically, the main characteristic that distinguishes directive interrogatives from information-requesting interrogatives is that most of the studied interrogatives contain a marked phrase or a negatively loaded verb that conveys the negative stance of the speaker.

Keywords

everyday interaction, prohibition, reproach, interrogative, Estonian language

References

Asu , Eva Liina 2004. The Phonetics and Phonology of Estonian Intonation. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Linguistics , University of Cambridge.

Drew , Paul 1998. Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. – Research on Language and Social Interaction 31 , 295–325.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1998.9683595 .

EKG II 1993 = Mati Erelt , Reet Kasik , Helle Metslang , Henno Rajandi , Kristiina Ross , Henn Saari , Kaja Tael , Silvi Vare. Eesti keele grammatika. II. Süntaks. Lisa: Kiri. Peatoim. Mati Erelt , toim. Tiiu Erelt , Henn Saari , Ülle Viks. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.

EKSS 2009 = Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat. 1 , A–J. „Eesti kirjakeele seletussõnaraamatu” 2. , täiendatud ja parandatud trükk. Toim. Margit Langemets , Mai Tiits , Tiia Valdre , Leidi Veskis , Ülle Viks , Piret Voll. Eesti Keele Instituut. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.

Ervin-Tripp jt 1984 = Susan Ervin-Tripp , Mary Catherine O’Connor , Jarrett Rosenberg. Language and power in the family. – Language and Power. Ed. Cheris Kramarae , Muriel Schulz , William M. O’Barr , Los Angeles: Sage , 116–135.

Günthner , Susanne 1996. The prosodic contextualization of moral work: an analysis of reproaches in ’why’-formats. – Prosody in Conversation. Ed. Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , Margret Selting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 271–302.

Heritage , John 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Huddleston , Rodney 1994. The contrast between interrogatives and questions. – Journal of Linguistics 30 , 411–439.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016704 .

ISK 2004 = Auli Hakulinen (päätoim.) , Maria Vilkuna , Riitta Korhonen , Vesa Koivisto , Tarja Riitta Heinonen , Irja Alho. Iso suomen kielioppi. (= Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 950.) Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Laanesoo , Kirsi 2012. Pööratud polaarsusega retoorilised küsimused argivestluses. – Keel ja Kirjandus 7 , 499−517.

Metslang , Helle 1981. Küsilause eesti keeles. Tallinn: Valgus.

Metslang , Helle 2004. Imperative and related matters in everyday Estonian. – Linguistica Uralica 4 , 243–256.

Pajusalu , Renate 2006. Multiple motivations for meaning of an elative wh-construction in Estonian. – Trames. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 10 (4) , 324–340.

Palmer , Frank Robert 2001. Mood and Modality. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 .

Schegloff , Emanuel A. 1984. On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. – Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Ed. J. Maxwell Atkinson , John Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 28–52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.006 .

Schegloff , Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 .

Selting , Margret , Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2001. Introducing interactional linguistics. – Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Ed. Margret Selting , Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company , 1–22.

Sidnell , Jack 2010. Conversation Analysis. An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670 .

Stivers , Tanya , Nick J. Enfield 2010. A coding scheme for question-response sequences in conversation. – Journal of Pragmatics 42 , 2620–2626.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002 .

 
Back

Current Issue: Vol. 63, Issue 1, 2018


Publishing schedule:
               Next year June