ÜLDKÜSIMUSE VORM JA FUNKTSIOONID LÄBI NELJA SAJANDI JA KUUE TEKSTILIIGI; pp. 80–109Full article in PDF format
Forms and functions of polar questions across four centuries and six text types
The article deals with the various forms and functions of polar questions in written Estonian, as well as the relationships between form, function and text type. The analysis is based on material from 17th and 18th-century religious and didactic texts, modern fiction and journalistic texts, internet comment sections and Instant Messaging dialogues. 100 questions from each text type were used in the study. We divide the means of forming polar questions into primary (question markers and word order) and secondary (question-marking conjunctions and epistemic modal particles) means, as well as declarative sentences with question
The main ways of forming polar questions are sentence-initial question particles (chiefly kas
) and declarative sentences or questions featuring only secondary question markers. Each of these groups accounts for 27% of all questions. Sentence-final markers are common only in online dialogues, and inversion appears frequently only in old religious texts. Polar question markers and their usage differ between old and modern texts. Verbal markers have moved from the beginning of the sentence to the end, and the proportion of questions formed by secondary question markers has increased.
The primary function of polar questions in all text types except for old religious literature is to ask for confirmation of one’s understanding (questions expressing assumptions or doubts); this function accounts for 56–75% of all questions. The proportion of information-seeking questions is 31–32% in fiction and journalistic texts and between 0–14% in other text types. Moreover, all text types featured examples of directives and rhetorical questions, and old religious texts featured “testing” questions (where the questioner knows the answer and is testing the conversation partner’s knowledge).
In modern texts, requests for information are expressed primarily by sentence-initial particles and word order. Information-seeking questions did not appear in older texts. Questions expressing doubt were formed in all printed texts by markers similar to those used to request for information; in internet texts, the usage of different markers was more variable.
Questions expressing assumptions are in modern texts expressed primarily by declarative sentences and secondary markers, as well as sentence-final question markers in internet texts. In old written texts, such questions are formed by sentence-initial particles, which are often accompanied by secondary markers. Overall, secondary markers are closely associated with questions expressing assumptions, but are hardly ever found in information-seeking questions. The analysis reveals that the primary function of polar questions and the relationships between form and function do not depend on the time period, text type, or the reality/fictionality of the interaction. The preferences for particular means of question formation were not affected by prescriptive norms or language contact.
Dingemanse jt 2014 = Mark Dingemanse, Joe Blythe, Tyko Dirksmeyer. Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages: An exercise in pragmatic typology. – Studies in Language 38 (1), 5–43.
Enfield jt 2010 = Nick J. Enfield, Tanya Stivers, Stephen Levinson. Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: An introduction. – Journal of Pragmatics 42 (10), 2615−2619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.001.
Englert, Christina 2010. Questions and responses in Dutch conversations. – Journal of Pragmatics 42, 2666−2684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.005.
Erelt, Mati 2006. Lause õigekeelsus. Juhatused ja harjutused. Tartu.
Heinemann, Trine 2010. The question-response system of Danish. – Journal of Pragmatics 42, 2703−2725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.007.
Hennoste jt 2013 = Tiit Hennoste, Andriela Rääbis, Kirsi Laanesoo. Küsimused eestikeelses infodialoogis II. Küsimused ja tegevused. – Keel ja Kirjandus 1, 7–28.
Heritage, John 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. – Research on Language & Social Interaction 45 (1), 1–29.
Hyland, Ken 2002. What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. – Text & Talk 22 (4), 529−557.
Laanesoo, Kirsi 2012. Pööratud polaarsusega retoorilised küsimused argivestluses. – Keel ja Kirjandus 7, 499–517.
Lindström, Liina 2016. Infostruktuur. – Eesti keele süntaks. Toim. Mati Erelt, Helle Metslang. (= Eesti keele varamu 3.) Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli kirjastus. (Ilmumas.)
Marley, Carol 2002. Popping the question: questions and modality in written dating advertisements. – Discourse Studies 4 (1), 75−98.
Metslang, Helle 1981. Küsilause eesti keeles. Tallinn: ENSV TA Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.
Metslang, Helle 2010. Isepäine üldküsilause. − Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 55 (2009). Peatoim. Mati Erelt. Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus, 119−137.
Metslang jt 2011 = Helle Metslang, Külli Habicht, Karl Pajusalu. Developmental paths of interrogative particles: the case of Estonian. – Folia Linguistica Historica 32, 149–187.
Metslang jt 2014 = Helle Metslang, Karl Pajusalu, Külli Habicht. Koordinatiivsed partiklid lause perifeerias. – Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 59 (2013). Peatoim. Mati Erelt. Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus, 139–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/esa59.07.
Metslang jt 2015 = Helle Metslang, Karl Pajusalu, Külli Habicht. Conjunctive markers of polar questions in Estonian. – New Trends in Nordic and General Linguistics. Eds. Martin Hilpert, Jan-Ola Östman, Christine Mertzlufft, Michael Rießler, Janet Duke. Berlin, Munich & Boston: De Gruyter, 283–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110346978.283.
Miestamo, Matti 2011. Polar interrogatives in Uralic languages. A typological perspective. – Linguistica Uralica XLVII (1), 1–21.
Quirk jt 1985 = Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, Jan Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Reese, Brian Jon 2007. Bias in Questions. The University of Texas at Austin.
Romero, Maribel, Chung-hye Han 2004. On negative yes/no questions. – Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (5), 609−658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94.
Rumm, Andra 2015. Avatud küsimused suulises argivestluses. Magistritöö. http://dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/handle/10062/46889/Rumm_2015.pdf. (12.03.2016)
Saari, Henn 1976. Keelehääling. Tallinn: Valgus.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208.
Sepamaa, Henrik 1978. Pisut kas-küsimusest. – Keel ja Kirjandus 5, 300.
Stivers, Tanya 2010. An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation. – Journal of Pragmatics 42, 2772−2781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011. Stivers, Tanya, Nick J. Enfield 2010.
A coding scheme for question−response sequences in conversation. – Journal of Pragmatics 42, 2620−2626.Back to Issue