ESTONIAN ACADEMY
PUBLISHERS
eesti teaduste
akadeemia kirjastus
The Yearbook of the Estonian Mother Tongue Society cover
The Yearbook of the Estonian Mother Tongue Society

Diskursusemarker (ma) arvan (et); pp. 63–90

Full article in PDF format | 10.3176/esa65.03

Authors
Tiit Hennoste, Külli Habicht, Helle Metslang, Külli Prillop, Kirsi Laanesoo, David Ogren, Liina Pärismaa, Elen Pärt, Andra Rumm, Andriela Rääbis, Carl Eric Simmul

Abstract

The discourse marker (ma) arvan (et) ’i think’

The article analyzes the usage of variants of the discourse marker (ma) arvan (et) in different registers of Estonian. The use of this marker is compared in 15 text groups, which can be grouped into three registers: printed texts, online texts and spoken texts. The research material comes from the corpora available on Keeleveeb as well as corpora of spoken language and online conversations and contains a total of 2572 usage instances. We seek answers to three research questions:

         – does the frequency of the marker differ by text group and/or register?
         – how does the frequency of variants of the marker differ according to syntactic position in different text groups and/or registers?
         – are different variants of the marker associated with different text groups and/or registers?

Our analysis shows that there are four variants of the marker in use: ma arvan, ma arvan et, arvan, and arvan et, and registers and text groups differ in terms of the frequency of the marker, its typical position in the sentence, and its typical form.  Based on the usage of the marker (ma) arvan (et), texts can be divided into four groups.
On one end of the scale lies the spoken language register. The frequency of the marker is substantially higher in spoken language than in other groups, and almost exclusively variants including the pronoun ma are used. Moreover, variants without the conjunction et are more common in spoken language than elsewhere. It is common for the verb and et to be pronounced together, such that the marker is in itself a prosodic whole. The marker often appears non-sentence-initially and is almost always prosodically integrated with the rest of the sentence.
The other end of the scale is formed by non-fiction printed texts, i.e. journalism and (popular) science. These groups are characterized by the sentence-initial position of the marker, the high frequency of pro-drop variants (i.e. without the subject pronoun ma ‘I’), and variants in which the orthographic boundary before the word et (marked by a comma) has been preserved. Fiction texts represent a middle ground, and are distinguished from other printed texts by the structure of the marker; similarly to spoken language, fiction texts feature more use of ma and less use of et.
Online texts form a heterogeneous group with vague internal boundaries. One identifiable subgroup is spontaneous real-time online conversations, in which the marker appears very frequently (as in spoken language), but its usage is peculiar. Next to this group on the scale are chat rooms. Generally, these groups behave similarly to spoken language. On the other end of the scale are news groups, which are most similar to printed texts. Forum texts and comments form a heterogeneous intermediate range.
In summary, the differences in marker usage in different text groups are related to numerous factors, among which are spoken/written, processuality, dialogicity, spontaneity/editedness, the personal/impersonal nature of the interaction, and the influence of the rules of the standard language.

 

References

Aijmer, Karin 1997. I think – an English modal particle. – Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives. Ed. by Toril Swan, Olaf Jansen-Westvik. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–47.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.1

Auer, Peter, Jan Lindström 2016. Left/right asymmetries and the grammar of pre- vs. post-positioning in German and Swedish talk-in-interaction. – Language Sciences 56, 68–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.03.001

Beijering, Karin 2012. Expressions of Epistemic Modality in Mainland Scandinavian: A Study into the Lexicalization-Grammaticalization-Pragmaticalization Interface. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358

Breitkopf-Siepmann, Anna 2012. Hedging in German and Russian conference presentations: A cross-cultural view. – Subjectivity in Language and Discourse. Ed. by Nicole Baumgarten, Inke Du Bois, Juliane House. Bingley: Emerald, 295–318.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004261921_014

Brinton, Laurel 2017. The Development of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Degand, Liesbeth, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. – Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16 (1), 59–85. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.03deg

Degand, Liesbeth, Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen 2011. Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. – Linguistics 49 (2), 287–294.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.008

Dehé Nicole, Anne Wichmann 2010. Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that): Prosodic evidence for uses as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. – Studies in Language 34 (1), 36–74. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.1.02deh

Erelt, Mati 2017. Liitlause. – Eesti keele süntaks. (= Eesti keele varamu III.) Toim. Mati Erelt, Helle Metslang. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 647–755.

Erelt, Mati, Helle Metslang, Helen Plado 2017. Alus. – Eesti keele süntaks. (= Eesti keele varamu III.) Toim. Mati Erelt, Helle Metslang. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 240–257.

Fischer, Olga 2007. The development of English parentheticals: A case of grammaticalization? – Tracing English through Time: Explorations in Language Variation. A Festschrift for Herbert Schendl on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Ed. by Ute Smit et al. Vienna: Braumüller, 103–118.

Fraser, Bruce 2009. Topic orientation markers. – Journal of Pragmatics 41 (5), 892–898.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.006

Haselow, Alexander 2012. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. – Language & Communication 32 (3), 182–204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.008

Heine, Bernd 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? – Linguistics 51 (6), 1205–1247.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0048

Heine, Bernd 2018. Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization? – New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change. Ed. by Sylvie Hancil, Tine Breban, José Vicente Lozano. (= Studies in Language Companion Series 202.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 23–54.
https://doi.org.10.1075/slcs.202.02hei

Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva 2019. On the rise of discourse markers.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333783353_On_the_rise_of_discourse_marker  (09.04.2020).

Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa 2014. Agreement or crystallization: Patterns of 1st and 2nd person subjects and verbs of cognition in Finnish conversational interaction. – Journal of Pragmatics 63, 63–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.011

Hennoste, Tiit 2004. Et-komplementlause peaverbide funktsioonid eestikeelses vestluses. – Keel ja Kirjandus 7–8, 504–523; 590–609.

Hennoste, Tiit 2006. Et-komplementlause peaverbide funktsioonid eestikeelses vestluses 2: mõtlema. – Lähivertailuja 17. (= Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 53.) Toim. Annekatrin Kaivapalu, Külvi Pruuli. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto, 119–134.

Imo, Wolfgang 2011. Clines of subordination – Constructions with the German complement-taking predicate glauben. – Subordination in Conversation. Ed. by Ritva Laury, Ryoto Suzuki. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 165–190.
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24.08imo

Kaltenböck, Gunther 2007. Spoken parenthetical clauses in English. – Parentheticals. (= Linguistics Today 106.) Ed. by Nicole Dehé, Yordanka Kavalova. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 25–52.
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.106.05kal

Keevallik, Leelo 2003. From Interaction to Grammar: Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversations. (= Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34.) Uppsala.

Keevallik, Leelo 2010. Clauses emerging as epistemic adverbs in Estonian conversation. – Linguistica Uralica 46 (2), 81–101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/lu.2010.2.01

Kortmann, Bernd, Agnes Schneider 2011. Grammaticalization in non-standard varieties of English. – The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Ed. by Heiko Narrog, Bernd Heine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 263–278. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0021

Kärkkäinen, Elise 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on ‘I think’. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115

Metslang, Helle 2006. Grammatisatsiooniteooriast tänase pilguga. – Teoreetiline keeleteadus Eestis II. (= Tartu Ülikooli üldkeeleteaduse õppetooli toimetised 7.) Toim. Ilona Tragel, Haldur Õim. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 176–195.

Metslang, Helle, Karl Pajusalu, Külli Habicht 2014. Koordinatiivsed partiklid lause perifeerias. – Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 59 (2013). Peatoim. Mati Erelt. Tallinn: Emakeele Selts, 139–161.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/esa59.07

Mullan, Kerry, Susanna Karlsson 2012. Subjectivity in contrast: A cross-linguistic comparison of ‘I think’ in Australian English, French and Swedish. – Subjectivity in Language and Discourse. (= Studies in Pragmatics 10.) Ed. by Nicole Baumgarten, Inke Du Bois, Juliane House. Bingley: Emerald, 271–294.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004261921_013

O’Grady, Gerard 2017. “I think” in political speech. – International Review of Pragmatics 9 (2), 269–303.
https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00901006

Posio, Pekka 2014. Subject expression in grammaticalizing constructions: The case of creo and acho ‘I think’ in Spanish and Portuguese. – Journal of Pragmatics 63, 5–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.001

Schneider, Stefan 2007. Reduced parenthetical clauses in Roman languages. – Parentheticals. (= Linguistics Today 106.) Ed. by Nicole Dehé, Yordanka Kavalova. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 237–258.
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.106.13sch

Seppänen, Eeva-Leena, Ritva Laury 2007. Complement clauses as turn continuations: The Finnish et(tä)-clause. – Pragmatics 17 (4), 553–572.
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.4.06sep

Simon-Vanderbergen, Anne-Marie 2000. The functions of I think in political discourse. – International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10 (1), 41–63.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00139.x

Thompson, Sandra 2002. “Object complements” and conversation: towards a realistic account. – Studies in Language 26 (1), 125–164.
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho

Thompson, Sandra, A. Anthony Mulac 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammatization of epistemic parentheticals in English. – Approaches to Grammaticalization. Ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Bernd Heine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 313–329.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. ‒ English Text Construction 5 (1), 7–28.
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau

Van Bogaert, Julie 2010. A constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: Accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. – English Language and Linguistics 14 (3), 399–427. doi:10.1017/S1360674310000134

Väänänen, Milja 2016. Subjektin ilmaiseminen yksikön ensimmäisessä persoonassa: tutkimus suomen vanhoista murteista. (= Turun yliopiston julkaisuja, sarja C, osa 430.) Turku.

 

 


Back to Issue