A miks sa torusse ei räägi? Miks-küsilausetega tehtavad suhtlustegevused argitelefonivestlustes
Abstract
Artiklis käsitletakse eesti telefonivestlustes esinevaid küsisõnaga miks moodustatud küsilauseid ja nendega tehtavaid suhtlustegevusi. Kui üldiselt määratletakse miks-küsilauseid kui põhjuse järele küsivaid eriküsimusi, siis selle uurimuse materjali analüüs näitab, et miks-küsilaused on funktsionaalselt väga mitmekihilised ja nendega tehakse igapäevases suhtluses erinevaid suhtlustegevusi, millest küsimused moodustavad ainult marginaalse osa. Uurimuse tulemused näitavad, et miks-küsilauseid kasutatakse järgmiste suhtlustegevuste läbiviimiseks: küsimus, etteheide, käsk, nõuanne, kaeblemine, vaidlustus. Miks-küsilausetele eelneb suhtluses teatud sotsiaalsest normist kõrvalekaldumine või kõneleja jaoks muu vastuolu, mis tuuakse esile just miks-küsilausega.
"Social actions conducted by why-interrogatives in Estonian everyday telephone conversations"
This paper analyses interrogatives formed with the why pronoun in Estonian everyday telephone conversations. Why-interrogatives are regularly defined as questions asking for reasons for or accounts of actions. This paper, however, demonstrates that only a small fraction of why-interrogatives are actually used for questioning. The data come from the Corpus of Spoken Estonian of the University of Tartu. Altogether 41 why-interrogatives were analysed using the approach of interactional linguistics. The primary social actions conducted by why-interrogatives are the following: question, reproach, command, suggestion, complaint and challenge.
The study reveals that why-interrogatives are multifunctional, used to carry out several social actions concurrently. The question form makes it possible for the recipients to interpret why-interrogatives as questions (by giving a neutral answer) or as some socially dispreferred actions, such as reproaches, challenges etc (by justifying themselves). Why-interrogatives demonstrate the speaker’s negative stance towards a preceding action.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Bolden, Galina; Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2011. Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in naturally occurring English conversation. – Journal of Communication, 61 (1), 94–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01528.x
Bova, Antonio; Arcidiacono, Francesco 2013. Investigating children’s Why-questions: A study comparing argumentative and explanatory function. – Discourse Studies, 15 (6), 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613490013
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth 2014. What does grammar tell us about action? – Pragmatics, 24 (3), 623–647. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth; Selting, Margret 2001. Introduction. – E. Couper-Kuhlen, M. Selting (Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1–22.
Egbert, Maria; Vöge, Monika 2008. Wh-interrogative formats used for questioning and beyond: German warum (why) and wieso (why) and English why. – Discourse Studies, 10 (1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085583
EKG II = Erelt, Mati; Kasik, Reet; Metslang, Helle; Rajandi, Henno; Ross, Kristiina; Saari, Henn; Tael, Kaja; Vare, Silvi 1993. Eesti keele grammatika II. Süntaks. Lisa: kiri. [The Grammar of the Estonian Language II: Syntax.] Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut. Tallinn.
EKSS = Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat I–VI. [The Explanatory Dictionary of Estonian.] Langemets, Margit; Tiits, Mai; Valdre, Tiia; Veskis, Leidi; Viks, Ülle; Voll, Piret (Toim.). Eesti keele instituut. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus, 2009.
Günthner, Susanne 1996. The prosodic contextualization of moral work: An analysis of reproaches in ‘why’-formats. – E. Couper-Kuhlen, M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 271–302.
Hennoste, Tiit 2000. Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde: partiklid. [Introduction to spoken Estonian: particles.] – Akadeemia, 8, 1773−1806.
Hennoste, Tiit; Rääbis, Andriela; Laanesoo, Kirsi 2013. Küsimused eestikeelses infodialoogis II. Küsimused ja tegevused. [Questions in Estonian institutional information-seeking dialogues. II. Questions and social actions.] – Keel ja Kirjandus, 1, 7−28.
Hepburn, Audrey; Bolden, Galina 2013. Transcription. – J. Sidnell, T. Stivers (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 57–76.
Heritage, John 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. – Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45 (1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
Heritage John; Raymond, Geoffrey 2012. Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. – J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 179–192.
ISK = Hakulinen, Auli; Vilkuna, Maria; Korhonen, Riitta; Koivisto, Vesa; Heinonen, Tarja Riitta; Alho, Irja 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. [The Large Grammar of Finnish.] SKST 950. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Keevallik, Leelo 2009. Üldküsimuse lihtvastuste funktsioonid. [Simple answers to yes/no questions.] – Keel ja Kirjandus, 1, 33–53.
Keevallik, Leelo 2012. Compromising progressivity: 'no'-prefacing in Estonian. – Pragmatics, 22 (1), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22.1.05kee
Koshik, Irene 2005. Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.16
Laanesoo, Kirsi 2016. Targeting question’s inappositeness: The Estonian kus ‘where’-interrogative in the second position – Discourse Studies, 18 (4), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616647878
Metslang, Helle 1981. Küsilause eesti keeles. [Interrogative sentence in Estonian.] Tallinn: Valgus.
Metslang, Helle 2004. Imperative and related matters in everyday Estonian. – Linguistica Uralica, 4, 243–256.
Pomerantz, Anita 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. – Human Studies, 9 (2), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128
Robinson, Jeffrey D.; Bolden, Galina 2010. Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: The case of explicit account solicitations. – Discourse Studies, 12 (4), 501–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610371051
Rumm, Andra 2015. Avatud küsimused suulises argivestluses. [Wh-questions in Estonian Everyday Conversation.] Magistritöö. Käsikiri TÜ eesti ja üldkeeleteaduse instituudis. http://hdl.handle.net/10062/46889
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1984. On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. – J. Maxwell Atkinson, John Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 28–52.
Stivers, Tanya 2004. “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. – Human Communication Association, 30 (2), 260–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x
Suulise eesti keele korpus. http://www.cl.ut.ee/suuline1/suulisekorpus/index.php?lang=et (26.2.2017).
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/ERYa13.06
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2017 Kirsi Laanesoo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1736-2563 (print)
ISSN 2228-0677 (online)
DOI 10.5128/ERYa.1736-2563