Naerev hääl ametlikus ja argivestluses

Andra Annuka

Abstract


Artiklis on vaadeldud, kuidas kasutavad kõnelejad naervat häält eestikeelses ametlikus ja argivestluses. Analüüsimaterjal pärineb Tartu Ülikooli suulise eesti keele korpusest. Naervat häält on varem uuritud väga vähe, samuti ei ole võrreldud, kuidas erineb naerva hääle kasutus ametlikes ja argivestlustes. Eesti argivestluste naervatest häältest esineb valdav enamik huumoriga seotud olukordades, ametlikes vestlustes kasutatakse naervat häält enamasti probleemsete situatsioonide leevendamiseks. Analüüs näitab, et eestlased kasutavad naervat häält sama tüüpi humoorikates olukordades nagu need, milles on leitud naeru (naljad, humoorikad lood, öeldu absurdsus või vastuolulisus). Samuti kasutatakse naervat häält naeruga sama tüüpi probleemsetes olukordades (piinlikkus, vabandamine, mitte-eelistatud olukorrad). Lisaks kasutatakse naervat häält n-ö tavalise kõneleja järjeotsimistes, mida ei ole siinkirjutajale teadaolevalt varasemates uurimustes käsitletud.

***

Smile voice in institutional and everyday interaction

This paper focuses on smile voice in institutional and everyday interaction. Previous studies have described smile voice as a pseudo-laugh (Lavin, Maynard 2001: 466). Haakana (2010) has described it as a pre-laughing device or a response to laughter in previous turn.

I have collected conversations from the University of Tartu Corpus of Spoken Estonian. I analyzed 232 pieces from everyday conversation, which included 342 turns that were said with smile voice, and 140 pieces from institutional talk, which included 169 turns that were said with smile voice.

Smile voice appears both in humorous and problematic situations. In humorous situations there are three specific situations: jokes, story-tellings and absurd, in problematic situations there are four specific situations: self-corrections, awkwardness, apologizing and socially not-preferred situations.


Keywords


spoken language, conversation analysis, laughter, humor, problem solving, Estonian

Full Text:

PDF

References


Annuka, Andra 2019. Naer ja naerev hääl eesti suulises vestluses [’Laughter and smile voice in Estonian spoken interaction’]. Magistritöö. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool. http://hdl.handle.net/10062/64315

Arminen, Ilkka; Mia Halonen 2007. Laughing with and at patients: The roles of laughter in confrontations in addiction group therapy. – The Qualitative Report, 12 (3), 484–513.

Clift, Rebecca 2016. Don’t make me laugh: Responsive laugher in (dis)affiliation. – Journal of Pragmatics, 100, 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.01.012

Drew, Paul; Heritage, John (Eds.) 1992. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Studies in interactional sociolinguistics, 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500020844

Glenn, Phillip 1992. Current speaker initation of two-party shared laughter. – Research on Language and Social Interaction, 25 (1–4), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351819109389360

Glenn, Phillip 2003. Laughter in Interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519888

Glenn, Phillip; Holt, Elizabeth 2013. Studies of Laughter in Interaction. London: Bloomsbury.

Haakana, Markku 1999. Laughing Matters: A Conversation Analytical Study of Laughter in Doctor-Patient Interaction. PhD thesis. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

Haakana, Markku 2001. Laughter as a patient's resource: Dealing with delicate aspects of medical interaction. – Text & Talk, 21 (1–2), 187–219. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.21.1-2.187

Haakana, Markku 2010. Laughter and smiling: Notes on co-occurences. – Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (6), 1499–1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.010

Hennoste, Tiit 2000. Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde IV. Suulise kõne erisõnavara III: Partiklid [’Introduction to apoken Estonian: Particles’]. – Akadeemia, 8, 1771–1806.

Hennoste, Tiit; Gerassimenko, Olga; Kasterpalu, Riina; Koit, Mare; Rääbis, Andriela; Strandson, Krista 2009. Suulise eesti keele korpus ja inimese suhtlus arvutiga [’Corpus of spoken Estonian and human-computer interaction’]. – Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat, 5, 111–130. https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa5.07

Hennoste, Tiit; Pajusalu, Karl 2013. Eesti keele allkeeled: õpik gümnaasiumile [’Estonian sublanguages’]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.

Hennoste, Tiit; Rääbis, Andriela; Rumm, Andra 2019. Estonian declarative quesions: Their usage and comparison with vä- and jah-questions. – Journal of Pragmatics, 153, 46–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.010

Holt, Elizabeth 2010. The Last Laugh: Shared Laughter and Topic Termination. – Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (6), 1513–1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.011

Holt, Elizabeth 2013. “There’s Many a True Word Said in Jest”: Seriousness and nonseriousness in interaction. – Phillip Glenn, Elizabeth Holt (Eds.), Studies of Laughter in Interaction. London: Bloomsbury, 69–89.

Hutchby, Ian; Wooffitt, Robin 1998. Conversation Analysis. Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Jefferson, Gail 1979. A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declination: Everyday language. – George Psathas (Ed.), Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, 79–95.

Jefferson, Gail 2004. A note on laughter in ‘male–female’ interaction. – Discourse Studies, 6 (1), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604039445

Jefferson, Gail 2005. On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. – Paul Drew, John Heritage, Gene Lerner, Anita Pomerantz (Eds.), Talking About Troubles in Conversation. New York: Oxford University Press, 165–193.

Jefferson, Gail; Sacks, Harvey; Schegloff, Emanuel 1987. Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. – G. Button, J. R E. Leed (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 152–205.

Kasterpalu, Riina; Hennoste, Tiit 2016. Estonian aa: A multifunctional change-of-state token. – Journal of Pragmatics, 104, 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.010

Keevallik, Leelo 2008. Internal development and borrowing of pragmatic particles: The Estonian vaata/vat ’look’, näed ’you see’ and vot. – Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen, 30/31, 23–54.

Lavin, Danielle; Maynard, Douglas W. 2001. Standardization vs rapport: Laughter and interviewer reaction during telephone surveys. – American Sociological Review, 66 (3), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088888

Norrick, Neal R. 2010. Humor in interaction. – Language and Linguistics Compass, 4 (4), 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00189.x

O’Donell-Trujillo, Nick; Adams, Katherine 1983. Heheh in Conversation: Some coordinating accomplishments of laughter. – The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47 (2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318309374114

Petitjean, Cécile; Cangemi, Francesco 2016. Laughter in correction sequences in speech therapy sessions. – Journal of Pragmatics, 99, 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.006

Pomerantz, Anita 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. – J. Maxwell Atkinson, John Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008

Potter, Jonathan; Hepburn, Alexa 2010. Putting aspiration into words: ‘Laugh particles’, managing descriptive trouble and modulating action. – Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (6), 1543–1555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.003

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.

Sacks, Harvey 1974. An Analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. – Richard Bauman, Joel Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 337–353.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2011. Ten operations in self-initiated, same turn repair. – Makoto Hayashi, Geofrrey Raymond, Jack Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464.002

Schenkein, James N. 1972. Toward an analysis of natural conversation and the sense of heheh. – Semiotica, 6 (4), 344–377. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1972.6.4.344

Speer, Susan A. 2012. The interactional organization of self-praise: Epistemics, preferece organization, and implications for identity research. – Social Psychology Quarterly, 75 (1), 52–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511432939

Vöge, Monika 2008. All You Need is Laugh. Interactional Implications of Laughter in Business Meetings. PhD Thesis. University of Southern Denmark.

Warner-Garcia, Shawn 2014. Laughing when nothing’s funny: The pragmatic use of coping laughter in the negotiation of conversational disagreement. – Pragmatics, 241, 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.1.07war

SEKK = Suulise eesti keele korpus. https://doi.org/10.15155/1-00-0000-0000-0000-00077L




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/ERYa16.01

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Andra Annuka

Creative Commons License
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