| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Keevallik, Leelo, 1969-
(författare)
-
Hinnangu grammatikast [On the grammar of assessments]
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri = Journal of estonian and finno-ugric linguistics. - 1736-8987 .- 2228-1339. ; 1:2, s. 147-161
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Artikkel käsitleb lauseid, mis algavad hinnangusõnaga ja mida on traditsiooniliselt käsitletud aluslauseliste tarinditena. Võttes arvesse morfosüntaktilisi, semantilisi, järjendilisi ja intonatsioonilisi piiranguid, argumenteeritakse, et pigem tuleks tarindit analüüsida kui kommentaari ja lause kombinatsiooni. Kommentaar sisaldab hinnangusõna või -fraasi ja lause hinnatavat. Hinnangulausel on seega eesti keeles oma eripärane grammatiline vorm. Tarindi peamiseks eeliseks on võimalus kommenteerida eelnevat, minnes samas kohe edasi järgmise vaatenurga või teema juurde. Materjal pärineb nii suulistest kui kirjalikest allikatest ja peamiselt suhtluskeskkondadest, st suulisest vestlusest ja interneti jututubadest.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Keevallik, Leelo, 1969-
(författare)
-
Käskiv kõneviis nõustuvas voorus ja vastuste tüpoloogia [Imperative in complying turns and the typology of answers]
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Emakeele seltsi aastaraamat. - 0206-3735. ; 54, s. 94-106
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Imperative has traditionally been treated as a grammatical feature characteristic of first pair parts in adjacency pairs, expressing orders, requests, challenges, and demands. These actions make relevant compliance as the next action. In a number of languages, however, among them in Estonian, imperative is also used in second pair parts. It occurs as a response to a proposal that is expressed in first person but implies collaboration on behalf of the recipient. As a rule, the verb from the first pair part of the adjacency pair (proposal) is repeated in the complying imperative response. The sequence proposal in 1st person – compliance in 2nd person imperative constitutes a grammatical configuration that results form the particular interactional goals of the speakers. Without taking into consideration the specifics of social actions and their sequencing the configuration is impossible to characterize, as the syntax of the proposals varies. As an alternative to the generic response with particle jaa/jah, a verb repeat is a more independent action that enhances the social and deontic force of the answer. By complying with a verb, the speaker makes a stronger commitment to the proposed activity. Verb repeats, albeit not in the imperative, are also possible as responses to proposals in other persons in Estonian. In addition, they occur as responses to yes/no questions. The latter pattern has been described as a typological feature in world’s languages. It seems that the possibility of imperative responses co-occurs with verb repeat responses to questions. In varieties of Estonian that have been in close contact with languages that do not reuse verbs in the same way, such as Swedish, verbs are instead replaced with ’do’ in the second pair part. The study is based on spoken language corpora.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Keevallik, Leelo, 1969-
(författare)
-
Üldküsimuse lihtvastuste funktsioonid [The functions of simple answers to yes/no questions]
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Keel ja Kirjandus. - 0131-1441. ; 52:1, s. 33-53
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Two typologically different systems are used in the answer formats to yes-no questions in Estonian, particles and echo-responses. They can be implemented separately as well as in combinations with each other or other particles. The paper studies the grammatical, pragmatic and interactional factors that affect the choice of the answer format. It depends on the pragmatic focus of the question, its polarity, as well as the polarity of the answer, and the action that is carried out by the answer. At the same time, the speaker displays her understanding of the action-import of the question in the answer and may provide subtle criticism on its design. This affects the opportunities for further development of the conversation.
|
|
