| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Vainik, Ene, et al.
(författare)
-
Kujundlik mõtlemine 2020.–2022. aasta keelekriisis
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Keel ja Kirjandus. - : SA Kultuurileht. - 2346-6014 .- 0131-1441. ; 66:7, s. 651-677
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The paper analyses the patterns of figurative language and thought addressing the abstract domain of “language”, which emerged in the discourse about the language norms and standardisation in Estonian public media in 2020–2022. The situation was perceived as critical by the language practitioners (editors, proof-readers, translators, teachers, etc) because of confusion and ambiguity in respect of when and in what form would the new edition of ÕS (the traditional prescriptive dictionary of Standard Estonian), appear. The ambiguous feelings were accompanied by the sense of threat to fundamental values, and the sense of urgency to act – all the substantial features of a crisis were met. The corpus of texts contained 62 texts by practitioners, journalists, professional linguists (institutional scientists), and state officials. The corpus of texts was analyzed qualitatively from the viewpoint of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Figurative Framing, Systemic Functional Linguistics, and Critical Discourse Analysis. The critical situation stimulated figurative thinking by all the “voices” in discussion: language practitioners framed the Estonian language as a ‘needy’ – an image, which was amplified into an image of ‘protegee’ and further so into ‘victim’. Linguists tended to think and speak of language as a ‘living being’, borrowing vocabulary from evolutionary biology. Both practitioners and researchers also used the image of ‘building’ while highlighting different aspects: linguists talked more about language reconstruction and repair, while the other disputants referred to demolition, breaking down, and decay. Personification was also used, i.e. attributing human qualities and desires to language. The practitioners showed empathy to the language as a sufferer, while the linguists talked about well-being and health. One of the most disputable images was that of language as a social subject that could enjoy freedom. This image, originally proposed by the progressively minded linguists was sharply rejected and responded to by the journalists and the practitioners by using irony and ridiculing. One of the images used only by the practitioners was that of language as a beautiful garden in threat of getting abandoned.
|
|
| 3. |
- Valijärvi, Riitta-Liisa, et al.
(författare)
-
Meä keele eripärad grammatikakirjutuse vaatevinklist
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Language and Literature. - Tallinn : Estonian Academy of Sciences and Estonian Writers’ Union. - 2346-6014 .- 0131-1441. ; 65:8-9, s. 764-778
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Meänkieli is a Finnic language belonging to the Uralic language family. It is spoken in Sweden, where since 2000 it has had the status of an official minority language. Its estimates of the number of speakers range from 20 000 to 75 000. It is closely related to Finnish, and there is a great deal of mutual intelligibility between the two, although Finnish speakers may find it difficult to understand Meänkieli as it has many loanwords and constructions borrowed from Swedish, whilst for Meänkieli speakers Finnish comprehension may be hampered by colloquial Finnish and its standardization, in which Meänkieli did not participate. The prestige of Meänkieli in Sweden has been low, though this has improved since the 2000s, and in Finland it is still often considered a dialect of Finnish. Partly for these reasons much of the research on Meänkieli has been of a sociolinguistic nature, and there has been less research on its grammatical structure. The present article aims to shed light on a number of grammaticographical problems encountered during the compilation of a descriptive grammar of Meänkieli. These include phonological, morphological, syntactical and lexical issues, whilst also taking into account Swedish (and partly Lule/North Saami) influence, bilingualism, analogical processes and the role played by variation and standardisation. In short, we aim to answer the following questions: What makes Meänkieli unique? Which factors and influences account for its specific features? What makes Meänkieli a challenge from a grammaticographical point of view? What would still need to be done for the compilation of more detailed reference grammar of Meänkieli?
|
|
