Kvotatiivsusindeksid soome-ugri keeltes (komi, udmurdi, ungari, soome ja eesti keeles)

Väitekiri keskendub kvotatiivsusindeksi kategooriale ja selle tänapäevasele kasutusele viies soome-ugri keeles: udmurdi, komi, ungari, soome ja eesti keeles. Kuigi kvotatiivsusindeksite kirjeldusi leidub ka varasemates uurimustes, pole seda teemat veel põhjalikult käsitletud ühegi siin uuritud keele puhul ega soome-ugri keeleteaduses üldisemalt. Varasemad uurimused (nt Buchstaller ja Van Alphen 2012) on näidanud, et mõned tüpoloogiliselt sarnased ja erinevad keeled kasutavad kvotatiivsusindeksina nii eri grammatilisi kategooriaid kui ka võrreldavaid kompleksseid konstruktsioone. Vaatamata geograafilisele kaugusele uuritud keelte vahel, kasutatakse samasuguseid semantilisi klasse kvotatiivsusindeksina ka nendes keeltes. Ei ole üllatav, et kõikides keeltes kasutatakse kvotatiivsusindeksina kõne (nt ütlema) ja episteemilisi verbe (mõtlema), kaudse kõne allikat kodeerivaid nimisõnafraase (minu sõber, sõnum), sidesõnu (et) ja demonstratiive (nii et). Otsesemat keeltevahelist vastavust võib näha nende keelte puhul, mis on tihedalt seotud. Niisiis on soome ja eesti keeles sama tüüpi elemente ja neid kasutatakse kvotatiivkonstruktsioonides sarnaselt. Komi ja udmurdi keeles leidub märgatavaid sarnasusi omakeelsete kvotatiivsuspartiklite kasutuses ja demonstratiivide valikus. Vaid mitterefereerivate elementide valiku ja vene keele mõju tõttu on udmurdi keele kvotatiivsusmarkerite arsenal suurem kui komi keele oma. Ungari keel kui kaugem sugulaskeel kasutab omakorda rohkem omakeelseid vahendeid ja seal on vähe sarnast teiste soome-ugri keeltega. Seda võib seletada keeltevahelise kontakti puudumisega pika aja jooksul ja iseseisvate arengutega. Seejuures on siiski võimalik soome-ugri keelte kvotatiivkonstruktsioone võrrelda. Lisaks sellele leidub uuritud keelte põhjal vastavusi ka tüpoloogiliselt mitte-sarnaste keeltega, nt nii soome ja eesti kui ka inglise keeles on olemas kvotatiivsusväljendeid olema-verbi ja sarnasuse markeriga: mina olin nagu, et vs. mä olin niinku, et vs. I was like. Vastavaid markereid leidub ka udmurdi keeles, mis kasutab nii omakeelset (kaď) kui ka vene keelest (ťipa) laenatud sarnasust väljendavat markerit nagu-tähendusega kvotatiivsusindeksina.This dissertation concentrates on the category of quotative index and its contemporary use in the five Finno-Ugric languages: Finnish and Estonian in North-East Europe, Komi and Udmurt in Russia, and Hungarian in Central Europe. Although brief descriptions of quotative indexes are found in previous studies, this topic has received relatively little attention both language-wise, as well as in Finno-Ugric linguistics in general. Previous studies (e.g. Buchstaller & Van Alphen 2012) have shown that even typologically different languages tend to share similar quotative markers or more complex grammatical constructions. Despite the geographic distance between the five languages, the same semantic classes are used as quotative indexes in the languages. It is of no surprise that in the five languages one can find speech (say) and epistemic (think) verbs, nouns encoding the source of reported discourse (my friend, a notification), conjunctions (that) and demonstratives (so). A more exact correspondence can be observed between the closely related languages. Thus, in Finnish and Estonian not only the same type of elements can be observed, but they are also used in identical structures. In Komi and Udmurt, a correspondence can be observed in the use of the indigenous quotative particles and the choice of demonstratives. Only the choice of non-reportative elements and Russian influence make the arsenal of Udmurt quotatives broader compared to Komi. Hungarian, in turn, as a distantly related language, shows similarity with the other languages only to a certain extent, which can be explained by the lack of the contact between the languages and independent developments in Hungarian. In addition, correspondences can also be observed between typologically different languages, e.g. both Finnish and Estonian, and English use as quotative indexes combinations of be-verb with the similative markers: mina olin nagu et vs. mä olin niinku et vs. I was like. Corresponding markers are also found in Udmurt, which uses both indigenous (kaď) and Russian (ťipa) similative markers with the like-meaning as quotative markers.https://www.ester.ee/record=b528140

New quotatives in Finnish and Estonian languages

http://www.ester.ee/record=b4492755*es

Demonstratives in discourse

This volume explores the use of demonstratives in the structuring and management of discourse, and their role as engagement expressions, from a crosslinguistic perspective. It seeks to establish which types of discourse-related functions are commonly encoded by demonstratives, beyond the well-established reference-tracking and deictic uses, and also investigates which members of demonstrative paradigms typically take on certain functions. Moreover, it looks at the roles of non-deictic demonstratives, that is, members of the paradigm which are dedicated e.g. to contrastive, recognitional, or anaphoric functions and do not express deictic distinctions. Several of the studies also focus on manner demonstratives, which have been little studied from a crosslinguistic perspective. The volume thus broadens the scope of investigation of demonstratives to look at how their core functions interact with a wider range of discourse functions in a number of different languages. The volume covers languages from a range of geographical locations and language families, including Cushitic and Mande languages in Africa, Oceanic and Papuan languages in the Pacific region, Algonquian and Guaykuruan in the Americas, and Germanic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric languages in the Eurasian region. It also includes two papers taking a broader typological approach to specific discourse functions of demonstratives

Demonstratives in discourse

This volume explores the use of demonstratives in the structuring and management of discourse, and their role as engagement expressions, from a crosslinguistic perspective. It seeks to establish which types of discourse-related functions are commonly encoded by demonstratives, beyond the well-established reference-tracking and deictic uses, and also investigates which members of demonstrative paradigms typically take on certain functions. Moreover, it looks at the roles of non-deictic demonstratives, that is, members of the paradigm which are dedicated e.g. to contrastive, recognitional, or anaphoric functions and do not express deictic distinctions. Several of the studies also focus on manner demonstratives, which have been little studied from a crosslinguistic perspective. The volume thus broadens the scope of investigation of demonstratives to look at how their core functions interact with a wider range of discourse functions in a number of different languages. The volume covers languages from a range of geographical locations and language families, including Cushitic and Mande languages in Africa, Oceanic and Papuan languages in the Pacific region, Algonquian and Guaykuruan in the Americas, and Germanic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric languages in the Eurasian region. It also includes two papers taking a broader typological approach to specific discourse functions of demonstratives

Demonstratives in discourse

This volume explores the use of demonstratives in the structuring and management of discourse, and their role as engagement expressions, from a crosslinguistic perspective. It seeks to establish which types of discourse-related functions are commonly encoded by demonstratives, beyond the well-established reference-tracking and deictic uses, and also investigates which members of demonstrative paradigms typically take on certain functions. Moreover, it looks at the roles of non-deictic demonstratives, that is, members of the paradigm which are dedicated e.g. to contrastive, recognitional, or anaphoric functions and do not express deictic distinctions. Several of the studies also focus on manner demonstratives, which have been little studied from a crosslinguistic perspective. The volume thus broadens the scope of investigation of demonstratives to look at how their core functions interact with a wider range of discourse functions in a number of different languages. The volume covers languages from a range of geographical locations and language families, including Cushitic and Mande languages in Africa, Oceanic and Papuan languages in the Pacific region, Algonquian and Guaykuruan in the Americas, and Germanic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric languages in the Eurasian region. It also includes two papers taking a broader typological approach to specific discourse functions of demonstratives

Demonstratives in discourse

This volume explores the use of demonstratives in the structuring and management of discourse, and their role as engagement expressions, from a crosslinguistic perspective. It seeks to establish which types of discourse-related functions are commonly encoded by demonstratives, beyond the well-established reference-tracking and deictic uses, and also investigates which members of demonstrative paradigms typically take on certain functions. Moreover, it looks at the roles of non-deictic demonstratives, that is, members of the paradigm which are dedicated e.g. to contrastive, recognitional, or anaphoric functions and do not express deictic distinctions. Several of the studies also focus on manner demonstratives, which have been little studied from a crosslinguistic perspective. The volume thus broadens the scope of investigation of demonstratives to look at how their core functions interact with a wider range of discourse functions in a number of different languages. The volume covers languages from a range of geographical locations and language families, including Cushitic and Mande languages in Africa, Oceanic and Papuan languages in the Pacific region, Algonquian and Guaykuruan in the Americas, and Germanic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric languages in the Eurasian region. It also includes two papers taking a broader typological approach to specific discourse functions of demonstratives

Demonstratives in discourse

This volume explores the use of demonstratives in the structuring and management of discourse, and their role as engagement expressions, from a crosslinguistic perspective. It seeks to establish which types of discourse-related functions are commonly encoded by demonstratives, beyond the well-established reference-tracking and deictic uses, and also investigates which members of demonstrative paradigms typically take on certain functions. Moreover, it looks at the roles of non-deictic demonstratives, that is, members of the paradigm which are dedicated e.g. to contrastive, recognitional, or anaphoric functions and do not express deictic distinctions. Several of the studies also focus on manner demonstratives, which have been little studied from a crosslinguistic perspective. The volume thus broadens the scope of investigation of demonstratives to look at how their core functions interact with a wider range of discourse functions in a number of different languages. The volume covers languages from a range of geographical locations and language families, including Cushitic and Mande languages in Africa, Oceanic and Papuan languages in the Pacific region, Algonquian and Guaykuruan in the Americas, and Germanic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric languages in the Eurasian region. It also includes two papers taking a broader typological approach to specific discourse functions of demonstratives

Demonstratives in discourse

This volume explores the use of demonstratives in the structuring and management of discourse, and their role as engagement expressions, from a crosslinguistic perspective. It seeks to establish which types of discourse-related functions are commonly encoded by demonstratives, beyond the well-established reference-tracking and deictic uses, and also investigates which members of demonstrative paradigms typically take on certain functions. Moreover, it looks at the roles of non-deictic demonstratives, that is, members of the paradigm which are dedicated e.g. to contrastive, recognitional, or anaphoric functions and do not express deictic distinctions. Several of the studies also focus on manner demonstratives, which have been little studied from a crosslinguistic perspective. The volume thus broadens the scope of investigation of demonstratives to look at how their core functions interact with a wider range of discourse functions in a number of different languages. The volume covers languages from a range of geographical locations and language families, including Cushitic and Mande languages in Africa, Oceanic and Papuan languages in the Pacific region, Algonquian and Guaykuruan in the Americas, and Germanic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric languages in the Eurasian region. It also includes two papers taking a broader typological approach to specific discourse functions of demonstratives

Demonstratives in discourse

This volume explores the use of demonstratives in the structuring and management of discourse, and their role as engagement expressions, from a crosslinguistic perspective. It seeks to establish which types of discourse-related functions are commonly encoded by demonstratives, beyond the well-established reference-tracking and deictic uses, and also investigates which members of demonstrative paradigms typically take on certain functions. Moreover, it looks at the roles of non-deictic demonstratives, that is, members of the paradigm which are dedicated e.g. to contrastive, recognitional, or anaphoric functions and do not express deictic distinctions. Several of the studies also focus on manner demonstratives, which have been little studied from a crosslinguistic perspective. The volume thus broadens the scope of investigation of demonstratives to look at how their core functions interact with a wider range of discourse functions in a number of different languages. The volume covers languages from a range of geographical locations and language families, including Cushitic and Mande languages in Africa, Oceanic and Papuan languages in the Pacific region, Algonquian and Guaykuruan in the Americas, and Germanic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric languages in the Eurasian region. It also includes two papers taking a broader typological approach to specific discourse functions of demonstratives