Space and demonstratives: an experiment with Estonian exophoric demonstratives

In recent years, the study of exophoric demonstratives has increased in Indo- European languages, but has received fairly little research attention in Estonian. The aim of the study is to verify by the means of a production experiment whether distance has an effect on the choice of Estonian exophoric demonstratives. Binomial mixed effects logistic regression analysis suggests that distance is the best predictor for the choice between demonstrative adverbs, but it has no effect on the choice between the demonstrative pronoun see ‘this’ and other referential devices, which can be explained by the lack of usage of the demonstrative pronoun too ‘that’. However, there also occurs unexpected usage of demonstrative adverbs that is best explained by other attributes of the referent and reference situation rather than simple spatial opposition. Thus, although the best predictor in demonstrative adverb choice proves to be distance, other attributes may play a fairly important role

Katsed demonstratiivpronoomenite ja demonstratiivadverbidega

Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsiooneDemonstratiivid – sõnad nagu see ja too ning siin ja seal – saavad oma tähenduse kontekstis. Maailma keeltes on ruumilises kontekstis ehk ruumis viitamisel peamiseks demonstratiivide valikut mõjutavaks teguriks peetud referendi kaugust kõnelejast. Eesti keele demonstratiivide kasutust on ruumilises kontekstis aga vähe käsitletud. Siinse doktoritöö eesmärgiks on uurida, kas eesti keeles mõjutavad demonstratiivide valikut peale kauguse ka teised tegurid. Lisaks vaadeldakse, kuidas nende tegurite mõju erineb eesti, vene ja soome keele demonstratiivide kasutusest ning kuidas on demonstratiivid seotud teiste viitevahendite (nt noomenifraaside ja personaalpronoomenite) kasutusega. Tööst selgub, et eesti keele demonstratiivide valikut mõjutavad referendi kaugus kõnelejast, referendi eristatavus ja kontrastiivne olukord. Mida kaugemal on referent, seda rohkem kasutatakse demonstratiive too ja seal, mida lähemal on referent, seda rohkem demonstratiive see ja siin. Referendi eristatavuse mõju ei avaldu mitte selles, kas kõneleja valib raskesti eristatavale referendile viidates demonstratiivi see või too, vaid selles, kuidas kasutatakse demonstratiivi seal. Kui referenti on keeruline märgata, alustatakse lauset demonstratiiviga seal, millele lisatakse seejärel täpsem referendi kirjeldus, nt sealt kolmesest rühmast kõige parempoolne klots. Kontrasti mõju ilmnemiseks peavad omavahel võrreldavad referendid aga asuma nii kõneleja kui üksteise suhtes kaugel. Kauguse ja kontrasti mõju osas sarnaneb eesti keel vene ja soome keelega, kuid kõik need keeled erinevad üksteisest teiste viitevahendite kasutamise poolest. Soome keeles eelistatakse demonstratiive, vene keeles noomenifraase ja personaalpronoomeneid. Eesti keel jääb viitevahendite kasutuse poolest nende kahe keele vahele. Doktoritööst järeldub, et eesti keeles mõjutab demonstratiivide valikut eelkõige kaugus. Teiste viitavahendite kasutust mõjutab aga demonstratiivide arv keeles. Mida rohkem on keeles demonstratiive, seda rohkem funktsioone nad täidavad ning seda vähem läheb vaja teisi viitevahendeid.Demonstratives, words like this and there, get their meaning from context. In spatial reference, i.e., indicating referents in physical space, the distance of the referent from the speaker has been considered the main factor that influences the choice of demonstratives in the world’s languages. In Estonian, however, the use of demonstratives in spatial context has had little research attention. The aim of this thesis is to study the factors that influence the choice of Estonian demonstratives in spatial reference and to explore how these factors differ in the use of Estonian, Russian and Finnish demonstratives. In addition, the study investigates how the use of demonstratives is linked to the use of other referential devices (e.g., bare NPs and personal pronouns). The findings suggest that the choice of Estonian demonstratives is influenced by the distance of the referent, the visual salience of the referent and the need for contrast. The farther the referent is, the more demonstratives too and seal are used, the closer the referent is, the more demonstratives, see and siin are used. The impact of visual salience is manifested in the use of the demonstrative adverb seal, i.e., when a distant referent is hard to detect for the addressee, the speaker starts the utterance with seal after which s/he adds a more detailed description of the referent. For the effects of contrast to occur, the referents have to be far from the speaker and from each other. In terms of distance and contrast effects, the results of Estonian, Russian and Finnish are similar, however these languages differ in their use of other referential devices. In Finnish, demonstratives are preferred, whereas Russian speakers tend to use personal pronouns and bare NPs. Estonian lies between these two languages in terms of its use of other referential devices. To conclude, from the tested factors distance has the strongest effect on the choice of Estonian demonstratives. The use of other referential devices is influenced by the number of demonstrative pronouns that a language has and the functions that these demonstratives fulfil.https://www.ester.ee/record=b522969

Kas see on sama mis too? Hinnangukatse eesti keele demonstratiivpronoomenite ja demonstratiivadverbidega

Eesti keeles on kaks demonstratiivpronoomenite süsteemi: üheliikmeline, kus kasutatakse demonstratiivpronoomenit seedistantsneutraalselt, ja kaheliikmeline, kus see viitab kõneleja lähedal ning too kaugel olevale referendile. Mõlemas süsteemis lisatakse demonstratiivpronoomenile sageli demonstratiivadverb (nt see siin). Süsteemi valik näib olevat seotud keelekõneleja päritoluga – Lõuna-Eesti päritolu kõnelejad kasutavad kaheliikmelist, Põhja-Eesti päritolu üheliikmelist süsteemi. Uurimuses keskendume kahe demonstratiiviga fraasidele (nt see siin), püstitades kaks küsimust. Esiteks, milline on keelekõnelejate enda arvamus selle kohta, milliseid demonstratiive millises ruumilises olukorras nad kasutaksid. Teiseks, kas see, kuidas keelekõneleja arvab end demonstratiive sisaldavaid lauseid kasutavat kattub vastavate lausete tõlgendamisega samas olukorras. Viisime läbi hinnangukatse, mille tulemusi võrdleme varem avaldatud tõlgenduskatse tulemustega. Mõlema katse andmed koguti järjestikuselt ning samadelt katseisikutelt. Hinnangukatse näitas, et lõunaeestlased hindasid too’d sisaldavate lausete ütlemist tõenäolisemaks kui põhjaeestlased. See’d sisaldavate lausete puhul päritolu hinnanguid ei eristanud. Sarnaselt tõlgenduskatsega osutus ka hinnangukatses oluliseks referendi kaugus, kuid visuaalne esilduvus andis erinevaid tulemusi, viidates kauguse teguri kesksusele ning esilduvuse perifeersusele demonstratiivide tähenduses. Abstract. Maria Reile, Kristiina Averin, Nele Põldver: Does see ‘this’ equal too ‘that’? Rating task with Estonian demonstrative pronouns and demonstrative adverbs. Estonian employs two demonstrative pronoun systems – a one-way system (used in North Estonia) where the demonstrative pronoun see is distance neutral, and a two-way system (in South Estonia) where see is the proximal and too the distal demonstrative pronoun. In both systems, demonstrative adverbs are often added to demonstrative pronouns, forming two-demonstrative phrases (e.g., see siin). We conducted a rating study to investigate these phrases, asking which demonstratives the speakers would use in which spatial settings. In addition, we compared these results with a previously published interpretation study to see whether the speakers’ opinions to use or not use certain demonstratives match their interpretations of these demonstratives. The rating study showed that South Estonians would use the demonstrative too more likely as compared to North Estonians while origin had no effect on using the demonstrative see. Both experiments showed a similar effect of distance on demonstrative use, but not visual salience

Kontekst ja viitamine: argivestlused, legod ja narratiivid

Käesolev artikkel käsitleb konteksti ja viitamisvahendeid, mis loovad konteksti. Käsitlus põhineb eelkõige kolmel eraldi läbiviidud uurimusel, milles kõigis oli põhitähelepanu algselt suunatud viitamisvahenditele. Vaatleme kontekstualiseerimisvõtteid spontaansetes argivestlustes ja kahes katselises olukorras: katses legoklotsidega, milles üks katsealune ehitab klotsidest maja teise katsealuse juhendamisel, ja pildiseeria põhjal jutustatud narratiivides. Artiklis võrreldakse, mis nendes kolmes kontekstis oli sarnast ja mis erinevat eelkõige vestlustegevuse alguses: tegevuse olemusest märku andmises ja referentide loomises. Kuna üks osa vaadeldavaid narratiive pärineb lastelt, puudutab artikkel mõnevõrra ka erinevate vanuseliste gruppide viitamisstrateegiaid.Context and reference: everyday conversations, Lego blocks and narratives. The article discusses context and context-creating means of reference. It is mainly based on three separate studies, all of which originally concentrated on referential devices. We examine contextualizing techniques in spontaneous everyday conversations and in two experimental situations: in an experiment with Lego blocks where one of the subjects builds a house using Lego blocks while being instructed by the other subject, and in narratives based on a picture sequence. The article compares the similarities and differences between these three contexts, concentrating particularly on the beginning of the conversational activity: signalling the nature of the activity and creating referents. Since some of the narratives are told by children the article also touches briefly the reference strategies of different age groups

Demonstratiivpronoomenid ja -adverbid määratlejatena. Miks me oleme siin ilmas, selles olukorras?

Kokkuvõte. Artiklis analüüsime eesti keele demonstratiivide referentsiaalseid omadusi sellistes konstruktsioonides, kus demonstratiivid kuuluvad definiitse määratlejana nimisõnafraasi koosseisu. Otsime vastust küsimusele, mille poolest erinevad demonstratiivadverb (nt siin, seal) ning demonstratiivpronoomen (see, too), kui need esinevad määratlejana koos kohakäändes nimisõnafraasiga (vrd siin koolis ja selles koolis). Oleme püstitanud hüpoteesi, et demonstratiivadverbid seostuvad ruumitähendust väljendavate substantiividega, demonstratiivpronoomenid esinevad aga nende substantiividega, mille referent on mitteruumiline. Uurimuse andmestik pärineb 2017. aasta eesti keele ühendkorpusest, kust oleme võtnud 100 lauset iga demonstratiivi kohta igas kohakäändes, seega kokku 2400 lauset. Materjali analüüsime kvantitatiivselt (tingimuslike otsustuspuude ja juhumetsadega) ning kvalitatiivselt. Uurimuse tulemused kinnitavad, et substantiivi semantilised omadused, täpsemalt substantiivi semantiline klass ning konkreetsus, on seotud määratleja valikuga. Kohatähenduses substantiividega esineb määratlejana sagedamini demonstratiivadverb, mittekoha tähenduses substantiivide määratlejana kasutatakse aga demonstratiivpronoomenit. Mittekohta tähistavate substantiivide korral mõjutab määratleja valikut omakorda sõna konkreetsus. Seega on võimalik demonstratiivseid määratlejaid eesti keeles kasutada referenti looval viisil. Abstract. Helen Hint, Piia Taremaa, Maria Reile, Renate Pajusalu: Demonstrative pronouns and demonstrative adverbs as determiners in Estonian: why are we in “here world” in “this situation”? We investigate the variation of definite determiner constructions in Estonian: noun phrases with a demonstrative pronoun (see ‘this’, too ‘that’) or demonstrative adverb (siin ‘here’, seal ‘there’) as a determiner are contrasted. The question is what differentiates the use of a demonstrative pronoun and a demonstrative adverb if used in a determiner position in an NP. The data from Estonian National Corpus 2017 were tagged for semantic class of a noun, noun concreteness, and verb type. We collected 100 clauses for each sub-construction (six spatial cases crossed with four determiner forms), 2400 clauses in total. For statistical analysis, we used conditional random forests and inference trees. We show that nouns expressing spatial meaning prefer demonstrative adverbs as determiners, while non-spatial nouns combine with demonstrative pronouns. Spatiality-wise polysemous nouns exhibit more varied preferences. Adverbial determiners are more probably used with concrete nouns, and abstract nouns co-occur with pronominals. Overall, the frequency of demonstrative adverbs as NP attributes confirms that demonstrative adverbs are productive determiners in Estonian

Pelaksanaan Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Awak Kapal pada PT Pelayaran Nasional Indonesia (Pelni) Semarang

Penelitian dari pelaksanaan perlindungan hukum bagi awak kapal pada PT.Pelayaran Nasional Indonesia (Pelni) Semarang ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pelaksanaan perlindungan hukum bagi awak kapal serta mengetahui dan menganalisis hambatan-hambatan apa saja yang muncul serta upaya apa yang dilakukan PT Pelayaran Nasional Indonesia (Pelni) Semarang dalam menanggulangi hambatan pelaksanaan perlindungan hukum terhadap pekerja atau anak buah kapal. Hasil penelitian ini adalah jika dilihat dari segi perjanjian kerja laut maka tidak mencerminkan kepastian hukum yang pasti. Segi hak waktu kerja, istirahat, dan cuti, PT.Pelni Semarang telah dapat melaksanakan ketentuan dalam Pasal 79 ayat (2) UU Nomor 13 Tahun 2003 tentang Ketenagakerjaan. Segi kesehatan dan keselamatan kerja, PT.Pelni telah sesuai dengan ketentuan dari UU No.1 Tahun 1970 tentang keselamatan kapal dan telah sesuai dengan ketentuan Peraturan Pelaksanaan tentang Kecelakaan Pelaut. Hambatan dalam pelaksanaan perlindungan hukum ini kurangnya kesadaran hukum para pekerja di kapal atau anak buah kapal (ABK), dan Serikat pekerja (SP) dikuasai oleh Perusahaan dan sikap pemerintah pusat yang pasif dalam merespon permasalahan yang berkaitan dengan transportasi laut. Sehingga kesimpulan penulisan ini yaitu dari segi perjanjian kerja laut tidak mencerminkan kepastian hukum yang pasti, hak waktu kerja, istirahat dan cuti, serta segi kesehatan dan keselamatan kerja sudah sesuai dengan ketentuan pelaksanaan perlindungan hukum

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