Cover not available
Introduction In:
(Inter)subjectivity across registers of Estonian: Special issue of the Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3:2 (2024)
Edited by Helle Metslang, Tiit Hennoste and Külli Habicht
[Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3:2] 2024
► pp. 119–157
Introduction

(Inter)subjectivity in Estonian registers

ORCID logo | University of Tartu, Estonia
ORCID logo | University of Tartu, Estonia
| University of Tartu, Estonia
ORCID logo | University of Tartu, Estonia
ORCID logo | University of Tartu, Estonia
| University of Tartu, Estonia
ORCID logo | University of Tartu, Estonia
This issue focuses on a little-studied aspect of (inter)subjectivity (S/ IS) in language: the expression of S/ IS in different registers. In the introduction, we overview the background and approach, describe the central registers in connection with using S/ IS devices, and correlate the choice and frequency of S/ IS devices with the situative features of registers. The introduction also includes a brief overview of the articles in the issue.
We have studied three groups of S/ IS devices: (1) pragmatic particles, (2) CTP markers based on complement-taking predicates, and (3) modal verbs. Our central data comes from the Estonian Pragmatic Corpus. We look mainly at the expression of S/ IS in seven registers, broadly divided into three groups: spoken, online, and printed texts.
The papers on the issue deal with the use and development of different particles in registers of Estonian and the use of S/ IS differences between registers to develop metrics for distinguishing registers.
Keywords: subjectivity, intersubjectivity, registers, particles, discourse markers, modal verbs, Estonian
Article outline
  • 1.About (inter)subjectivity and its study
  • 2.S/ IS markers studied to compare registers
  • 3.S/ IS characterisations of registers
    • 3.1Everyday conversation (EC)
      • 3.1.1Particles
      • 3.1.2CTP markers
      • 3.1.3Everyday conversation: Conclusion
    • 3.2Institutional interaction (II)
      • 3.2.1Particles
      • 3.2.2CTP markers
      • 3.2.3Institutional interaction: Conclusion
    • 3.3Instant messaging (IM)
      • 3.3.1Particles
      • 3.3.2CTP markers
      • 3.3.3Instant messaging: Conclusion
    • 3.4Online comments (OC)
      • 3.4.1Particles
      • 3.4.2CTP markers
      • 3.4.3Online comments: Conclusion
    • 3.5Printed fiction (PF)
      • 3.5.1Particles
      • 3.5.2CTP markers
      • 3.5.3Printed fiction: Conclusion
    • 3.6Printed media (PM)
      • 3.6.1Particles
      • 3.6.2CTP markers
      • 3.6.3Modal verbs
      • 3.6.4Printed media: Conclusion
    • 3.7Academic prose (AP)
      • 3.7.1Particles
      • 3.7.2CTP markers
      • 3.7.3Modal verbs
      • 3.7.4Academic prose: Conclusion
  • 4.Comparison of S/ IS marking in registers
  • 5.About the articles in this issue
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (57)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think — an English modal particle. In Toril Swan & Olaf J. Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 99), 1–48. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asu, Eva Liina, Pärtel Lippus, Karl Pajusalu & Pire Teras. 2016. Eesti keele hääldus [Estonian pronunciation]. (Eesti keele varamu II.) Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Baumgarten, Nicole, Inke Du Bois & Juliane House (eds.). 2012. Subjectivity in language and in discourse (Studies in Pragmatics 10). Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2004. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5(1). 107–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre, and style (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breitkopf-Siepmann, Anna. 2012. Hedging in German and Russian conference presentations: A cross-cultural view. In Nicole Baumgarten, Inke Du Bois & Juliane House (eds.), Subjectivity in language and discourse, 295–318. Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brizuela, Maquela, Elaine Andersen & Lynne Stallings. 1999. Discourse markers as indicators of register. Hispania 82(1). 128–141. [URL] (8 July, 2024) DOI logo
Celik, Mehmet. 2001. Teaching English intonation to EFL/ESL students. The Internet TESL Journal VII(63). [URL] (8 July, 2024)
De Cock, Barbara. 2015. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and non-subjectivity across spoken language genres. Spanish in Context 12(1). 10–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1). 59–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
EG 2023 = Metslang, Helle, Mati Erelt, Tiit Hennoste, Reet Kasik, Pire Teras, Annika Viht, Eva Liina Asu, Külli Habicht, Liina Lindström, Pärtel Lippus, Renate Pajusalu, Helen Plado, Andriela Rääbis, Ann Veismann. 2023. Eesti grammatika [Estonian grammar]. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar
EKSS = Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat. 2009 [Explanatory dictionary of the Estonian language]. [URL] (8 July, 2024)
Erelt, Mati. 2007. Syntax. In Mati Erelt (ed.), Estonian language (Linguistica Uralica, supplementary series 1), 93–129. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2000. From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furko, Peter. 2017. Manipulative uses of pragmatic markers in political discourse. Palgrave Communications 31, 17054. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke, An Van Linden & Kristin Davidse. 2013. Subjective compounds and subjectivity/subjectification in the English noun phrase. English Studies 94(1). 90–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habicht, Külli, Külli Prillop & Carl Eric Simmul. 2024. From certainty to uncertainty: the pragmaticalisation of epistemic particles vist ‘probably’ and kindlasti ‘certainly’ in Estonian. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3(2). 233–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, Pentti. 2004. Stance taking in news interviews. SKY Journal in Linguistics 171. 101–142. [URL] (8 July, 2024)
Haselow, Alexander. 2012. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication 32(3). 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long. 2021. On the rise of discourse markers. In Alexander Haselow, Sylvie Hancil (eds.), Studies at the grammar-discourse interface. Discourse markers and discourse-related grammatical phenomena. (Studies in Language Companion Series 219), 23–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit. 2006. Et-komplementlause peaverbide funktsioonid eestikeelses vestluses 2: mõtlema [Functions of the et complement clause in Estonian conversation 2: mõtlema ‘think’]. In Annekatrin Kaivapalu & Külvi Pruuli (eds.), Lähivertailuja 171 (Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 53), 119–134. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylan yliopisto. [URL] (8 July, 2024)
Hennoste, Tiit, Külli Habicht, Helle Metslang, Külli Prillop, Kirsi Laanesoo, David Ogren, Liina Pärismaa, Elen Pärt, Andra Rumm, Andriela Rääbis & Carl Eric Simmul. 2020. Diskursusemarker (ma) arvan (et) [The discourse marker (ma) arvan (et) ‘I think’]. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 651. 63–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit, Helle Metslang, Külli Habicht & Külli Prillop. 2021. Kuue (inter)subjektiivsuspartikli kasutus eesti keele registrites [The use of six (inter)subjectivity particles in Estonian registers]. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 661. 91–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit, Külli Prillop, Külli Habicht, Helle Metslang, Kirsi Laanesoo, Liina Pärismaa, Elen Pärt, Andra Rumm, Andriela Rääbis & Carl Eric Simmul. 2022. Komplementlausega predikaatidel põhinevate diskursusemarkerite kasutus eri registrites [Complement-taking predicate markers in different registers in Estonian]. Keel ja Kirjandus 1/21. 130–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit, Külli Prillop, Külli Habicht, Helle Metslang, Kirsi Laanesoo-Kalk, David Ogren, Liina Pärismaa, Elen Pärt, Andra Rumm, Andriela Rääbis & Carl Eric Simmul. 2024. Downtoners and intensifiers in different registers: The case of Estonian. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3(2). 158–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2008. Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching 41(4), 543–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2010. Clauses emerging as epistemic adverbs in Estonian conversation. Linguistica Uralica 46(2). 81–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laanesoo-Kalk, Kirsi. 2024. Functions of the particles tõesti ‘really’ and tõepoolest ‘indeed’ in spoken, online and printed registers of Estonian. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3 (2). 186–208.Google Scholar
Larsson, Tove. 2019. Grammatical stance marking across registers. Revisiting the formal-informal dichotomy. Register Studies 1(2). 243–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luukka, Minna-Riitta. 1992. Varmuuden kahdet kasvot tieteellisessä tekstissä [The Janis-faced certainty in academic texts]. Virittäjä 96(4), 361–379. [URL] (8 July, 2024)
Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 2007. Commitment and subjectivity in the discourse of opinion columns and leading articles. A corpus study. RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 82–98. [URL]
2011. Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse: Legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility. In Chris Hart (ed.), Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, 193–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metslang, Helle. 2023. Kolme (inter)subjektiivsusmarkeri lugu: ehk, äkki, järsku [The story of three (inter)subjectivity markers: ehk, äkki, järsku ]. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri = Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 14(2). 271–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, Janus. 2012. Subjectivity and intersubjectivity as aspects of epistemic stance marking. In Nicole Baumgarten, Inke Du Bois & Juliane House (eds.), Subjectivity in language and discourse, 229–246. Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2017. Three types of subjectivity, three types of intersubjectivity, their dynamicization and a synthesis. In Daniel Olmen, Hubert Cuyckens & Lobke Ghesquière (eds.), Aspects of grammaticalization: (Inter)subjectification and directionality, 19–46. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2012. Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction 5(1). 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, Gerard. 2017. “I think” in political speech. International Review of Pragmatics 9(2). 269–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paumäe, Pamela & Reili Argus. 2023. Modaalpartiklid jutusaates „Keskpäevatund“. [Modal particles in the talk show „Keskpäevatund“ ‘Midday Hour’.] In Kirsi Laanesoo-Kalk, Mart Velsker & Roosmarii Kurvits (eds.), Kahtlus ja mõttemäss: Pühendusteos Tiit Hennoste 70. sünnipäevaks, 109–122. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
Pho, Phuong Dzung. 2012. Authorial stance in research article abstracts and introductions from two disciplines. In Nicole Baumgarten, Inke Du Bois & Juliane House (eds.), Subjectivity in Language and Discourse, 97–114. Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pic, Elsa & Grégory Furmaniak. 2012. A study of epistemic modality in academic and popularised discourse: The case of possibility adverbs perhaps, maybe and possibly . Revista de Lenguas para Fines Especificos 181. 13–44. [URL] (8 July, 2024)
Piórkowska, Agnieszka. 2017. Subjectification and intersubjectification in the analysis of the Polish adverb niestety ‘unfortunately/regrettably’. Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies 171. 9–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Posio, Pekka. 2014. Subject expression in grammaticalizing constructions: The case of creo and acho ‘I think’ in Spanish and Portuguese. Journal of Pragmatics 631, 5–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prillop, Külli, Tiit Hennoste, Külli Habicht & Helle Metslang. 2021. Ei saa me läbi “Pragmaatika” korpuseta. Korpuspragmaatika ja pragmaatikakorpus [We can’t get by without the pragmatics corpus. Corpus pragmatics and the pragmatics corpus]. Mäetagused 811. 161–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prillop, Külli, Tiit Hennoste & Helle Metslang. 2024. Pragmatic particles as distinguishing features of registers. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3(2). 266–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rääbis, Andriela. 2024. Functions and contexts of the particle üldse ‘at all’ in questions in Estonian everyday conversations. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3(2). 209–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rääbis, Andriela & Andra Rumm. 2022. Tahan lihtsalt koju saada. Vähendav ja tugevdav partikkel lihtsalt hädaabikõnedes [Downgrading and upgrading with the particle lihtsalt in Estonnian emergency calls]. Keel ja Kirjandus 65 (1/2). 54–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rentel, Nadine. 2012. Subjectivity in academic discourse: A cross-linguistic comparison of the author’s presence in French, Italian and German research articles in linguistics. In Nicole Baumgarten, Inke Du Bois & Juliane House (eds.), Subjectivity in language and discourse, 339–354. Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rozumko, Agata. 2019. Modal adverbs in English and Polish. A functional perspective. Białystok: Uniwersytet w Białymstoku. [URL] (8 July, 2024)
Rühlemann, Christoph. 2019. Corpus linguistics for Pragmatics. A guide for research (Routledge Corpus Linguistics Guides). Routledge. Kindle Edition.Google Scholar
Shen, Qian & Yating Tao. 2021. Stance markers in English medical research articles and newspaper opinion columns: A comparative corpus-based study. PLoS ONE 16(3). e0247981. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack & Tanya Stivers (eds.). 2013. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Simonsen, Hanne Gram. 2001. Phonological fillers: Data from Norwegian. In Margareta Almgren, Andoni Barreña, María-José Ezeizabarrena, Itziar Idiazabal & Brian MacWhinney (eds.), Research on child language acquisition. Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language, 701–712. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. [URL] (8 July, 2024)
Thompson, Geoff. 2014. Intersubjectivity in newspaper editorials. Construing the reader-in-the-text. English Text Construction 5(1). 77–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1). 125–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Anthony Mulac. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization: Volume II. Types of grammatical markers (Typological Studies in Language 19(2)), 313–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VISK = Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Verkkoversio [The large grammar of Finnish. Online version]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. [URL] (8 July, 2024)
Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin. 2013. Subjectivity and story-telling in journalism. Journalism Studies 14(3). 305–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar