Cover not available
Article published 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. 209–231

Functions of the particle üldse ‘at all’ in questions in Estonian everyday conversations

 | University of Tartu, Estonia
The goal of the paper is to examine the use of the particle üldse ‘at all; ever; generally; absolutely (not)’ in questions in Estonian everyday face-to-face and telephone conversations. The analysis is based on the methodological framework of interactional linguistics.
The particle üldse is found to serve three central functions in questions: (a) marking topic shifts and topic changes, (b) intensifying doubt or challenges, (c) emphasizing someone’s norm-violating behavior. Questions containing the particle üldse can be divided into two groups: neutral information-seeking questions and multifunctional questions that perform several social actions simultaneously. The particle üldse is commonly backward looking and serves both interpersonal and textual functions. Its use is often associated with non-preference, disagreement, or contradiction.
Keywords: question, particle, intensifier, everyday conversation, Estonian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and method
  • 3.The functions of the particle üldse
    • 3.1Marking topic shifts and topic changes
    • 3.2Intensifying doubt or challenge
    • 3.3Highlighting the violation of norms or expectations
  • 4.Concluding discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 November 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00031.raa
References (62)
References
Athanasiadou, Angeliki. 2007. On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences 29(4). 554–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Sandra A. Thompson & Barbara A. Fox. 2023. Do English affirmative polar interrogatives with any favor negative responses? In Galina B. Bolden, John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds.), Responding to polar questions across languages and contexts (Studies in Language and Social Interaction 35), 350–376. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 2000. Extreme case formulations: softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4). 347–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
EKSS = Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat 2009 [Explanatory Dictionary of the Estonian Language]. [URL]
Englert, Christina. 2010. Questions and responses in Dutch conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10). 2666–2684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erelt, Mati. 2010. Vastandavatest sidesõnadest eesti keeles [On adversative conjunctions in Estonian]. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics (2). 55–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Öeldis [Predicate]. In Mati Erelt & Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks [Syntax of the Estonian language] (Eesti keele varamu III), 93–239. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine. 2010. The question-response system of Danish. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10). 2703–2725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit. 2000. Sissejuhatus suulisesse eesti keelde IV. Suulise kõne erisõnavara 3. Partiklid [Introduction to Spoken Estonian IV. Vocabulary of Spoken Estonian 3. Particles]. Akadeemia 81. 1773–1806.Google Scholar
. 2012. Küsimuse vorm, episteemiline staatus ja episteemiline hoiak [The form of asking questions, epistemic status and epistemic stance]. Keel ja Kirjandus 8–91. 674–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. Suuline keel [Spoken language]. In Helle Metslang (ed.), Eesti grammatika [Estonian grammar], 997–1181. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit, Olga Gerassimenko, Riina Kasterpalu, Mare Koit, Andriela Rääbis & Krista Strandson. 2008. From human communication to intelligent user interfaces: Corpora of spoken Estonian. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). Marrakech, Morocco. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). [URL]
. 2009. Küsimused eestikeelses infodialoogis I. Küsimuste vorm [Questions in Estonian information dialogues. Part I: Form of questions]. Keel ja Kirjandus 51. 341–359.Google Scholar
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, Andriela Rääbis & Kirsi Laanesoo. 2013. Küsimused eestikeelses infodialoogis II. Küsimused ja tegevused [Questions in Estonian institutional information-seeking dialogues II. Questions and social actions]. Keel ja Kirjandus 11. 7–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Polar questions, social actions and epistemic stance. STUF — Language Typology and Universals 70(3). 523–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit, Andriela Rääbis & Andra Rumm. 2019. Estonian declarative questions: Their usage and comparison with vä- and jah-questions. Journal of Pragmatics 1531. 46–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit, Andriela Rääbis, Andra Rumm & Kirsi Laanesoo. 2023. The division of labor between the particles jah and jaa ‘yes’ as responses to requests for confirmation in Estonian. In Galina Bolden, John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds.), Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts (Studies in Language and Social Interaction 35), 210–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction), 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Questioning in medicine. In Alice F. Freed & Susan Ehrlich (eds.), Why do you ask? The function of questions in institutional discourse, 42–68. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John & Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in action. Interactions, identities, and institutions (Language in Society 38). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John & Chase Wesley Raymond. 2021. Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction 54(1). 39–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huhtamäki, Martina, Jan Lindström & Anne-Marie Londen. 2020. Other-repetition sequences in Finland Swedish: Prosody, grammar, and context in action ascription. Language in Society 49(4). 653–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian & Robin Wooffitt. 2006. Conversation analysis. Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction), 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasterpalu, Riina & Tiit Hennoste. 2016. Estonian aa: a multifunctional change-of-state token. Journal of Pragmatics 1041. 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2003. From interaction to grammar: Estonian finite verb forms in conversation (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34). Uppsala.Google Scholar
. 2010. Marking boundaries between activities: The particle nii in Estonian. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(2), 157–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The terms of not knowing. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 184–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolsar, Kaidi. 2017. Partikkel okei suulises argisuhtluses [Particle okay in spontaneous spoken Estonian]. BA thesis. Tartu Ülikool.
Koshik, Irene. 2005. Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laanesoo, Kirsi. 2012. Pööratud polaarsusega retoorilised küsimused argivestluses [Reversed polarity rhetorical questions in Estonian everyday interaction]. Keel ja Kirjandus 71, 499–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. A miks sa torusse ei räägi? Miks-küsilausetega tehtavad suhtlustegevused argitelefonivestlustes [Social actions conducted by why-interrogatives in Estonian everyday telephone conversations]. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat 131, 89–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Polüfunktsionaalsed küsilaused eesti argivestluses [Multifunctional interrogatives in Estonian everyday interaction] (Dissertationes linguisticae Universitatis Tartuensis 33). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Laanesoo, Kirsi, Tiit Hennoste, Andriela Rääbis, Andra Rumm, Andra Annuka-Loik & Piret Upser. 2023. Displaying uncertainty and avoiding disaffiliation with Estonian response particle mhmh ‘uh-huh’. In Abstracts: 18th International Pragmatics Conference, Brussels 9–14 July 2023, 13551. Université libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Labov, William & David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. Action formation and ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 103–130. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. 1980. Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica 30(3–4). 263–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metslang, Helle. 1981. Küsilause eesti keeles [Interrogative sentence in Estonian]. Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar
. 2017. Kommunikatiivsed lausetüübid [Communicative types of sentences]. In Mati Erelt & Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks [Syntax of the Estonian language] (Eesti keele varamu III), 515–536. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction), 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9(2/3). 219–229. [URL]. DOI logo
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
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rauniomaa, Mirka. 2007. Stance markers in spoken Finnish: Minun mielestä and minusta in assessments. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164), 221–252. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2018. Composite social actions: The case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(4). 379–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumm, Andra. 2019. Avatud küsimused ja nende vastused eesti suulises argivestluses [Wh-questions and their responses in Estonian everyday interaction] (Dissertationes linguisticae Universitatis Tartuensis 36). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Räsänen, Sanna. 2019. Kielteistä affektia ilmaisevat kysymysrakenteet Juhani Ahon, Minna Canthin ja Maiju Lassilan teosten dialogissa [Interrogative constructions that express negative affect in the dialogue of novels by Juhani Aho, Minna Canth and Maiju Lassila]. Pro gradu — tutkielma. Itä-Suomen yliopisto. [URL]
Rääbis, Andriela, Tiit Hennoste, Andra Rumm & Kirsi Laanesoo. 2019. They are so stupid, so stupid. Emotional affect in Estonian school-related complaints. Journal of Pragmatics 1531. 20–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Volume 1: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4). 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2010. An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10). 2772–2781. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Nick J. Enfield. 2010. A coding scheme for question-response sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10). 2620–2626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan. 2004. Other-repetition as display of hearing, understanding and emotional stance. Discourse Studies 6(4). 489–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Reformulation of questions with candidate answers. International Journal of Bilingualism 17(2). 189–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, Anna & Mirka Rauniomaa. 2023. Using conversation analysis for examining extended timeframes and participant orientation to overall structural organisations. NORDISCO, the 7th Nordic Interdisciplinary Conference on Discourse and Interaction. Tampere, Finland, 15–17 November 2023. Abstract book, 34–35. Tampere University.Google Scholar
VISK = Auli Hakulinen, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Verkkoversio, 1.11.2008. [URL]
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Metslang, Helle, Külli Habicht, Tiit Hennoste, Kirsi Laanesoo-Kalk, Külli Prillop, Andriela Rääbis & Carl Eric Simmul
2024. (Inter)subjectivity in Estonian registers. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3:2 ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.