Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries
Edited by Daniël Van Olmen and Jolanta Šinkūnienė
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 325] 2021
► pp. 111–140

Chapter 4
Another ‘look!’

The Latvian particle lūk in parliamentary discourse

ORCID logo | Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland
The Latvian pragmatic marker lūk is derived from the imperative ‘look!’ but is used mainly in the textual domain in speech and writing. This study investigates its use in parliamentary discourse, based on a corpus of shorthand transcripts, as well as audio and video recordings. The main functions of lūk are pointing to parts of a speaker’s text (textual deixis), introducing and concluding a topic (discourse organization) and marking the voice of an opponent (represented speech and viewpoint). Similar functions have been described for imperatives of ‘look’ verbs in various European languages. An important difference is that lūk occurs only turn-medially and lacks dialogic functions.
Keywords: pragmatic marker, perception verbs, interjection, Latvian, parliamentary discourse, discourse organization, represented speech, viewpoint, deixis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methods of investigation
  • 3.Results: Functions of lūk
    • 3.1Situational deixis
    • 3.2Text deictic uses
    • 3.3Discourse organizing
    • 3.4Representing speech and viewpoint
    • 3.5Summary
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Transcription symbols
  • Abbreviations
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 13 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.325.04nau
References (35)
Sources
Archive of shorthand transcripts (since 1990) and video recordings (since 2006) of Latvian parliament sittings. Available at [URL] (accessed 30.09.2020).
Archive of audio recordings (since 2004) of Latvian parliament sittings. Available at [URL] (accessed 30.09.2020).
EUROPARL7 = Parallel corpus of European Parliament proceedings. Accessed via [URL] (accessed 30.09.2020).
LVK2018 = Balanced corpus of Latvian. 10 million word forms. Available at [URL] (accessed 30.09.2020).
Saeima = Corpus of shorthand transcripts of sitting of the Latvian parliament, 1993–2018. 21 million word forms. Available at [URL] (accessed 30.09.2020).
References
Aijmer, Karin, and Anna Elgemark. 2013. “The Pragmatic Markers look and listen in a Cross-linguistic Perspective.” In Of Butterflies and Birds, of Dialects and Genres: Essays in Honour of Philip Shaw, ed. by Nils-Lennart Johannesson, Gunnel Melchers, and Beyza Björkman, 333–348. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate, and Ulrich Detges. 2014. “Introduction”. In Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Cross-linguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, ed. by Kate Beeching, and Ulrich Detges, 1–23. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johanssson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2016. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer Program]. Version 6.0.22, retrieved 25 November 2016 from [URL].
Chafe, Wallace. 1992. “Information Flow in Speaking and Writing.” In The Linguistics of Literacy, ed. by Pamela A. Downing, Susan D. Lima, and Michael Noonan, 17–29. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chojnicka, Joanna. 2012. Linguistic Markers of Stance in Latvian Parliamentary Debates. Saarbrücken: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
. 2013a. “Nazis vs. Occupants: The Language of Ethnic Conflict in Latvian Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 1 (2): 225–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. “Questions in Latvian and Polish Parliamentary Debates: A Comparative Study.” Lingua Posnaniensis 55 (1): 37–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darģis, Roberts, Ilze Auziņa, Uldis Bojārs, Pēteris Paikens, and Artūrs Znotiņš. 2018. “Annotation of the Corpus of the Saeima with Multilingual Standards.” In Proceedings of the LREC 2018 Workshop “ParlaCLARIN: Creating and Using Parliamentary Corpora”, ed. by Darja Fišier, Maria Eskevich, and Franciska de Jong, 39–42. Available online at [URL] (accessed 22.03.2020).
Fagard, Benjamin. 2012. “É vida, olha…: Imperatives as Discourse Markers and Grammaticalization Paths in Romance: A Diachronic Corpus Study.” In Pragmatic Markers and Pragmaticalization: Lessons from False Friends, ed. by Peter Lauwers, Gudrun Vanderbauwhede, and Stijn Verleyen, 117–139. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuschi, Laura. 2013. Discourse Markers in Spoken Italian: The Functions of senti and guarda. Bielefeld: University of Bielefeld PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara, and Piera Molinelli. 2014. “Italian guarda, prego, dai: Pragmatic Markers and the Left and Right Periphery.” In Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Cross-linguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, ed. by Kate Beeching, and Ulrich Detges, 117–150. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2017. “Diskursmarker in der Interaktion – Formen und Funktionen univerbierter guck mal- und weißt du-Konstruktionen.” In Diskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen, ed. by Hardarik Blühdorn, Arnulf Deppermann, Henrike Helmer, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 103–130. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Eeva-Leena Seppänen. 1992. “Finnish kato: From Verb to Particle.” Journal of Pragmatics 18 (6): 527–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jasionytė-Mikučionienė, Erika. 2016. “Imperatyvinės kilmės diskurso markeriai lietuvių kalboje: klausyk ir žiūrėk atvejis [Imperatives as discourse markers in Lithuanian: The case of klausyk ‘listen’ and žiūrėk ‘look’].” Kalbotyra 68: 23–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LLVV = Latviešu literārās valodas vārdnīca [Dictionary of Standard Latvian]. Vol. 4 J-L. 1980; Vol. 6.2 P-R. 1987. [Content also available at [URL] (accessed 09.04.2020)]
LVG 2013 = Latviešu valodas gramatika [Grammar of Latvian]. Rīga: Latviešu valodas institūts.Google Scholar
Nau, Nicole, and Peter Arkadiev. 2016. “Towards a Standard of Glossing Baltic Languages: the Salos Glossing Rules.” Baltic Linguistics 6: 195–241.Google Scholar
Ocampo, Francisco. 2009. “Mirá: From Verb to Discourse Particle in Rioplatense Spanish.” In Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed. Joseph Collentine, Maryellen García, Barbara Lafford, and Francisco Marcos Marín, 254–267. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Ozols, Arturs. 1993. Latviešu tautasdziesmu valoda [The language of Latvian folksongs]. Rīga: Zvaigzne.Google Scholar
Proske, Nadine. 2017. “Zur Funktion und Klassifikation gesprächsorganisatorischer Imperative.” In Diskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen, ed. by Hardarik Blühdorn, Arnulf Deppermann, Henrike Helmer, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 73–102. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Rozenvalds, Juris (ed). 2007. Parlamentārais diskurss Latvijā: Saeimas plenārsēžu stenogrammu datorizētā analīze [Parliamentary discourse in Latvia: A computer analysis of shorthand transcripts of the Saeima]. Rīga: LU Akadēmskais apgads.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Arnulf Deppermann, Peter Gilles, Susanne Günthner, Martin Hartung, Friederike Kern, Christine Mertzlufft, Christian Meyer, Miriam Morek, Frank Oberzaucher, Jörg Peters, Uta Quasthoff, Wilfried Schütte, Anja Stukenbrock, and Susanne Uhmann. 2009. “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur Verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402.Google Scholar
Skulte, Ilva, and Normunds Kozlovs. 2018. “Depoliticization of the Saeima Debates: Losing the Gist of ‘Welfare’.” In Pluralisms Anxiety: Acting Socially in Latvia, ed. by Sergej Kruk, 171–186. Rīga: Rīga Stradiņš University.Google Scholar
Strode, Janīna. 2007. “Interjekcija (izsauksmes vārds) [Interjection].” In Latviešu literārās valodas morfoloģiskās sistēmas attīstība. 2. sēj.: Nelokāmās vārdšķiras, 344–437. Rīga: LU LaVI.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008. ““All that he Endeavoured to Prove was …”: On the Emergence of Grammatical Constructions in Dialogual and Dialogic Contexts.” In Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution, ed. by Robin Cooper, and Ruth Kempson, 143–177. London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar
Van Olmen, Daniël. 2010. “The Imperatives of Visual versus Auditory Perception as Pragmatic Markers in English and Dutch. English Text Construction 3 (1): 74–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “The Imperative of Intentional Visual Perception as a Pragmatic Marker: A Contrastive Study of Dutch, English and Romance.” In Pragmatic Markers and Pragmaticalization: Lessons from False Friends, ed. by Peter Lauwers, Gudrun Vanderbauwhede, and Stijn Verleyen, 95–115. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2002. “Imperatives, Interruption in Conversation and the Rise of Discourse Markers: A Study of Italian guarda.” Linguistics 40 (5): 987–1010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Comparer la polysémie des marqueur du discourse.” In Les marqueurs discursifs dans les language romanes, ed. by Martina Drescher, and Barbara Frank-Job, 141–151. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Van Olmen, Daniël & Vittorio Tantucci
2022. Getting attention in different languages: A usage-based approach to parenthetical look in Chinese, Dutch, English, and Italian. Intercultural Pragmatics 19:2 ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.