Papers in Estonian Cognitive Linguistics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tartu Ülikooli üldkeeleteaduse õppetooli toimetised 2 Publications of the Department of General Linguistics 2 University of Tartu Papers in Estonian Cognitive Linguistics Tartu 2001 Tartu Ülikooli üldkeeleteaduse õppetooli toimetised 2 Publications of the Department of General Linguistics 2 University of Tartu Papers in Estonian Cognitive Linguistics Edited by Ilona Tragel Tartu 2001 Tartu Ülikooli üldkeeleteaduse õppetooli toimetised 2 Publications of the Department of General Linguistics 2 University of Tartu Toimetaja / Editor Ilona Tragel Kujundaja / Layout Roosmarii Kurvits ISSN 1406-619X ISBN 9985-4-0191-3 Tartu Ülikooli kirjastus Tiigi 78, Tartu 50410 Tellimus nr. 351 Contents Foreword................................................................................... 5 Is there a folk theory of Self. The case of Estonian ise and enese~enda 7 Haldur Õim On the conceptualization of time in Estonian 22 Ann Veismann Getting down to 'downs': some observations about the Estonian verb-particle constructions with alia and maha 48 Kaja Kährik On the genesis and loss of the adposition rinnas (‘abreast, beside’) in Literary Estonian 71 Külli Habicht Grammaticalization of või/vä questions in Estonian 90 Liina Lindström Tracing grammaticalization of oota 'wait' in Estonian conversation 119 Leelo Keevallik On Estonian core verbs 145 Ilona Tragel The polysemy of seisma 'to stand1: multiple motivations for multiple meanings 170 Renate Pajusalu Deictic projection in Estonian 192 Mari-Epp Tirkkonen Gestures in communication and their use for pointing and referring in space: Estonian examples 216 Silvi Tenjes Appendix 1 Transcription and glossing conventions 249 Appendix 2 List of abbreviations 250 Appendix 3 List of contributors 251 Foreword A cognitive linguistics seminar has regularly met at the Chair of Ge neral Linguistics of the University of Tartu since 1999. In addition to cognitive linguistics "proper", the seminar discussions have focussed on a range of topics within wider cognitive-functional framework. To a great extent, the present volume is a collection of papers by the participants in the cognitive linguistics seminar. This edition is published as the second volume of papers by the Chair of General Linguistics, University of Tartu, and the majority of the contributors are currently associated with the University of Tartu. Among the papers included, the metaphor theory is central to Ann Veismann's study of the conceptualization of time in Estonian and Kaja Kährik s treatment of Estonian verb-particle constructions with alia 'down' and maha down', related aspects are also present in Haldur Õirris analysis of the folk theories regarding the Estonian word ise. Several papers address the grammaticalization theory. Külli Habicht employs it to clarify the reasons for the emergence and loss of the adposition rinnas 'beside' in Old Literary Estonian. Liina Lindström is searching for the reasons why the connective või 'or' has developed into a question particle. Leelo Keevallik's paper applies the methods of conversation analysis to the study of oota 'wait' as a particle in spoken Estonian, and places it into the context of the grammaticalization theory. The papers include an analysis of the polysemy of the verb seisma stand' by Renate Pajusalu, a proposal by Ilona Tragel as to the criteria and candidates for the core verbs of the Estonian lan guage, a treatment of deictic projection in texts of spoken Estonian by Mari-Epp Tirkkonen and a report of a study into gestures by Silvi Tenjes. Ilona Tragel editor Is there a folk theory of Self: the case of Estonian ise and enese-enda Haldur Õim Universtity of Tartu 1. Background and theoretical considerations The English word self is used as a separate word only as a noun and it means usually personality or '’person' (typically, in its psycho logical aspect). In this sense it is translated into Estonian as mina (a noun which in the nominative case coincides - and this is not just a coincidence - with the first person singular personal pronoun mina T). This revealed his real self. See paljastas tema tõelise mina. But in various compounds (nouns, adjectives), for instance, self is mostly translated into Estonian by means of the pronoun ise, enese-enda (the parallel genitive forms): self-defense - enesekaitse self-esteem - eneseväärikus self-control - enesekontroll self-confident - enesekindel self-indulgent - enesekeskne, isemeelne self-righteous - ennasttäis self-sufficient - isemajandav, iseseisev In addition to these uses, however, self participates in forming re flexive pronouns, but only in compounds with personal pronouns: myself yourself himself herself, itself ourselves. These are also translated into Estonian by ise, enese-enda (in their corresponding case forms): He bought himself an ice cream. Ta ostis endale jäätise. The Estonian ise (from the genitive on enese-enda) has much broader use in the grammatical sense: it can also occur as a noun, an adjective, an adverb. Of these uses, I will concentrate here mainly on its use in re flexive constructions (including compound words and phraseological expressions). My point is that the analysis of the semantics of these 8 Is there a folk theory of Self expressions can reveal much about the folk, or naive, conception of Self, its structure, inherent in Estonian. For a grammarian, for instance, enese-enda (iseenese-iseenda) are reflexive pronouns with some morphological pecularities, but with syntactic uses typical of reflexive pronouns, and there is nothing more to talk about. In the most detailed descriptive grammar of Esto nian so far, Eesti keele grammatika (EKG I 1995), there is only half a page about reflexive pronouns in Estonian (p.28). By this I don't want to say that there should have been more. My intention is to point out that there can be considerable differences between the role some words (word forms) play in the grammatical system of a lan guage and the role these forms play in its semantic system. From the point of view of semantic analysis you could write a whole book about the forms of the Estonian reflexive pronouns enese-enda. Let us consider just some examples. (1a) Ta pesi end/ennast külma veega. He/she washed himself/herself with cold water. (1b) Ära haletse ennast kogu aeg! Don’t pity yourself all the time! (1c) Kontrolli ennast! Control yourself! (1d) Poiss ei andnud endale aru, mis ta teeb. The boy didn't realise what he was doing lit: The boy didn't give himself an account of what he was doing. (1e) Pidin endaga tükk aega võitlema, enne kui ... had to fight myself (lit: with myself) for a long time, before... (1f) Mehe enesekindlus sai tugeva hoobi. The man's self-confidence received a hard blow. What do the forms of enese-enda designate in these sentences when considered from the point of view of the person they refer to as re flexive pronouns? It is clear that in different sentences these forms refer to quite different “parts” of the corresponding person as a “self’ And, on the other hand, what “parts” do the corresponding subjects refer to in relation to the “part” referred to by reflexive pro Õim 9 nouns? In (la) it is apparent that ennast 'himself/herself'refers to the “physical part” of the person, but what about the uses in (lb) - (If)? When someone pities himself/herself (as in (lb)), ennast refers to “something” in the subject that is connected with one s achievements as related to goals, the social position, etc. But who (what “part”), then, is “doing the pitying”? When someone restrains oneself, fights “with oneself’, “pulls into oneself’ etc., what are the corresponding “parts” then? In such constructions there are always two different parts of Self under consideration, and semantically the reflexive pronoun in principle does not refer back to the same part as it refers to itself. Instead, these “parts” are interacting with one another, or otherwise stand in certain relationship with one another. One part functions as the Subject and the other part as the Object, or the Target, of the re lation. And in different cases the Subject and Target represent dif ferent parts of Self, depending on the predicate that represents the re lation between these parts. By a systematic analysis of such constructions we can get a more or less systematic picture of the structure of self as represented in the "folk theory of Self’ underlying the use of reflexive expres sions in the corresponding language - in this case, Estonian. The idea in itself is not new in cognitive semantics (and cogni tive anthropology). It is a commonly accepted presupposition that the lexicon (lexical system) of a language, or at least its certain coherently organized subfields are semantically based on tacit, but structured conceptualizations of the corresponding area in the reality that the words are about. Thus the analysis of these subfields can lead us to discovering the underlying conceptualizations, folk theo ries. In this case, though, I am not studying some group of semanti cally related lexical items, but specific constructions which include reflexive pronouns. Implicitly, of course, there is also a semantically delimited group of words - predicates (verbs, adjectives, but also nouns) that represent the relationship between the above-mentioned two parts of Self. These are mainly predicates denoting mental processes or states, but also various forms of communication (one can give oneself a promise, for instance). My focus in this paper is not on the group of predicates that can semantically occur in such constructions, though. I do not deny that this would be an important task, in some sense even the key to the whole issue (why do we take 2 10 Is there a folk theory of Self it as natural, for instance, that one can promise something to him self/herself, but we hardly do so in case of one threatening him self/herself?). But this would be too comprehensive a task to under take within the confines of the given paper.