Reference in Estonian descriptions and narratives


Keywords: reference, anaphora, demonstratives, personal pronouns, Estonian

This study focuses on reference in the Estonian language by taking an experimental approach to spatial and discourse reference. The aim is to reveal what is the inventory of referential devices in Estonian, and whether there are context-related factors that influence the choices made when referring. In particular, the data from two tasks are analysed. In the spatial setting, participants were asked to describe the surroundings by referring to large visible referents, i.e. houses. In the discourse setting, participants had to narrate a story based on a picture book by referring to animate and inanimate objects. Importantly, in both tasks, the speakers had to differentiate between competing referents (houses in the spatial task, and boys (as well as other objects) in the narration task). In the data, five types of referential devices occur: bare NPs (e.g. maja ‘a/the house’, noorem poiss ‘the younger boy’), NPs with determiners (e.g. see maja ‘this house’, üks poiss ‘a boy’), bare demonstratives (e.g. see ‘this’, seal ‘there’), personal pronouns (i.e. tema/ta ‘(s)he’), and verb forms without overt subjects (e.g. seisab ‘stands’, jookseb ‘is running’). In the spatial context, NPs both with and without determiners are used most frequently, followed by bare demonstratives. In the narrative context, bare NPs are used the most, followed by significantly less frequent personal pronouns. In both contexts, the main determiner used is see ‘this’. However, in the spatial context, demonstrative adverbs are also typical determiners (e.g. siin majas ‘here in the house’), whereas in the narrative context, pronouns üks ‘one’ and oma ‘one’s’ are typical determiners (e.g., üks poiss ‘a boy’). As such, the results show that the choice of referential devices is highly dependent on the referential context. Describing the surroundings requires the speaker to use other strategies as compared to narrating a story. Furthermore, the analysis indicates that contrast also contributes to the use of different referential units, as does the location of the competing entities (i.e. distance).

Renate Pajusalu (b. 1963), PhD, University of Tartu, Professor of General Linguistics (Jakobi 2, 51014 Tartu), renate.pajusalu@ut.ee

Helen Hint (b. 1987), MA, Tallinn University, School of Humanities, Lecturer of Linguistics; University of Tartu, Institute of Estonian and General Linguistics, Doctoral Student, Junior Research Fellow in Academic Writing and Rhetoric (Jakobi 2, 51014 Tartu), helen.hint@ut.ee

Maria Reile (b. 1986), PhD, University of Tartu, Institute of Estonian and General Linguistics, Research Fellow in Experimental Pragmatics (Jakobi 2, 51014 Tartu), maria.reile@ut.ee

Piia Taremaa (b. 1982), PhD, University of Tartu, Institute of Estonian and General ­Linguistics, Research Fellow in General Linguistics (Jakobi 2, 51014 Tartu), piia.taremaa@ut.ee


Abbott, Barbara 2010. Reference. (Oxford Surveys in Semantics and Pragmatics.) Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
Amon, Marri 2015. Initial and Final Detachments in Spoken Estonian: A Study in the Frame­work of Information Structuring. (Dissertationes linguisticae Universitatis Tartuensis 24.) Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Ariel, Mira 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of ­Narrative Production. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Cornish, Francis 1999. Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Diessel, Holger 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. (Typo­logical Studies in Language 42.) Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Diessel, Holger 2012. Deixis and demonstratives. – Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Kd 3. Toim Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, Paul Portner. (HSK 33.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, lk 2407-2431.
Diessel, Holger 2013. Distance contrasts in demonstratives. – The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Toim Matthew Dryer, Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2003. Demonstratives: A cross-linguistic typology. – Studies in Language, kd 27, nr 1, lk 61-112.
Erelt, Mati 2017. Ellips. – Eesti keele süntaks. (Eesti keele varamu III.) Toim M. Erelt, Helle Metslang. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, lk 590-602.
Etelämäki, Marja 2009. The Finnish demonstrative pronouns in light of interaction. – Journal of Pragmatics, kd 41, nr 1, lk 25-46.
Givón, Talmy 2005. Context as Other Minds: The Pragmatics of Sociality, Cognition and Communication. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gundel, Jeanette K.; Hedberg, Nancy; Zacharski, Ron 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. – Language, kd 69, nr 2, lk 274-307.
Halliday, M. A. K.; Hasan, Ruqaiya 1976. Cohesion in English. (English Language Series.) London-New York: Routledge.
Hanks, William F. 1990. Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press.
Hennoste, Tiit 2017. Üldlaiendid, kiilud, irdelemendid. – Eesti keele süntaks. (Eesti keele varamu III.) Toim Mati Erelt, Helle Metslang. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, lk 481-502.
Hint, Helen 2015. Third person pronoun forms in Estonian in the light of centering theory. – ESUKA-JEFUL, kd 6, nr 2, lk 105-135.
Hint, Helen; Nahkola, Tiina; Pajusalu, Renate 2017. With or without articles? A comparison of article-like determiners in Estonian and Finnish. – Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja, nr 27, lk 65-106.
Hint, Helen; Nahkola, Tiina; Pajusalu, Renate 2020. Pronouns as referential devices in Estonian, Finnish, and Russian. – Journal of Pragmatics, nr 155, lk 43-63.
Kaiser, Elsi 2010. Effects of contrast on referential form: Investigating the distinction between strong and weak pronouns. – Discourse Processes, kd 47, nr 6, lk 480-509.
Kaiser, Elsi; Trueswell, John C. 2008. Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. – Language and Cognitive Processes, kd 23, nr 5, lk 709-748.
Keevallik, Leelo 2011. Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction. – Discourse Processes, kd 48, nr 6, lk 404-431.
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. Reference in Discourse. (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory.) Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
Kibrik, Andrej A.; Khudyakova, Mariya V.; Dobrov, Grigory B.; Linnik, Anastasia; Zalmanov, Dmitrij A. 2016. Referential choice: Predictability and its limits. – Frontiers in Psychology, nr 7:1429.
Kirsipuu, Helen; Soodla, Piret; Pajusalu, Renate 2012. Referentsiaalsed noomenifraasid laste narratiivides. – Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat, nr 8, lk 91−107.
Labov, William 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, William; Waletzky, Joshua 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. – Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Toim June Helm. Seattle-London: University of Washington Press, lk 12-44.
Larjavaara, Matti 1990. Suomen deiksis. (Suomi 156.) Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Laury, Ritva 2005. Introduction. – Minimal Reference. (Studia Fennica. Linguistica 12.) Toim R. Laury. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, lk 7-10.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2004. Deixis. – The Handbook of Pragmatics. Toim Laurence R. Horn, Gregory Ward. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, lk 97-121.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2018. Introduction. Demonstratives: patterns in diversity. – Demon­stratives in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. (Language Culture and Cognition 14.) Toim S. C. Levinson, Sarah Cutfield, Michael Dunn, Nick Enfield, Sérgio Meira. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, lk 1-42.
Lindström, Liina 2005. Finiitverbi asend lauses. Sõnajärg ja seda mõjutavad tegurid suulises eesti keeles. (Dissertationes philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 12.) Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Lyons, Christopher 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meira, Sérgio; Terrill, Angela 2005. Contrasting contrastive demonstratives in Tiriyó and Lavukaleve. – Linguistics, kd 43, nr 6, lk 1131-1152.
Pajusalu, Renate 2000. Indefinite determiners mingi and üks in Estonian. – Estonian: Typological Studies. Kd IV. (Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele õppetooli toimetised 14.) Toim Mati Erelt. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, lk 87-117.
Pajusalu, Renate 2005. Anaphoric pronouns in Spoken Estonian: Crossing the paradigms. – Minimal Reference. (Studia Fennica. Linguistica 12.) Toim Ritva Laury. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, lk 107-134.
Pajusalu, Renate 2006. Death of a demonstrative: person and time. The case of Estonian too. – Linguistica Uralica, kd 42, nr 4, lk 241-253.
Pajusalu, Renate 2017a. Nimisõnafraas. – Eesti keele süntaks. (Eesti keele varamu III.) Toim Mati Erelt, Helle Metslang. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, lk 379-404.
Pajusalu, Renate 2017b. Viiteseosed. – Eesti keele süntaks. (Eesti keele varamu III.) Toim Mati Erelt, Helle Metslang. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, lk 566-589.
Pajusalu, Renate; Kaska, Maret; Klaas-Lang, Birute; Pajusalu, Karl; Treikelder, Anu; ­Vihman, Virve-Anneli 2017. Characteristics of request formulation in Estonian, Finnish, French, Lithuanian and Russian. – STUF-Language Typology and Universals, kd 70, nr 3, lk 455-488.
Pajusalu, Renate; Reile, Maria; Hint, Helen; Nahkola, Tiina; Taremaa, Piia 2018. Relative clauses in spatial and narrative contexts in Estonian, Finnish, and Russian. – SKY Journal of Linguistics, kd 31, lk 107-142.
Reile, Maria 2015. Space and demonstratives: An experiment with Estonian exophoric demonstratives. – ESUKA-JEFUL, kd 6, nr 2, lk 137-165.
Reile, Maria 2016. Distance, visual salience, and contrast expressed through different demonstrative systems: An experimental study in Estonian. – SKY Journal of Linguistics, kd 29, lk 63-94.
Reile, Maria 2019. Estonian demonstratives in exophoric use: An experimental approach. (Dissertationes linguisticae Universitatis Tartuensis 34.) Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Reile, Maria; Taremaa, Piia; Nahkola, Tiina; Pajusalu, Renate 2019. Reference in the ­borderline of space and discourse: A free production experiment in Estonian, Russian, and Finnish. – Linguistica Uralica, nr 3, lk 185-208.
Reile, Maria; Plado, Helen; Gudde, Harmen B.; Coventry, Kenny R. (ilmumas 2020). Demonstratives as spatial deictics or something more? Evidence from Common Estonian and Võro. – Folia Linguistica.
Sahkai, Heete 2003. Demonstrative doubling in Spoken Estonian. – Trames, kd 7, nr 2, lk 120-144.
Schegloff, Emmanuel 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stein, Nancy L.; Glenn, Christine G. 1979. An analysis of story comprehension in elementary-school children. – New Directions in Discourse Processing. (Advances in discourse processes 2.) Toim Roy O. Freedle. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, lk 53-120.
Talmy, Leonard 2017. The Targeting System of Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Taremaa, Piia 2017. Lokatiivsete demonstratiivadverbide asetusest ja funktsioonidest liikumist väljendavate klauside näitel. – Keel ja Kirjandus, nr 6, lk 453-468.a