Loengusari TÜling

TÜ üksuste kontaktandmed

valdkonna dekanaat

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5341

Faculty email:
hv.dekanaat [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Jakobi 2, ruumid 116–121, 51005 Tartu
ajaloo ja arheoloogia instituut

Faculty link:
www.flaj.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5651

Faculty address:
Jakobi 2, 51005 Tartu
eesti ja üldkeeleteaduse instituut

Faculty link:
keel.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5221

Faculty email:
keeleteadus [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Jakobi 2, IV korrus, 51005 Tartu
filosoofia ja semiootika instituut

Faculty link:
www.flfi.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5314

Faculty email:
filosoofia.semiootika [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Jakobi 2, ruumid 309–352, 51005 Tartu
kultuuriteaduste instituut

Faculty link:
www.flku.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5223

Faculty email:
kultuuriteadused [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 16, 51003 Tartu
maailma keelte ja kultuuride kolledž

Faculty link:
maailmakeeled.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty email:
keeled [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
J. Liivi 4, 50409, Tartu
usuteaduskond

Faculty link:
us.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5300

Faculty email:
us [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18-310, 50090 Tartu
Viljandi kultuuriakadeemia

Faculty link:
kultuur.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
435 5232

Faculty email:
kultuur [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Posti 1, 71004 Viljandi

valdkonna dekanaat

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5900

Faculty email:
sotsiaalteadused [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Lossi 36, 51003 Tartu
haridusteaduste instituut

Faculty link:
www.ht.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 6440

Faculty email:
haridus [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Salme 1a–29, 50103 Tartu
Johan Skytte poliitikauuringute instituut

Faculty link:
skytte.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5582

Faculty email:
skytte [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Lossi 36–301, 51003 Tartu
majandusteaduskond

Faculty link:
majandus.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 6310

Faculty email:
majandus [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Narva mnt 18, 51009 Tartu
psühholoogia instituut

Faculty link:
psychology.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5902

Faculty email:
psyhholoogia [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Näituse 2, 50409 Tartu
õigusteaduskond

Faculty link:
oigus.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5390

Faculty email:
oi [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Näituse 20–324, 50409 Tartu
ühiskonnateaduste instituut

Faculty link:
yti.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5188

Faculty email:
yhiskonnateadused [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Lossi 36, 51003 Tartu
Narva kolledž

Faculty link:
www.narva.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
740 1900

Faculty email:
college [at] narva.ut.ee

Faculty address:
Raekoja plats 2, 20307 Narva
Pärnu kolledž

Faculty link:
www.pc.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
445 0520

Faculty email:
info [at] pc.ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ringi 35, 80012 Pärnu

valdkonna dekanaat

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5326

Faculty email:
med [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ravila 19, 50411 Tartu
bio- ja siirdemeditsiini instituut

Faculty link:
biomeditsiin.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 4210

Faculty email:
bsmi [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Biomeedikum, Ravila 19, 50411 Tartu
farmaatsia instituut

Faculty link:
farmaatsia.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5286

Faculty email:
pharmacy [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Nooruse 1, 50411 Tartu
hambaarstiteaduse instituut

Faculty link:
hambaarstiteadus.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
731 9856

Faculty address:
Raekoja plats 6, 51003 Tartu
kliinilise meditsiini instituut

Faculty link:
kliinilinemeditsiin.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5323

Faculty email:
kmi [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
L. Puusepa 8, 50406 Tartu
peremeditsiini ja rahvatervishoiu instituut

Faculty link:
tervis.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 4190

Faculty email:
dph [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ravila 19, 50411 Tartu
sporditeaduste ja füsioteraapia instituut

Faculty link:
www.kk.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5360

Faculty email:
kkdek [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Jakobi 5–205, 51005 Tartu

valdkonna dekanaat

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5820

Faculty email:
ltt [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Vanemuise 46–208, 51003 Tartu
arvutiteaduse instituut

Faculty link:
cs.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5445

Faculty email:
ics [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Narva mnt 18, 51009 Tartu
genoomika instituut

Faculty link:
www.genoomika.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 4000

Faculty email:
egv [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Riia 23b, 51010 Tartu
Eesti mereinstituut

Faculty link:
mereinstituut.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
671 8902

Faculty address:
Mäealuse 14, 12618 Tallinn
füüsika instituut

Faculty link:
www.fi.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty address:
W. Ostwaldi 1, 50411 Tartu
keemia instituut

Faculty link:
chem.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5261

Faculty email:
chemistry [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ravila 14a, 50411 Tartu
matemaatika ja statistika instituut

Faculty link:
math.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5860

Faculty email:
ltms [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Narva mnt 18, 51009 Tartu
molekulaar- ja rakubioloogia instituut

Faculty link:
tymri.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5027

Faculty address:
Riia 23, 23b–134, 51010 Tartu
Tartu observatoorium

Faculty link:
www.kosmos.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 4510

Faculty email:
kosmos [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Observatooriumi 1, Tõravere, 61602 Tartumaa
tehnoloogiainstituut

Faculty link:
tuit.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 4800

Faculty email:
info [at] tuit.ut.ee

Faculty address:
Nooruse 1, 50411 Tartu
ökoloogia ja maateaduste instituut

Faculty link:
www.omi.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5835

Faculty email:
om [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Vanemuise 46, 51003 Tartu

Asutused

raamatukogu

Faculty link:
utlib.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5702

Faculty email:
library [at] utlib.ee

Faculty address:
W. Struve 1, 50091 Tartu
teaduskool

Faculty link:
teaduskool.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5581

Faculty email:
teaduskool [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Uppsala 10, 51003 Tartu
muuseum

Faculty link:
muuseum.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5674

Faculty email:
muuseum [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Lossi 25, 51003 Tartu
loodusmuuseum ja botaanikaaed

Faculty link:
natmuseum.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 6076

Faculty email:
loodusmuuseum [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Vanemuise 46, 51003 Tartu

Tugiüksused

ettevõtlus- ja innovatsioonikeskus

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 4809

Faculty email:
eik [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Narva mnt 18, 51009, Tartu
grandikeskus

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 6215

Faculty address:
Raekoja plats 9, 51004 Tartu
hankeosakond

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 6632

Faculty email:
tuuli.ilula [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18a, 51005 Tartu
infotehnoloogia osakond

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 6000, arvutiabi: 737 5500

Faculty email:
ito [at] ut.ee, arvutiabi [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18a, 51005 Tartu
kantselei

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5606

Faculty email:
kantselei [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18a, 51005 Tartu
kinnisvaraosakond

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5137

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18a, 51005 Tartu
kirjastus

Faculty link:
www.tyk.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
+372 737 5945

Faculty email:
tyk [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
W. Struve 1, 50091 Tartu
personaliosakond

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5145

Faculty email:
personal [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18, ruumid 302 ja 304, 50090 Tartu
rahandusosakond

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5125

Faculty email:
rahandus [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Jakobi 4, 51005 Tartu
rahvusvahelise koostöö ja protokolli osakond

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 6123

Faculty email:
iro [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18, ruumid 104, 304, 305, 50090 Tartu
rektoraat
rektoraadi büroo

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5600

Faculty email:
rektor [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18, 51014 Tartu
siseauditi büroo

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty email:
siseaudit [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18–244, 51005 Tartu
Tallinna esindus

Faculty link:
www.ut.ee/et/tallinna-esindus

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 6600

Faculty email:
esindus [at] tallinn.ut.ee

Faculty address:
Teatri väljak 3, 10143 Tallinn
turundus- ja kommunikatsiooniosakond

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5687

Faculty email:
info [at] ut.ee, avalik [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18, ruumid 102, 104, 209, 210, 50090 Tartu
õppeosakond

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty phone:
737 5620

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18, 50090 Tartu
üliõpilasesindus

Faculty link:
tyye.ut.ee

Faculty contacts link:
Töötajate kontaktandmed

Faculty email:
info [at] tyye.ee

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18b, 51005 Tartu

Muud üksused

MTÜ Tartu Ülikooli Akadeemiline Spordiklubi

Faculty link:
www.tysk.ee

Faculty phone:
737 5371

Faculty email:
info [at] tysk.ee

Faculty address:
Ujula 4, 51008 Tartu
MTÜ Tartu Üliõpilasküla

Faculty link:
www.campus.ee

Faculty phone:
740 9959

Faculty email:
info [at] campus.ee

Faculty address:
Narva mnt 25, 51013 Tartu
MTÜ Tartu Üliõpilasmaja

Faculty link:
www.tym.ee

Faculty phone:
730 2400

Faculty email:
tym [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Kalevi 24, Tartu
SA Tartu Ülikooli Kliinikum

Faculty link:
www.kliinikum.ee

Faculty phone:
731 8111

Faculty email:
kliinikum [at] kliinikum.ee

Faculty address:
L. Puusepa 1a, 50406 Tartu
Tartu Ülikooli Sihtasutus

Faculty link:
www.sihtasutus.ut.ee

Faculty phone:
737 5852

Faculty email:
tysiht [at] ut.ee

Faculty address:
Ülikooli 18a–106, Tartu
Vaata kõiki muid üksusi

TÜlingu loengusari on foorum, kus saab kuulata keeleteaduslikke ettekandeid väga erinevatest lingvistika teemadest. Alates 2019. sügisest on esinejaid tulnud Tartust ja mujalt, Eestist ja välismaalt. Ettekanded toimuvad teisipäeviti kl 16.00–17.15 ning on kõigile huvilistele avatud. Ettekande lõpus on aega küsimusteks ja aruteluks.

Vihjed võimalike esinejate kohta on lahkelt oodatud. Kui on külalisi Tartusse tulemas või on Tartu kolleegidel soov mõni ettekanne siinsele kuulajaskonnale esitada ja tagasisidet saada, siis palume kontakti võtta korraldajatega (virve.vihman [ät] ut.ee). Ühtlasi on võimalik liituda TÜlingu infolistiga samale aadressile kirjutades.
NB! Elame ettearvamatutel aegadel! Sel semestril korraldame TÜlingu ettekandeid veebis ning kaasame teadlasi erinevatest maailma nurkadest. Kevade poole võivad osad ettekanded ka toimuda kontaktselt. Värske info saamiseks jälgi meie veebilehte ja Facebooki lehte. Ettekannetega liitumiseks kliki Zoomi lingile ja kasuta sisenemisel koodi 146609.

Kava

Teisipäeviti kl 16.00–17.15

09.02 Kaius Sinnemäki (Helsinki)

Linguistic system and sociolinguistic environment as competing factors in typological variation

In language typology it has been uncommon to hypothesize that cross-linguistic variation could depend on sociolinguistic factors. This is very different compared to, for instance, variationist corpus research where it has been common to compare the effects of “language internal” and “language external” factors on language structures. Things have started to slowly change during the past decade in language typology, too. Initial research has suggested that sociolinguistic (or perhaps more rightly demographic/sociological factors) may affect linguistic structures across languages, including morphological and phonological complexity (Sinnemäki 2009; Lupyan & Dale 2010; Moran & Blasi 2012; Bentz & Winter 2013; Sinnemäki & Di Garbo 2018). Here I report on a new study (Sinnemäki 2020) which proposes that the effect of “language internal” and “external factors” should be compared in typology in a similar spirit as is done in variationist research. Results based on a sample of roughly 250 languages suggest a complex interplay between grammatical and sociolinguistic factors such that the correlation between case marking and word order is conditioned by population size. I will also briefly discuss how comparative sociolinguistic research could be feasibly approached from a typological perspective to further enable bridging research on sociolinguistic and typological research.

16.02 Suzanne Lesage (Paris Diderot)

(Pseudo-)reflexive possessive binding: Crosslinguistic experiments

In English and many other languages, third person possessives may take a local or nonlocal antecedent (1).
(1)   Peteri lead Johnj to hisi/j parents’ place.
Some languages have reflexive possessive forms (RPs), typically used to refer to the local subject; compare the distribution of oma vs. the ordinary possessive tema in Estonian (2). Note that possessors can also stay unexpressed.
(2)       Peeteri   vii-s   Jaanij   omai/*jtema*i/j/øi/j   vanema-te   juurde.
    Peeter.NOM   lead-PST   Jaan.GEN   POSS   parent-PL.GEN   at
    Peeteri led Jaanj to his parents’ place.

Reflexive possessives are seldom discussed in the literature, and usually assumed to obey the same binding constraints as ordinary reflexive pronouns (Kiparsky 2002). Preliminary observations suggest however that binding constraints on reflexive possessives are looser, and non-categorical. We hence predict that speakers will entertain the possibility that oma be bound by a nonlocal subject (3).
(3)       Peeteri   veen-is   Jaanij   [omai/j   ema-st]   / [enda-st]   rääki-ma.
    Peeter.NOM   convince-PST   Jaan.PART   POSS.REFL   mother-ELA   REFL-ELA   talk-INF
    Peeterj convinced Jaani to talk about hisi/j mother/himselfi/*j

English and other languages also possess emphatic possessive forms such as French son propre (Charnavel 2012) or English his own. Such forms are comparable to RPs in being biased for reference to a local argument. However, restricting reference is not the main function of such pseudo-RPs. Hence we expect that binding constraints on pseudo-RPs are less tight than on RPs.
To test our hypotheses, we ran parallel crosslinguistic web-based experiments comparing two languages with pseudo-reflexives (English: his own, French: son propre) and one with reflexive possessives (Estonian: oma). A fourth experiment on Czech, another language with true RPs, is underway. In all our items, there are two possible antecedents for a possessive form: a local subject or some more distant expression.
We manipulated Type of clause embedding the possessive (independent and infinitive clause) and Type of possessive (with non-reflexive and pseudo-RPs in English and French, RP, simple possessive and covert possessive in Estonian). The items (20 for English and French and 24 for Estonian) and fillers (36) were translation equivalents (as far as possible) in all languages. 244 participants took part in this experiment (79 for English, 99 for French and 66 for Estonian). Sentences as in (4) were shown to native speakers who had to fill a gap as in (5).
(1)   ENG :   John allowed Donald to leave his (own) documents at the reception.
John made arrangements. Donald will leave his (own) documents at the reception.
FR:   Jean a autorisé Paul à laisser ses (propres) papiers à l’accueil.
Jean s’est arrangé. Paul laissera ses documents à l’accueil.
EST:   Peeter laseb Triinul ø/oma/tema dokumendid registratuuri jätta.
Peeter on kõik läbi mõelnud. Triinu jätab ø/oma/tema dokumendid registratuuri.
(2)   _____________'s documents will be at the reception.
Les documents de __________ seront déposés à l’accueil.
_____________dokumendid jäetakse registratuuri.
In the infinitive condition, the possible antecedents were the matrix subject (John) and the local subject, i.e. the infinitive controller (Donald). In the independent condition, the possible antecedents were the local subject (Donald) and the subject of the first sentence (John).
Across languages, RPs (in Estonian) and pseudo-RPs (English and French) have a stronger bias for the local subject for independent sentences. As predicted, this preference is stronger for Estonian where the reflexive is grammaticalized, leading to a significant Type of clause * Type of reflexive form (pseudo-RP vs. RP) interaction.
Overall these crosslinguistic experiments give a gradient perspective on binding constraints with constraints for the RPs in Estonian less strong than what is assumed for reflexives but considerably stronger than what we found for pseudo-RPs in English and French.

References:
Charnavel, I. (2012). On her own: Probing syntax and semantics with French propre (PhD Thesis). Doctoral dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
Kiparsky, P. (2002). Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns. na.

02.03 Sali Tagliamonte (Toronto)

Wait, it’s a new discourse marker! English at the frontiers of change

This study examines investigates a new discourse-pragmatic use of the word wait in a 10-million-word multi-community corpus of spoken vernacular North American English. This function is an extension from an original lexical meaning of pausing or lingering which as extended to indicate a pause in discourse as the speaker reflects on or corrects an earlier topic. Over 300 examples permit comparative sociolinguistic methods and statistical modelling in order to offer an early assessment of the variation among alternates of this innovative use and to test for broad social and linguistic factors in order to understand the underlying processes. The results expose notable recent developments: older people use longer, more temporally specified variants, wait a minute/wait a second, while wait alone is increasing in apparent time with women leading its advance. The robust increase in use of wait alone, e.g. “I haven’t seen her yet. No wait. Yes, I have”, co-occurrence with other markers, e.g. no, and the function of reflection and/or self-correction can be pinpointed to the generation of speakers born after 1970. Further, the unique contribution of the sociolinguistically stratified corpora under investigation also demonstrates that this development is proceeding according to well-known principles of linguistic change as wait develops from a verb with temporal specification to a full-fledged discourse-pragmatic marker on the left periphery of the main clause.

09.03 Fabian Tomaschek (Tübingen)

The learning of articulatory skills and its effects on fine phonetic detail

Word frequency has repeatedly been shown to be associated with changes in fine phonetic detail of identical phones. A widely accepted interpretation of this effect is that these systematic changes are a result of local differences in information density. In the present talk, I will present an alternative explanation -- one that is rooted in the kinematic nature of speech production. I will present the results of production studies using electro-magnetic articulography, which show that changes in articulation associated with word frequency very much mirror changes in kinematic behavior such as hand movements associated with practice. I will argue that word frequency can be regarded as a measure of kinematic practice with individual phones and words, and changes in fine phonetic detail are a result of kinematic practice of individual articulatory movements.

23.03 Stef Spronck (Helsinki)

Deriving grammar from dialogue: a proposal

This talk reports on a book project in which I try to develop an updated functionalist perspective on grammatical categories and on the relation between grammar and communication. Drawing on fundamental insights from Mikhail Bakhtin, Erving Goffman, Roman Jakobson and Charles Peirce I outline a an approach to grammar that characterises and classifies grammatical categories as abstract representations of dialogue. The approach and its associated rudimentary formalism that the talk will also introduce I label Participation Grammar. Reported speech, as a grammatical phenomenon that exists in the twilight area between ad-hoc communication and syntactic convention, straddling grammar and social interaction (Spronck & Nikitina 2019a; Spronck & Nikitina 2019b) will serve as illustration for various aspects of the model.
I start with two premises: first, the idea that linguists generally tend to classify grammatical categories and unit types into common and more peripheral units/categories (or more and less ‘marked’), which I’ll call the ‘grammatical discrimination premise’. I suggest that, while this premise is commonly held in linguistics it has very few principled explanations.
The second premise that, I would suggest, is fundamental to contemporary linguistics, is the idea that language does not equal communication (the ‘language ≠ communication premise’). While the boundaries between language (= grammar?) and communication are actively debated, few linguists would deny that a meaningful distinction can be made between the two (although this position is not as uncontroversial as it once was).
After introducing and contextualising these two premises, I turn to a topic in the cross-section of debates around them, which I will refer to as ‘social grammar’. This, admittedly rather heterogeneous, collection of grammatical categories and units includes difficult-to-characterise word classes like interjections, mimetic expressions, and ‘expressives’; epistemic grammatical categories like egophoricity/conjunct-disjunct systems, epistemic modality and evidentiality, but also (in)definiteness, various types of expression of speaker perspective, prominence distinctions and information structuring devices.
Elements of social grammar have two properties: their semantics are somehow ‘incomplete’ in the sense that they require understanding of some pragmatic context for their proper interpretation and their syntactic status, i.e. the way in which they integrate with other units in an expression, is rather indeterminate. In addition, they also often raise profound descriptive problems for pinning down their language-specific meaning on the basis of corpus studies or in conversation with language consultants in the field.
I propose that there are three reasons for why social grammar raises so many issues: first, these elements are afterthoughts in the grammatical models that we work with, which, even if we do not adhere to a specific theory of grammar, still have shaped the terminology and descriptive variables that we can use. Second, they require a view of grammar that is more diverse than the symbolic definition of grammar most of us work with. And third: we have no principled model for connecting ‘core’ grammatical description to the sociality of the speech situation, which makes it impossible to describe categories that can only be properly understood in context.
Participation Grammar, I suggest, can address these issues in an integrated way. I illustrate the model using various examples of social and ‘regular’ grammar, with a specific mention of reported speech, which, using the model can be shown to operate at the boundaries between grammar and the dynamics of ad-hoc communication. Given this position, I suggest that reported speech provides a strong motivation for the model and, speculatively, that this reflects a much more fundamental role that reported speech has played in the emergence and evolution of language.

30.03 Annika Pasanen (Kautokeino)

Revitalization of Inari Saami: ideologies, methods and results

Inari Saami is one of the nine Saami languages spoken today. It has always been a small language of a couple hundreds speakers, who have lived in the region of the current municipality of Inari-Aanaar. Inari Saami became critically endangered during the 20th century as a result of numerous social, economical, political and demographic changes, and after the 2nd World War the language gradually lost its functions as a home language and the main language of social networks. Conscious revitalization efforts took place since 1980s and widened in 1990s. Main methods of reversing language shift have been language nests for small children, mother-tongue-medium education at school, and intensive, one year lasting language studies for adult population. Media and literature in Inari Saami have also played an important role, as well as constant development of university studies, language technology and cultural products.
At global scale Inari Saami has become an exceptional example of revitalization of a very small and critically endangered language. On the basis of favorable language ideologies and effective revitalization methods, wide change has taken place in the community. Amount of speakers has increased, intergenerational language transmission has started again, prestige of the language and culture has risen and language has become visible in all essential domains. In the lecture I will draw an overall picture of endangerment and revitalization of Inari Saami language, with special attention to the role of language ideologies behind the revitalization and reasons for remarkable results mentioned above.

06.04 Edyta Jurkiewicz-Rohrbacher (Regensburg)

Corpus perspectives on semanto-syntactic compatibility between complement taking predicate and infinitive

Complement taking predicates (CTPs) appear in various structures that are considered an excellent test environment for syntactic theories. In Slavic, predicates with infinitival complements are used in the context of clause union/structure sharing phenomena such as clitic climbing (Stejpanović 2004), long-distance negation (Przepiórkowski 2000), case transmission (e.g. Przepiórkowski 2004, Landau 2008) etc. Nonetheless, little is known about CTPs in the “real-life” language, in particular about the true frequency of studied phenomena and their distribution across paradigms. The lack of natural data in theoretical studies is usually motivated by the fact that structures in question are too rare to be found in corpora. In the talk, I discuss the syntactic and semantic properties of raising and control CTPs and their infinitival complements in several Slavic languages: Russian representing East Slavic, Polish – West Slavic and Croatian – South Slavic. Data obtained from reference and web corpora allow to show the variation in the syntactic and semantic properties of CTPs and their complements.

13.04 Reili Argus (Tallinn)

Sina-kontseptsiooni arenemisest eesti laste kõnes meeleteooria taustal

Kognitiivne ja keeleline areng käivad käsikäes (Papafragou jt 2007: 254). Mingi keelelise struktuuri valdamine annab lapsele vahendi mõelda abstraktsemalt, nt mõtiskleda vestluskaaslase meele ehk tunnete/mõtete/uskumuste jms üle, ning mingi keelendi õppimine arendab omakorda meeleteooriat (de Villiers, de Villiers 2000, 2014; Milligan jt 2007; Tager-Flusberg 2000).
Eesti keele omandamist meeleteooria vaatevinklist siiani vaadeldud ei ole. Meeleteooria võiks anda seletusvõimalusi seal, kus kasutuspõhine lähenemine seletada ei suuda, nt nende kategooriate omandamisel, mis on sisendkeeles sagedased, kuid mida laps ei omanda vara, või vastupidi. Meeleteooriast võiks abi olla seal, kus omandamisjärjekorra seletamiseks n-ö jäävad üle ainult pragmaatilistele teguritele rõhuvad seletused stiilis “ju on lapsel seda vaja”. Asesõnade ja kitsamalt just sina-kategooria omandamine ongi üks valdkondi, kus kasutuspõhiste lähenemiste seletusvahendid omandamisjärjekorda põhjendada ei suuda.
Vaatlen ettekandes kõigepealt ülevaatlikult seda, mida maailmas meeleteooriat kasutades omandamiskäsitlustes üldse uuritud, ja seejärel neid eesti keele omandamise andmeid, mille kohta või millega seoses saab meeleteooria rakendamise üle arutleda. Arutluse keskmes on teise isiku ehk sina-kategooria asesõnade, mentaalseid protsesse tähistavate verbide ja episteemilise modaalsuse markerite omandamise kaudu. Keelematerjalina kasutan eesti lastekeele andmepanga andmeid (spontaanse kõne lindistused vanusest 1;3-5;0).
Eesti lastekeeleandmeid on võimalik paigutada Mazzagio (2016: 55) pakutud meeleteooria intensiivsushierarhiasse, mille järgi on kõige esimesel astmel teise isiku soovid (sa tahad), seejärel uskumused (sa arvad) ning alles siis teadmistele juurdepääs (kas teisel on samad teadmised, mis minul). Meeleteooria intensiivsuse astmestik ühtib aga eesti laste andmete põhjal teise isiku konstruktsioonide omandamisjärjekorraga ainult osaliselt. Nii ei omanda eesti lapsed esimeses järjekorras näiteks asesõna sina koos soovidega. Seetõttu arutlen ettekandes ka selle üle, kuivõrd ja kas meeleteooria pakutavad vahendid võimaldaksid liikuda kasutuspõhiste lähenemiste vahenditega seletatavast kaugemale.

20.04 Maria Murumaa-Mengel (Tartu)

Estonglishist salakeelteni - mis keeli noored veebis räägivad?

Ehkki ma ei ole keeleteadlane ja ükski mu uuringuist ei ole keskendunud veebisuhtluse puhtlingvistilistele aspektidele, on sellest teemast võimatu mööda vaadata. On ju selge, et püüdes mõista inimeste kommunikatsioonikultuure erinevatel veebiplatvormidel, torkab üht koma teist silma ka keelekasutuse ja keele funktsioonide osas. Ettekandes räägin noorte veebisuhtluse näitel erinevate keelte segunemisest, intertekstuaalsusest ning sotsiaalsest steganograafiast ehk avalikult salasõnumite saatmisest. Näiteid toon rohketest uuringutest ja lõputöödest, mis on käsitlenud erinevatel platvormidel tegutsevaid suunamudijaid ja nende jälgijaid ning noorte netikasutust (ja mittekasutust!) üldisemalt.

27.04 Andres Karjus (Tallinn)

Võistlus, valik ja vajadus keele muutumises

Diakroonilised tekstikorpused võimaldavad keelemuutuste dünaamika kasutuspõhist uurimist. Olulisel määral toetavad seda lähenemist omakorda keeletehnoloogilised tööriistad. Selles ettekandes kirjeldan hiljutisi uurimusi, kus sõnavara muutumisdünaamikaid, evolutsioonilisi valikuprotsesse ja teemade kõikumist on tuletatud erinevate keelte korpustest. Kõigi nende keskmes on hüpotees, et keelte muutumine on paljuski ajendatud keelekasutajate kommunikatiivsete vajaduste muutumisest. Räägin ka tehiskeele-eksperimendist, mille eesmärk oli testida kahte hüpoteesi sõnavara kujunemise kohta varasemast kirjandusest, millest üks on seotud kommunikatiivsete vajadustega. Väidan, et kombineerides erinevad lähenemised ja infoallikad – mitmekeelsed andmebaasid, korpused ja eksperimendid – on võimalik saada keele muutumisest ja olemusest terviklikum pilt võrreldes sellega, kui kasutada ainult ühte lähenemist.

04.05 Benjamin Tucker (Alberta)

Whazat? Figuring out the role of reduction in communication

Do speakers really produce Whazat? instead of What is that? when they are talking? In spontaneous conversational speech speakers often produce “reduced” speech (additional audio examples of reduction: http://goo.gl/0MN2es). Reductions are extremely common in everyday speech occurring in over 32% of the words produced in one corpus (Dilts, 2013). In this talk, I explore the range of variation speech, focussing on spontaneous conversational speech and I discuss different ways in which reduction occurs and how it fits into our general understanding of language. I describe and discuss several investigations attempting to understand aspects of spontaneous communication and I situate this discussion within frameworks of speech production and comprehension.

11.05 Kristiina Praakli (Tartu)

Noortekeele uurimisest eesti keeleteaduses. Vahekokkuvõte

Ettekandes võtan vaatluse alla noortekeele uurimise eesti keeleteaduses. Peatun senisel uurimislool, noortekeele uurimise lähtekohtadel ning mõistestikul (nt kõnelejarühmade, keelevariantide, keelenähtuste määratlemine), andmekogudel ja uurimismeetoditel. Esitlen mõningate uuringute põhitulemusi keelevarieerumise kontekstis.

18.05 Neil Bermel (Sheffield)

Exploring inflectional uncertainty: too many morphs or none at all?

Two phenomena are often presented in the linguistic literature as contrasting ways of handling uncertainty in linguistic forms. Overabundance occurs with words such as prove, which has two perfect participles (I have proved/proven); it represents unmotivated choice beyond what seems to be ‘needed’ in the grammatical system of a language. Defectivity refers to gaps; it describes the hesitation of users in producing the past tense or participle of verbs such as troubleshoot or output, where most will substitute circumlocutions or synonyms (did some troubleshooting on; created output for) rather than produce a dubious troubleshot/troubleshooted or output/outputted.
In the Feast and Famine project, we propose that these two phenomena have common sources and result from common mechanisms of language production and processing, with the different project strands exploring how computational modelling, corpus research, child language studies and experiments with native-speaker informants can shed light on how different slots come to be realised as defective or overabundant. I will briefly discuss the different angles that we are exploring in the project, and explore some preliminary results from our first round of research into Czech paradigmatic choice (co-author Alexandre Nikolaev).
In a gap-filling exercise, respondents encountered paired sentences, each containing a lexeme identified as having defective or overabundant cell(s). In the first sentence, respondents were presented with a form from a ‘canonical’ cell of the lexeme; in the second, there was a syntactic context requiring a form from a defective or overabundant cell of the same lexeme, and respondents were instructed to fill that gap. There were a matched number of filler items, using the same syntactic contexts, where no uncertainty is typically experienced.
Results indicate significant differences between how users treat defective, overabundant and filler slots in their response times, and in the type and variety of answers given. While users are usually able to produce an item to fill a defective slot, it takes them longer to do so, the number of possible answers is higher, and the amount of deviation from what we call the ‘expected’ form is greater than with overabundant or filler slots. Overabundant slots also show significant differences in response times from the other two types, but their time from start to completion is lower, as is the number of possible slots and the amount of deviation from the ‘expected’ form(s). It thus appears we can identify online and offline behaviours that serve as flags for overabundant and defective paradigm slots.

25.05 Florent Perek (Birmingham)
Construction Grammar in action: The English Constructicon

Sügissemestri kava 2020/21

Kevadsemestri kava 2020

Otsinguvorm

Loengusari TÜling