The marking of uncontroversial information in Europe: presenting the enimitive

Diskursusepartikkel "ju" endastmõistetavuse markerina akadeemilistes ja ajakirjanduslikes tekstides

“…Evidentsiaalsust kui info teadasaamisviisi markeerimist keeles (nägemine-kuulmine või kaudsem järeldamine) on allikale viitamise järgi täpsemalt nimetatud ka mediatiivsuseks (Dendale, Tasmowski 1994, Guentchéva 2004). Tuntust eeldava hoiaku markeerimist on teisalt kirjeldatud aga ka ladinakeelse partikli enim 'tõesti, tõe poolest' järgi enimitiivsuse ehk vaieldamatusena (Panov 2020).…”

“…Kui varasemalt on partiklit ju käsitletud eelkõige suulise kõne värvingupartiklina, siis kirjalikke tekstiregistreid analüüsides rakendas uuring ka ennekõike kirjalike tekstide argumenteerimisloogikat uurivat diskursuseanalüüsi metoodikat. Lähtudes eeldiskursuste teooriast (Paveau 2006), mis keskendus uuritava partikli ja tõsikindluse ja/või vaieldamatuse (Panov 2020) markeritena avalduvate signaalkeelendite toimimise uurimisele diskursuses, on analüüsitud 1) viitamist eelnevalt tuntud diskursustele, 2) näidete kajastamist tüüpilise diskursusena ja 3) eeldatavalt samalaadse kogemuse üldistamist.…”

“…The Estonian particle ju serves to emphasize or reinforce an utterance, suggesting that the information conveyed is obvious or based on common knowledge. While discussions about the use of this particle in Estonian have primarily focused on spoken language or texts that imitate it, this study concerns written argumentation, exploring the role of ju as a marker of uncontroversial information (Panov 2020) and thus as an indicator of "pre-discourses" (Paveau 2006) in academic texts and periodicals represented in the Estonian National Corpus 2021. The analysis illustrates how ju signals reliance on obviousness in these texts in three argumentation patterns: 1) drawing on prior knowledge, 2) citing typical examples, and 3) formulating generalized statements based on similar experiences.…”

A peculiar Lithuanian particle mat or Mat ją bala, irgi mat dalelytė!

“…However, to our mind, a majority of classification attempts fail in rigorously distinguishing between language-particular descriptive categories, established upon language-internal idiosyncratic struc-tural criteria, and cross-linguistic comparative concepts (Haspelmath 2010). In a number of works, such as Fischer & Alm (2013), also Panov (2020a;2020b), a solution to this methodological controversy was proposed, which entails a separate treatment of functional and formal properties of the studied phenomena. Fischer and Alm (2013) demonstrate that the Swedish alltså and the German also, although demonstrating a significant functional overlap, exhibit different morphosyntactic properties and occur in different language-specific idiosyncratic constructions.…”