Primestoimenno-otnositel'nye konstrukcii v sovremennom russkom jazyke

Relative Constructions with Pronominal Heads in Contemporary Russian Chapter 1 introduces the distinctive syntactic and semantic properties of Russian relative constructions (RCs), which are then divided into two main classes according to the type of the head phrase. The study concentrates on RCs with pronominal heads, which are systematically compared with noun-headed RCs. Chapter 2 clarifies the categorization of pronouns in Russian. The conclusion is that Russian pronouns include only personal, reflexive and wh-pronouns. The remaining words that are traditionally seen as pronouns are actually functional equivalents of determiners. This idea leads to the suggestion that RCs with these determiner-like words as the only constituent of the head phrase are actually headed by zero pronouns. In the other type of RCs with pronominal heads, the head position is occupied by wh-pronouns with clitics expressing different types of indefiniteness and quantification. Comparison of the two types of pronoun-headed RCs shows that the wh-heads and zero-heads share a number of common properties with respect to the grammatical gender, number and person as well as to the semantic distinction between animates and inanimates. The rest of Chapter 2 gives an overview of various uses of wh-pronouns in Russian and an experimental analysis of RCs headed by pronominal adverbs. Chapter 3 discusses fundamental differences between RCs with noun and pronominal heads. One of the main findings is that the choice of the relative pronoun (kto 'who' and chto 'what' versus kotoryj 'which') is motivated by a tendency to reproduce maximally the essential grammatical and semantic properties of the antecedent. Chapter 4 gives a detailed description of the determiner-like words and wh-based heads used in the two types of RCs with pronominal heads. In addition, several issues related to the syntax and semantics of free relatives are discussed. The conclusion is that there is no need to establish a separate category of free relatives in Russian. Chapter 5 discusses the syntax and semantics of correlative and free concessive constructions. They share a number of properties with pronoun-headed RCs and the two are often confused in Russian linguistics. However, a detailed analysis shows that these constructions must be distinguished from RCs. The study combines the methods of functionally-oriented Russian structuralism with some insights from generative syntax.

Oireista puhuminen lääkärin vastaanotolla : Keskustelunanalyyttinen tutkimus lääkärin kysymyksistä

Talking about symptoms during medical consultation. A conversation analytical study of doctors questions This linguistically oriented conversation analytic study investigates doctors questions and patients answers during medical consultation. The focus is on 1) the syntactic constructions of the doctors questions concerning the patients symptoms, 2) the function of different types of syntactic constructions, and 3) the sequential placement of the questions. The data used in the study consist of 57 videotaped doctor patient encounters in Finnish primary health care. The study shows that the traditional division between open and closed questions is vague and needs to be examined further. Open wh-questions and closed yes/no questions form heterogeneous classes: some of the closed questions can be treated as open and vice versa. Wh-questions which occur during the physical examination are often constructed to elicit short answers. These questions can consist of one word (e.g. milloin when ) which does not move to a new topic but supports the unfinished activity of palpation. During the verbal examination, wh-questions are formulated to elicit long descriptions as answers. For example, by asking mites + X ( what about + X), the doctor can open up a new topic and simultaneously give the patient the opportunity to discuss the topic from his/her perspective. Almost half of the yes/no questions project longer than just a minimal answer (e.g. a short confirmation or rejection). In these questions, the doctors use verbal elements which show that more than just a minimal answer is required. They can, for example, add an indefinite element (joku some or mitään any ) to a yes/no question, add a conjunctive vai ( or ) to the end of the question and thus open a space for various types of answers, or add a suggested answer to the question. In addition, the results show that declarative questions not only check understanding, but display the doctor s diagnosing process, check whether the doctor can move on to the next topic or action, and display implicitly the doctor s idea of what is connected and what is relevant. One aim of the study is to describe how different syntactic structures work together. A typical question chain consists of two or three questions. The first question is an open wh-question that elicits a new topic and creates different types of presuppositions. Contingent questions are constructed as yes/no questions that seek an affirmative answer or as declarative sentences that seek confirmation. Contingent questions can function as repair initiators and thus support achieving mutual understanding. Therefore, they are tools for the doctor to construct a description of the medical problem collaboratively with the patient. The results add to the results of previous studies on questions in medical consultation, but also suggest some corrections. They provide additional evidence for the idea that different types of syntactic constructions are useful in different types of settings. However, they also show that the variety of questions that doctors use is more manifold and diverse than the variety introduced in earlier studies and textbooks.