ПОЛИФУНКЦИОНАЛНOСТА НА ДА НЕ-ПРАШАЊАТА

Marija Kusevska; Eleni Bužarovska; Liljana Mitkovska

Marija Kusevska University of Stip, Macedonia
Eleni Bužarovska Faculty of Philology "Blaze Koneski", Universtiy "Ss Cyril and Methodius", Skopje, Macedonia
Liljana Mitkovska Private University FON, Skopje, Macedonia

Keywords: pragmatic analysis, communication functions, common ground, positive politeness, horizontal distance

Abstract

This paper undertakes a pragmatic analysis of da/ne (yes/no)-questions in Macedonian in order to determine their communicative functions in various contexts: offer, encouragement, empathy, disapproval, irony, etc. In comparison to polar dali-questions, which require a positive or negative response, da/ne-questions are biased because they require confirmation of the speaker’s presupposition about the polarity of the answer. This function can be achieved only if the addressee shares common ground and correctly interprets the presupposition of the speaker. The semantic feature of bias makes these questions suitable for signaling positive politeness and small horizontal distance between interlocutors.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Тополињска. Зузана. 2009. Полски-Македонски граматичка конфронтација.
Негација (9). Скопје: МАНУ.
Bayer. Josef. and Obenauer. Hans-Georg. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure,
and question types. The Linguistic Review 28, 449–491.
Brown. Penelope. and Levinson. Stephen. C. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in
Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bužarovska. Eleni. 2006. Pathways of Semantic Change: from similarity marker to
sensory evidential. Slavia Meridionalis. Studia Linguistica et Balcanistica
6. Warszawa: Institut slawistyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 185–311.
Dukova-Zheleva. Galina. 2010. Questions and Focus in Bulgarian. Doctoral
Dissertation. University of Ottawa, Department of Linguistics Faculty of
Arts, Ottawa, Canada.
Fischer. Kerstin. 2007. Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their
translation equivalents. In: Lexical Markers of Common Grounds, Studies
in Pragmatics 3, edited by Anita. Fetzer. and Kerstin. Fischer. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 47–66.
Fetzer. Anita. and Fischer. Kerstin. 2007. Introduction. In Lexical Markers of
Common Grounds, Studies in Pragmatics 3 edited by Anita. Fetzer. and
Kerstin. Fischer. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1–12.
Givón. Talmy. 1984. Syntax. Vol. I. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Goffman. E. 1967. On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction.
In E. Goffman. Interactional Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour.
New York: Penguin Books, Ltd.
Hopper. Paul. J. and Traugott. Elizabeth. C. 1994 [1993]. Grammaticalization.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine. Berndt. 2001. Grammaticalization. Constructions in Grammaticalization. In:
B. D. Joseph. and R. D. Janda. Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London:
Blackwell, 575–601.
Levinson. Stephen. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer. Frank. R. 1998. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schmerse. Daniel. and Lieven. Elena. and Tomasello. Michael. 2013. Discourse
Particles and Belief Reasoning: The Case of German doch. Journal of
Semantics 0, 1–19 (doi: 10.1093/jos/fft001).
Searle. John. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spencer-Oatey. Helen. 1996. Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 1–24.
Traugott. Elizabeth. C. and Dasher. Richard. B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiemer. Bjorn. 2014. Mora da as a marker of modal meanings in Macedonian: on
correlations between categorial restrictions and morphosyntactic behaviour.
In E. Leiss. and W. Abraham. (eds.). Modes of modality. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 127-166.
Yule. George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.