Tiit Hennoste, Helle Metslang , Külli Habicht , Anni Jürine , David Ogren & Liina Pärismaa

1. The influence of the concurrence of language planning and social factors on usage in a standard language: the case of Estonian Tiit Hennoste, HelleMetslang, KülliHabicht, AnniJürine, David Ogren & LiinaPärismaa University of Tartu SLE, Tallinn 2018

2. Topic • Topic: the impact of the concurrence of language planning and different linguistic and social factors on the changes in usage of morphosyntactic patterns in Standard Estonian

3. Language planners have opposed a) Allpolar question forms other than sentence-initial particles Kassaoledabielus? KAS you be.2sg married? ‘Are you married?’ Sa oledabielus? ‘You are married?’ Sa oledabielusvä? ‘You are married VÄ?’.

4. Language planners have opposed b) Expressionof futuretimereferencewith saama‘get, become’ and ma-infinitive verb forms Seesaabtore olema. this saa.3sgnice be.inf ‘it will be nice’

5. Research question What were the linguistic and social factors which influenced the language planning efforts and results?

6. Data and method Data • Language corpora of the University of Tartu: - Textsfromthe end of the 19thcentury - 1930s print media and fiction - 20th−21stcentury print media and fiction Method • Usage-based (Bybee 2010, Coussé, Mengden 2014)qualitative + quantitative approach

7. Saama (BECOME) futureconstructions • Texts from the late 19thcentury (fiction and popular non-fictiontexts)to the 21st century • Twoperiods of the use of saama+ infinitivefuture constructions • Until the end of the 19th centuryfairly common • From the 1930s onwardquite marginal

8. FTR functionof saama + infinitiveconstructions(% of all saama + infinitiveconstructions)

9. Polar questions Estonian has approximately 20 different polar question markers / devices: • sentence-initial particles kas and ega • sentence-final particles and tags (või/vä, jah, eksetc.) • word orders • declaratives • + secondary markers (epistemic particles and conjunctions)

10. Polarquestions and languageplanning • Fromthe 1930s: Standard language was considered supreme • Few direct recommendations in grammars and language planning texts regarding polar question forms • Languageplanners: • The onlysuitable polar question markers in Standard Estonian are the sentence-initial particles kasandega(the latter used only in negative questions) • declarativesand sentence-finalmarkersmust be avoidedascolloquial and ugly

11. Sentence-initialparticles(% of all polarquestionmarkers) • Theuse of sentence-initial particles has decreased

12. Outcome Languageplanners’ campaign • Language planners’ campaign against the saamafuture was successful, causing a marked drop in its usage in the 1930s and rendering it marginal thereafter. • Languageplanners’ campaignagainstpolarquestionmarkersotherthankas and egawasunsuccessful. The use of kas/egahasdecreased, notincreased.

13. Discussion. Threegroupsoffactors How to explain the different results of language planning efforts? (1) Socialfactors Negative societal attitudes • Anti-German sentiment in Estonian society in the beginning of the 20th century • The written (standard) language was widely considered the supreme form of the language fromthe 1930s onward

14. Discussion. Threegroups of factors (2) Linguisticfactors. Adifference between the two constructions with regard tothe extent to which the language possesses other resources for performing the same functions as that of the expression(s) in question • No specialgrammatical markers of future tense in Estonian;there are other ways of expressing it (present tense, BEGIN-construction, or adverbials) • Different polar questionmarkersperform different functions • Information requests: mainlysentence-initial particles • Confirmation requests: mainlydeclaratives and sentence-final markers

15. Importantquestion Why did language planners fight against the various forms of confirmation questions? • Limitedlinguistic knowledge. The differentfunctions of polarquestions were not well understood until the 21st century.

16. Discussion. Threegroupsoffactors (3) Languageplanningfactors Visibilityofthecampaign The campaign against the saamafuture was carried out in public, the struggle in favor of the kasquestion was far less visible.

17. Conclusion and futureperspectives All of thetypesoffactorspointtothesamedirection. Saama‘get’ construction – languageplanningeffortssuccessful • Functionalalternatives • Avoidedasdirect German influence (werden-future) • Strong anti-saamacampaign Polarquestions – languageplanningeffortsunsuccessful • No functionalalternatives • German orRussianinfluencemoredifficulttospot • Lessvisiblecampaign Futureinvestigationoflinguistic and socialfactors and theirinterplaywithlanguageplanning • Theeffectofagainstcampaignvs procampaign • Interactionoflinguistic and socialfactors • Operationalizationofsocialfactors and languageplanningeffects

18. References • Auer, Anita, CatharinaPeersman, Simon Pickl, GijsbertRutten, RikVosters 2015. Historicalsociolinguistics: thefield and itsfuture. – Journal of HistoricalSociolinguistics, 1:1, 1–12. • Bybee, Joan (2010), Language, Usage and Cognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Cooper, Robert (1989), LanguagePlanning and SocialChange, New York: Cambridge University Press. • Coussé, Evie & FerdinandvonMengden (2014), Usage-BasedApproachestoLanguageChange, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. • Erelt, Mati (2006). Lause õigekeelsus: juhatused ja harjutused. Tartu. • Habicht, Külli; Hennoste, Tiit; Jürine, Anni; Metslang, Helle; Ogren, David; Pärismaa Liina; Sokk, Olle 2018. Languagechangemirroringsocialchange: constructionswith saama ‘get’ and nonfinite verb forms in differentperiods and registers of written Estonian. – LinguisticaUralica. In appear. • Hennoste, Tiit (1997), Eesti keele sotsioperioodid. Üldpilt. − Pühendusteos Huno Rätsepale. (Tartu Ülikooli eesti keele õppetooli toimetised 7), Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 45–66. • Hennoste, Tiit; Metslang, Helle; Habicht, Külli; Jürine, Anni; Laanesoo, Kirsi; Ogren, David (2016). Üldküsimuse vorm ja funktsioonid läbi nelja sajandi ja kuue tekstiliigi. − Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat, 61, 80−109. • Hilpert, Martin (2017), Historicalsociolinguistics and constructiongrammar. Frommutualchallengestomutual benefiits. − T. Säily, A. Nurmi, M. Palander-Collin, and A. Auer (eds.), ExploringFuturePathsforHistoricalSociolinguistics. (Advances in HistoricalSociolinguistics 7), Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 217–237. • Metslang, Helle (1994). Eesti ja soome – futuurumitakeeled? − Keel ja Kirjandus 9, 10, 534–547, 603–616. • Metslang, Helle (2010). Isepäine üldküsilause. − Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 55 (2009), 119−137. • Metslang, Helle 2016. Can a languagebeforced? Thecase of Estonian. – HubertCuyckens, LobkeGhesquière, Daniël Van Olmen (eds.). Aspects of Grammaticalization and (Inter)Subjectification and Directionality. Berlin: De Gruyter, 281−309. • Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (2014), HistoricalSociolinguistics: Origins, Motivations, and Paradigms. − J. M. Hernandez-Campoy, and J. C. Conde-Silvestre (eds.), TheHandbook of HistoricalSociolinguistics, WileyBlackwell, 22–40. • Raag, Raimo (2008), Talurahva keelest riigikeeleks, Tartu: Atlex. • Saari, Henn (1976). [Pealkirjata]. − Keelehääling. Tallinn: Valgus, 3–6. • Sepamaa, Henrik (1978). Pisut kas-küsimusest. – Keel ja Kirjandus 5, 300.

19. Corpora • CELL = Corpus of Estonian LiteraryLanguage. • http://cl.ut.ee/korpused/kasutajaliides/index.php?lang=en (10.01.2018) • ERC = Estonian ReferenceCorpus. http://www.cl.ut.ee/korpused/segakorpus/index.php?lang=en (10.01.2018) • OLE = Corpus of OldLiterary Estonian. http://www.murre.ut.ee/vakkur/Korpused/korpused.htm (10.01.2018)

20. Acknowledgements • Thisstudywassupportedbythe Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (projects PUT475 and EKKM14-340) and bytheEuropeanUnionthroughtheEuropeanRegionalDevelopmentFund (Centre of Excellence in Estonian Studies).

21. Thankyou!