Questions in monological discourse in the Estonian parliament
-
Marri Amon
,
Marge Käsper
Abstract
This paper investigates interrogatives in monological political discourse, specifically from reports presented in the Estonian Parliament from 2016 to 2024. These interrogatives, though produced orally before an audience, do not seek immediate answers and thus deviate from the canonical, information-seeking function of interrogatives. Our qualitative analysis focuses on their noncanonical nature and reveals several types based on their deviation from traditional interactional contexts. We categorize the questions into three types: information-eliciting by a knowledgeable speaker, rhetorical with implicit or obvious answers known to both speaker and audience, and inviting collective reflection where neither party knows the answer. The examples illustrate how these questions frame discourse, engage the audience, and convey criticism of or support for arguments. The study also explores sequences of questions, showing how clusters enhance rhetorical impact by expanding on previous inquiries. These questions serve diverse rhetorical purposes, such as structuring arguments, prompting reflection, and inviting action. Questions in political and expert communication play a crucial role in facilitating engagement and persuasion, with their noncanonical properties closely related to their discursive and pragmatic functions in monological settings.
Funding source: Estonian Research Competency Council
Award Identifier / Grant number: EKKD114
Award Identifier / Grant number: PARROT 4-8/19/4
Award Identifier / Grant number: PRG 934
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
-
Research funding: Research for this paper was supported by the Estonian-French science and technology cooperation program PARROT (project “Surprise questions from a comparative perspective,” PARROT 4-8/19/4), by the Ministry of Education and Research (grant EKKD114, “The perception and semantics of surprise questions in Estonian”), and by the Estonian Research Council (grant PRG 934, “Imagining crisis ordinariness”).
References
Asdal, Kristin. 2008. On politics and the little tools of democracy: A down-to-earth approach. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 9(1). 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910x.2008.9672953.Suche in Google Scholar
Brack, Nathalie & Olivier Costa. 2018. Democracy in parliament vs. democracy through parliament? Defining the rules of the game in the European parliament. Journal of Legislative Studies 24(1). 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2018.1444625.Suche in Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano & Jon Sprouse. 2007. Rhetorical questions as questions. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11. 121–133.Suche in Google Scholar
Cardo, Michele & Agnès Celle. 2025. Question sequences in English TED talks. Linguistics Vanguard, In this issue.10.1515/lingvan-2025-0027Suche in Google Scholar
Ducard, Dominique. 2003. Une discussion biaisée: La question rhétorique dans le débat parlementaire. In Simone Bonnafous, Pierre Chiron, Dominique Ducard & Carlos Lévy (eds.), Argumentation et discours politique: Antiquité grecque et latine, Révolution française, monde contemporain, 191–200. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.10.4000/books.pur.24846Suche in Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2020. Conjectural questions: The case of German verb-final wohl-questions. Semantics and Pragmatics 13(9). 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.9.Suche in Google Scholar
Erjavec, Tomaž, Matyáš Kopp, Nikola Ljubešić, Taja Kuzman, Paul Rayson, Petya Osenova, Maciej Ogrodniczuk, Çağrı Çöltekin, Danijel Koržinek, Katja Meden, Jure Skubic, Peter Rupnik, Tommaso Agnoloni, José Aires, Starkaður Barkarson, Roberto Bartolini, Núria Bel, María Calzada Pérez, Roberts Darģis, Sascha Diwersy, Maria Gavriilidou, Ruben van Heusden, Mikel Iruskieta, Neeme Kahusk, Anna Kryvenko, Noémi Ligeti-Nagy, Carmen Magariños, Martin Mölder, Costanza Navarretta, Kiril Simov, Lars Magne Tungland, Jouni Tuominen, John Vidler, Adina Ioana Vladu, Tanja Wissik, Väinö Yrjänäinen & Darja Fišer. 2024. ParlaMint II: Advancing comparable parliamentary corpora across Europe. Language Resources and Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-024-09798-w.Suche in Google Scholar
Erjavec, Tomaž, Maciej Ogrodniczuk, Petya Osenova, Nikola Ljubešić, Kiril Simov, Andrej Pančur, Michał Rudolf, Matyáš Kopp, Starkaður Barkarson, Steinþór Steingrímsson, Çağrı Çöltekin, Jesse de Does, Katrien Depuydt, Tommaso Agnoloni, Giulia Venturi, María Calzada Pérez, Luciana D. de Macedo, Costanza Navarretta, Giancarlo Luxardo, Matthew Coole, Paul Rayson, Vaidas Morkevičius, Tomas Krilavičius, Roberts Darǵis, Orsolya Ring, Ruben van Heusden, Maarten Marx & Darja Fišer. 2023. The ParlaMint corpora of parliamentary proceedings. Language Resources and Evaluation 57. 415–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-021-09574-0.Suche in Google Scholar
Farkas, F. Donka. 2022. Non-intrusive questions as a special type of non-canonical questions. Journal of Semantics 39(2). 295–337. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffac001.Suche in Google Scholar
Guinaudeau, Isabelle & Olivier Costa. 2022. Issue politicization in the European Parliament. An analysis of parliamentary questions for oral answer (2004–19). Journal of Common Market Studies 60(3). 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13243.Suche in Google Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit. 2012. Küsimuse vorm, episteemiline staatus ja episteemiline hoiak [The form of asking questions, epistemic status and epistemic stance]. Keel ja Kirjandus 8–9. 674–695.10.54013/kk658a9Suche in Google Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit, Olga Gerassimenko, Riina Kasterpalu, Koit Mare, Andriela Rääbis, Krista Strandson & Maret Valdisoo. 2005. Questions in Estonian information dialogues: Form and functions. In Václav Matoušek, Pavel Mautner & Tomáš Pavelka (eds.), Text, speech and dialogue 2005 (lecture notes in computer Science 3658), 420–427. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/11551874_54Suche in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684.Suche in Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 1999. Question-response argumentation in talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 31(8). 975–999. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00056-9.Suche in Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2018. Pragmatics vs rhetoric: Political discourse at the pragmatics-rhetoric interface. In Cornelia Ilie & Neal R. Norrick (eds.), Pragmatics and its interfaces, 85–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.294.05iliSuche in Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2022. Meta-questions and meta-answers: The interplay of metadialogic practices in PMQs. Journal of Pragmatics 194. 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.004.Suche in Google Scholar
Koit, Mare. 2020. Dialoogiaktid ja argumendid Riigikogu stenogrammides: Pilootuuring [dialogue acts and arguments in records of the Estonian parliament: A preliminary study]. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat = Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics 16. 95–108. https://doi.org/10.5128/erya16.06.Suche in Google Scholar
Koit, Mare. 2022. Parlamendisuhtlus võrdluses kliendisuhtlusega: Küsimused ja vastused [Questions and answers in a parliament as compared with a travel agency]. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat = Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics 18. 173–189. https://doi.org/10.5128/erya18.10.Suche in Google Scholar
Laanesoo-Kalk, Kirsi. 2024. Functions of the particles tõesti ‘really’ and tõepoolest ‘indeed’ in the spoken, online and printed registers of Estonian. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3(2). 186–208. https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00030.laa.Suche in Google Scholar
Lazardeux, Sébastien. 2005. Une question écrite, pour quoi faire? The causes of the production of written questions in the French assemblée nationale. French Politics 3(3). 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.fp.8200079.Suche in Google Scholar
Martin, Shane. 2011. Using parliamentary questions to measure constituency focus: An application to the Irish case. Political Studies 59(2). 472–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00885.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Meden, Katja, Jure Skubic & Tomaž Erjavec. 2024. Adding political orientation metadata to ParlaMint corpora. In Krister Lindén, Thalassia Kontino & Jyrki Niemi (eds.), Selected papers from the CLARIN annual conference 2023, Linköping electronic conference proceedings. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press. https://doi.org/10.3384/ecp210017.Suche in Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle, Mati Erelt, Külli Habicht, Tiit Hennoste, Reet Kasik, Pire Teras, Annika Viht, Eva Liina Asu, Liina Lindström, Pärtel Lippus, Renate Pajusalu, Helen Plado, Andriela Rääbis, Ann Veismann. 2023. Eesti grammatika [Estonian grammar]. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.10.12697/EGSuche in Google Scholar
Mölder, Martin. 2022. Estonia: Political developments and data in 2021. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook 61(1). 1–10.10.1111/2047-8852.12370Suche in Google Scholar
Mölder, Martin. 2023. Estonia: Political developments and data in 2022. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook 62(1). 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-8852.12410.Suche in Google Scholar
Navarro, Julien. 2014. Des questions au Parlement européen: Pour quoi faire. In Philippe Poirier (ed.), Démocratie, parlementarisme et légitimité. Brussels: Larcier.Suche in Google Scholar
Nowak, Bartholomäus. 2016. Posing questions without asking: The use of rhetorical questions in the Polish parliamentary discourse. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 61(1). 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1515/slaw-2016-0004.Suche in Google Scholar
Pascual, Esther. 2006. Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text & Talk 26(3). 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2006.014a.Suche in Google Scholar
Pascual, Esther & Sergeiy Sandler. 2016. Fictive interaction and the conversation frame: An overview. In Esther Pascual & Sergeiy Sandler (eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction, 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.55.01pasSuche in Google Scholar
Rääbis, Andriela. 2024. Functions of the particle üldse ‘at all’ in questions in Estonian everyday conversations. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 3(2). 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00031.raa.Suche in Google Scholar
Rohde, Hannah. 2006. Rhetorical questions as redundant interrogatives. San Diego Linguistics Papers 2. 134–168.Suche in Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243.Suche in Google Scholar
Skubic, Jure, Angermeier Jan, Alexandra Bruncrona, Bojan Evkoski & Larissa Leiminger. 2022. Networks of power: Gender analysis in selected European parliaments. In Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on computational linguistics for political text analysis (CPSS-2022) Potsdam: Germany. https://old.gscl.org/en/arbeitskreise/cpss/cpss-2022/workshop-proceedings-2022 (accessed 20 July 2024).Suche in Google Scholar
Westera, Matthijs, Laia Mayol & Hannah Rohde. 2020. TED-Q: TED talks and the questions they evoke. In Proceedings of the twelfth language Resources and evaluation conference, 1118–1127. Marseille: European Language Resources Association.Suche in Google Scholar
Xiang, Mingjian & Esther Pascual. 2016. Debate with Zhuangzi: Expository questions as fictive interaction blends in an old Chinese text. Pragmatics 26(1). 137–162. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.1.07xia.Suche in Google Scholar
Zeyrek, Deniz, Amália Mendes, Yulia Grishina, Murathan Kurfalı, Samuel Gibbon & Maciej Ogrodniczuk. 2020. TED multilingual discourse bank (TED-MDB): A parallel corpus annotated in the PDTB style. Language Resources and Evaluation 54(2). 587–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-019-09445-9.Suche in Google Scholar
Zhang, Justine, Spirling Arthur & Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. 2017. Asking too much? The rhetorical role of questions in political discourse. In Martha Palmer, Rebecca Hwa & Sebastian Riedel (eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 1558–1572. Copenhagen: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/D17-1164Suche in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
