Tiit Hennoste, Andriela Rääbis, Kirsi Laanesoo-Kalk, Andra Rumm
{"title":"降低爱沙尼亚紧急呼叫中事件或紧急情况的严重性","authors":"Tiit Hennoste, Andriela Rääbis, Kirsi Laanesoo-Kalk, Andra Rumm","doi":"10.1515/opli-2024-0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the article is to analyze the calls to the Estonian Emergency Response Centre, focusing on instances where callers reduce the severity of incident or emergency in their first turn. The data comprise 39 calls from the Corpus of Emergency Calls of the University of Tartu. The analysis reveals that callers employ mitigating words and negative turn-initial utterances to reduce the severity. These words indicate the caller’s uncertainty about the information provided or suggest that the reported incident or emergency is minor. The utterances are syntactically and semantically (but not prosodically) completed clauses followed by a second part of the clause construction containing specific information about the caller’s issue. Functionally, these utterances serve as assessments falling into three groups based on the information they project. Some assessments project uncertain information, explicitly expressing uncertainty about the information or using the epistemic marker <jats:italic>ma=i=tea</jats:italic> ‘I don’t know’. The second group of assessments project information about an incident that the caller does not qualify as an emergency. The last group projects a potential incident or emergency using variants of the utterance <jats:italic>ei juhtund midagi</jats:italic> ‘nothing happened’. In addition, we offer explanations for why callers reduce the severity of the incident or emergency and demonstrate that reducing severity does not lower the probability of sending assistance. This indicates that call-takers do not rely on callers’ assessments when deciding whether the help is needed.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reducing the severity of incidents or emergency in Estonian emergency calls\",\"authors\":\"Tiit Hennoste, Andriela Rääbis, Kirsi Laanesoo-Kalk, Andra Rumm\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/opli-2024-0022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of the article is to analyze the calls to the Estonian Emergency Response Centre, focusing on instances where callers reduce the severity of incident or emergency in their first turn. The data comprise 39 calls from the Corpus of Emergency Calls of the University of Tartu. The analysis reveals that callers employ mitigating words and negative turn-initial utterances to reduce the severity. These words indicate the caller’s uncertainty about the information provided or suggest that the reported incident or emergency is minor. The utterances are syntactically and semantically (but not prosodically) completed clauses followed by a second part of the clause construction containing specific information about the caller’s issue. Functionally, these utterances serve as assessments falling into three groups based on the information they project. Some assessments project uncertain information, explicitly expressing uncertainty about the information or using the epistemic marker <jats:italic>ma=i=tea</jats:italic> ‘I don’t know’. The second group of assessments project information about an incident that the caller does not qualify as an emergency. The last group projects a potential incident or emergency using variants of the utterance <jats:italic>ei juhtund midagi</jats:italic> ‘nothing happened’. In addition, we offer explanations for why callers reduce the severity of the incident or emergency and demonstrate that reducing severity does not lower the probability of sending assistance. This indicates that call-takers do not rely on callers’ assessments when deciding whether the help is needed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2024-0022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2024-0022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
文章旨在分析爱沙尼亚紧急响应中心的呼叫,重点关注呼叫者在第一次呼叫时降低事件或紧急情况严重程度的情况。数据包括塔尔图大学紧急呼叫语料库中的 39 个呼叫。分析结果表明,呼叫者会使用减轻语气的词语和消极的回合开头语来减轻事件的严重性。这些词语表示来电者对所提供信息的不确定性,或暗示所报告的事件或紧急情况并不严重。这些语句在句法和语义上(而不是在韵律上)都是完整的分句,其后是分句结构的第二部分,包含有关来电者问题的具体信息。从功能上讲,这些语篇可作为评估,根据其预测的信息可分为三类。有些评估语预测了不确定的信息,明确表达了对信息的不确定性,或使用了认识标记 ma=i=tea "我不知道"。第二类评估预测的是来电者认为不属于紧急情况的事件信息。最后一组是使用语句 ei juhtund midagi'什么也没发生'的变体来预测潜在的事件或紧急情况。此外,我们还解释了为什么呼叫者会降低事件或紧急情况的严重性,并证明降低严重性并不会降低提供援助的概率。这表明,呼叫者在决定是否需要帮助时并不依赖于呼叫者的评估。
Reducing the severity of incidents or emergency in Estonian emergency calls
The aim of the article is to analyze the calls to the Estonian Emergency Response Centre, focusing on instances where callers reduce the severity of incident or emergency in their first turn. The data comprise 39 calls from the Corpus of Emergency Calls of the University of Tartu. The analysis reveals that callers employ mitigating words and negative turn-initial utterances to reduce the severity. These words indicate the caller’s uncertainty about the information provided or suggest that the reported incident or emergency is minor. The utterances are syntactically and semantically (but not prosodically) completed clauses followed by a second part of the clause construction containing specific information about the caller’s issue. Functionally, these utterances serve as assessments falling into three groups based on the information they project. Some assessments project uncertain information, explicitly expressing uncertainty about the information or using the epistemic marker ma=i=tea ‘I don’t know’. The second group of assessments project information about an incident that the caller does not qualify as an emergency. The last group projects a potential incident or emergency using variants of the utterance ei juhtund midagi ‘nothing happened’. In addition, we offer explanations for why callers reduce the severity of the incident or emergency and demonstrate that reducing severity does not lower the probability of sending assistance. This indicates that call-takers do not rely on callers’ assessments when deciding whether the help is needed.