Cover not available
Part of
Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units
Edited by Tsuyoshi Ono, Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki
[Benjamins Current Topics 114] 2021
► pp. 59–86

Free NPs as units in Finnish

ORCID logo | University of Turku
This article focuses on free NPs, i.e. noun phrases that are grammatically not part of any clause but form units of their own. Using the methodology of discourse-functional and interactional linguistics, I analyze the morphosyntactic, prosodic and interactional features of free NPs in conversational Finnish. With its rich morphological marking, Finnish provides an interesting perspective on free NPs: Morphosyntactic features, together with semantics, are crucial in determining the status of an NP as a clausal constituent or a free NP. The prosodic analysis shows that the majority of free NPs show clear prosodic boundaries, signalled for example by speaker change, coherent intonation contour, pause or pitch reset. Free NPs serve various interactional functions, such as making assessments or disambiguating referents. These are functions which operate on something already established in the discourse. Free NPs, however, can also initiate something new for example by making requests or introducing new topics.
Keywords: Finnish, free NP, interactional linguistics, prosody, syntax, morphosyntax
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Morphosyntactic features of free NPs
  • 4.Prosodic features of free NPs
  • 5.Interactional functions of free NPs
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.114.04hel
References (40)
References
Aho, Eija. 2010. Spontaanin puheen prosodinen jaksottelu. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Doctoral dissertation. [URL] [retrieved December 28, 2015].
Antaki, Charles. 2012. Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies 14(5). 531–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkisyn = Arkisyn, A morphosyntactically coded database of conversational Finnish. Data-base compiled at the University of Turku, with material from the Conversation Analysis Archive at the University of Helsinki and the Syntax Archives at the University of Turku. Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages, University of Turku.
Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1). 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Betsy K. 1985. The pragmatics of left detachment in spoken standard French (Pragmatics and Beyond VI, 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2019. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.1, retrieved 13 July 2019 [URL]
Bruce, Gösta. 2005. Intonational prominence in varieties of Swedish revisited. In Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, 410–429. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grouding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Linking Intonation Units in Spoken English. In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, 10–27. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3). 623–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1986. Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino & Susanna Cummings. 1992. Discourse transcription. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt & Beatrice Warren. 2000. The idiom principle and open choice principle. Text 20(1). 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson. 2002. Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 1991. Syntaktiset rakenteet kertomuksen jäsentiminä. Virittäjä 95. 33–47.Google Scholar
. 1997. Functions of case-marking vs. non-marking in conversational Finnish. In Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Kristin Davidse & Dirk Noël (eds.), Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives. CILT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Syntax in the Making. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Nobufumi, Inaba. 2013. Functions of free NPs in Old Finnish texts. Paper presented at the Grammar and Context Conference, June 2013. University of Tartu.
Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 30–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. In John Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 139–157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 2013. On the many faces of incompleteness: Hide-and-seek with the Finnish partitive object. Folia Linguistica 47(1). 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo. 2015. On the subject of subject in Finnish. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Subjects in constructions: Canonical and non-canonical, 13–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Laakso, Minna & Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2010. Cut-off or particle: Devices for initiating self-repair in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 1151–1172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lagae, Véronique. 2007. Left-detachment and topic-marking in French: The case of quant à and en fait de . Folia Linguistica 41(3). 327–355.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, Marja Etelämäki & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2015. Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics. Special Issue. Pragmatics 24(3).Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo. 2016. Detached NPs with relative clauses in Finnish conversations. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective, 149–165. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson. 1994. Unattached NPs in English Conversation. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2011. Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: the online formatting of left- and right dislocations in French conversation. In Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 45–87. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Elwys de Stefani & Anne-Sofie Horlacher. 2015. Time and emergence in grammar. Dislocation, topicalization and hanging topic in French talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2001. Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena. 1997. Vuorovaikutus paperilla. In Liisa Tainio (ed.), Keskustelunanalyysin perusteet, 18–31. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
Siro, Paavo. 1964. Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Helsinki: Tietosanakirja.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena & Liisa, Raevaara. 2014. On the grammatical form of making requests at the convenience store: Requesting as embodied action. In Paul Drew & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Requesting in Social Interaction, 243–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin Conversation: Prosody, Discourse, and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terasaki, A. K. 2004. Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In Gene Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voronov, Mikhail. To appear. Kielellinen muutos ja sen ymmärtäminen. Tapaustutkimuksena totaaliobjektin merkinnän tasoittuminen Pohjois-Norjan kainun murteissa. Turku: University of Turku doctoral dissertation.