Article published in:
Subjects in Constructions – Canonical and Non-Canonical
Edited by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo and Tuomas Huumo
[Constructional Approaches to Language 16] 2015
► pp. 43–72

Hidden subjects in conversation

Estonian personless verb forms as referential devices9

The chapter deals with implicit unspecific group referents introduced by verb forms (the conditional and the impersonal) which lack person marking. They have different contexts of use: the personless conditional is preferred when the aim of the conversation is to plan a future activity, while the existential impersonal is first and foremost used in narratives. The personless conditional is typically inclusive, incorporating one or both of the interlocutors into the group. The impersonal is typically speaker-exclusive and refers to a group that does not include the participants of the conversation. For the analysis, the data from the Corpus of Spoken Estonian (University of Tartu) are used.
Published online: 14 January 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.16.03paj
References

References

Ariel, Mira
(1996). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
(1994) Discourse, consciousness and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis
(1999) Anaphora, discourse, and understanding. Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
(1980) Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In Wallace L. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories. Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 203–274). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati, Kasik, Reet, Metslang, Helle, Rajandi, Henno, Ross, Kristiina, Saari, Henn, Tael, Kaja, & Vare, Silvi
(1993) Eesti keele grammatika II. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja
(2006) Toiminta ja tarkoite. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(2005) Context as other minds. The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron
(1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Bassene, Mamadou, Gordon, Bryan, Humnick, Linda, & Khalfaoui, Amel
(2010) Testing predictions of the Givenness Hierarchy framework: A crosslinguistic investigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1770–1785. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William F.
(1990) Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1996) Language & communicative practices. Oxford and Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riitta, Koivisto, Vesa, Heinonen, Tarja-Riitta, & Alho, Irja
(2004) Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
(2006) Passive personal or impersonal? A Finnish perspective. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, & Lyle Campbell (Eds.), Grammar from the human perspective: Case space and person in Finnish (pp. 233–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hennoste, Tiit
(2003) Suulise eesti keele uurimine: Korpus. Keel ja Kirjandus, 7, 481–500.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi
(2010) Effects of contrast on referential form: Investigating the distinction of strong and weak pronouns. Discourse Processes, 47, 480–509. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kauppinen, Anneli
(1998) Puhekuviot: Tilanteen ja rakenteen liitto. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
(2004) Politeness in Estonia: A matter of fact style. In Leo Hickley (Ed.), Politeness in Europe (pp. 203–217). Clevedon, England: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
(1994) Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva
(1999) Definiteness. In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert, & Chris Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. 1999 installment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) First and only: Single mention pronouns in spoken Finnish. In Ritva Laury (Ed.), Minimal reference. The use of pronouns in Finnish and Estonian discourse (pp. 56–74). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina
(2009) Kõnelejale ja kuulajale viitamise vältimise strateegiaid eesti keeles. Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat, 55, 88–118.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina, & Vihman, Virve
(2010) Ise ise . Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 1, 219–241.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle
(1999) Is the Estonian and Finnish conditional actually a conditional? In Mati Erelt (Ed.), Estonian: Typological studies III (pp. 97–127). Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Pajusalu, Renate
(2008) Pragmatics of quantifiers: The case of Estonian kõik ’all. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1950–1965. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Pronouns and reference in Estonian. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 62(1/2), 122–139.Google Scholar
Pajusalu, Renate, & Pajusalu, Karl
(2004) The conditional in everyday Estonian: Its form and functions. Linguistica Uralica, 4, 257–269.Google Scholar
(2005) Ways of revealing and concealing person: The conditional in Estonian conversation. In D. Monticelli, R. Pajusalu, & A. Treikelder (Eds.), Regards multidisciplinaires sur la deixis (pp. 67–79). Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Pajusalu, Renate, Vihman, Virve, Birute, Klaas, & Pajusalu, Karl
(2010) Forms of address across languages: Formal and informal second person pronoun usage among Estonia’s linguistic communities. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(1), 75–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pool, Raili
(1999) About the use of different forms of the first and second person singular pronouns in Estonian cases. In Mati Erelt (Ed.), Estonian typological studies III, 11 (pp. 158–184). Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu. Tartu: University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Shore, Susanna
(1986) Onko suomessa passiivia. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
(1988) On the so-called Finnish Passive. Word, 39, 151–176.Google Scholar
Torn, Reeli
(2002) The status of the passive in English and Estonian. In H. Hendriks (Ed.), RCEAL working papers in English and applied linguistics 7 (pp. 81–106). Cambridge: Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Torn-Leesik, Reeli
(2009) The voice system of Estonian. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 62(1/2), 71–90.Google Scholar
Torn-Leesik, Reeli, & Vihman, Virve
(2010) The uses of impersonals in spoken Estonian. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 23 ed. by Mark Kaunisto, Rea Peltola, Erika Sandman, Heli Tissari, & Katja Västi, 301–343.Google Scholar