Cover not available
Part of
Subjects in Constructions – Canonical and Non-Canonical
Edited by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo and Tuomas Huumo
[Constructional Approaches to Language 16] 2015
► pp. 73–97

Subjects under generic conditions

Implied subjects in Finnish and Estonian if-clauses

| University of Turku
| University of Tartu
The chapter discusses implied subjects creating open or generic reference in Finnish and Estonian if-clauses from a contrastive perspective. We focus on the so-called zero person constructions, passives/impersonals, and the Estonian da-infinitive which acts as a predicate of an if-clause. These construction types lack subject; in addition they can create open or generic reference. The constructions are closely interrelated; however, each of them has some restrictions in use and differences in interpretation. The passive in Finnish and the impersonal in Estonian if-clauses have a tendency to refer to a group, whereas the zero person and Estonian da-infinitive refer to one individual. The interpretation of implied subject depends on the conditional clause type, the context, and the verb form that is used.
Published online: 14 January 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.16.04jok
References (43)
References
Behrens, Leila (2005). Genericity from a cross-linguistic perspective. Linguistics, 43(2), 275–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. (2003). Passive and impersonal constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 473–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere, & Pagliuca, William (1994). The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality on the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, & Starke, Michal (1999). The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Henk van Riemsdijk (Ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe (pp. 145–233). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen (1975). On generics. In Edward Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics of natural languages (pp. 9–111). Oxford: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara (2006). Conditionals and prediction. Time, knowledge and causation in conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duvallon, Outi, & Chalvin, Antoine (2004). La réalisation zéro du pronom sujet de première et de deuxième personne du singulier en finnois et en estonien parlés. Linguistica Uralica, 4, 270–286.Google Scholar
EKG II = Erelt, Mati, Kasik, Reet, Metslang, Helle, Rajandi, Henno, Ross, Kristiina, Saari, Henn, Tael, Kaja, & Vare, Silvi (1993). Eesti keele grammatika II. Süntaks. Lisa: Kiri. Tallinn: Eesti TA Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
EKRE = Eesti keele riigieksami eristuskiri. [URL]. [Cited 01/21/2013.]
Erelt, Mati (1984). Da-infinitiivi süntaktilised funktsioonid tänapäeva eesti keeles. Soome-eesti kontrastiivseminar (Helsingi, 17.–20.10.84). Preprint KKI-24. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2003). Estonian language. Linguistica Uralica (Vol. 1). Supplementary Series. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli (1987). Avoiding personal reference in Finnish. In Jef Verschueren & Marcella Bertucelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective. Pragmatics & Beyond (pp. 141–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (pp. 233–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Minä ja muut. Puhujaviitteisyys ja konteksti. Virittäjä, 112, 186–206.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, & Laitinen, Lea (2006). Person in Finnish: Paradigmatic and syntagmatic perspectives. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell (Eds.), Grammar from the human perspective: Case, space, and person in Finnish. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (pp. 173–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, & Johansson, Marjut (2008). Construing reference in context: Non-specific refernce forms in Finnish and French discussion groups. In María de los Ángeles Gómez González, J. Lachlan Mackenzie & Elsa M. González Álvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics. Functional and cognitive perspectives. Studies in functional and structural linguistics 60 (pp. 27–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, & Vilkuna, Maria (2008). Impersonal is personal: Finnish perspectives. Special issue on impersonals, guest editor Anna Siewierska. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 216–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herlin, Ilona (1998). Suomen kun. Helsinki: Finnish Literary Society.Google Scholar
Jokela, Hanna (2006). Geneerinen nollasubjektilause suomessa ja virossa. In Krista Kerge & Maria-Maren Sepper (Eds.), Finest Linguistics. Proceedings of the annual Finnish and Estonian conference of linguistics (pp. 59–72). Tallinn, May 6–7, 2004. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press.
(2012). Nollapersoonalause suomessa ja virossa. Tutkimus kirjoitetun kielen aineistosta. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis. C 334. University of Turku.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (1999). Finiteness. In Keith Brown & Jim Miller (Eds.), Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories (pp. 146–149). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea (1995). Nollapersoona. Virittäjä, 99, 337–358.Google Scholar
(2006). Zero person in Finnish: A grammatical resource for construing human reference. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell (Eds.), Grammar from the human perspective: Case, space, and person in Finnish. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (pp. 209–233). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1997). Generics and habituals. In Angeliki Athanasiadou & René Driven (Eds.), On conditionals again (pp. 191–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Liina (2010). Kõnelejale ja kuulajale viitamise vältimise strateegiad eesti keeles. In Mati Erelt (Ed.), Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat, 55 (2009), 88–118.Google Scholar
Löflund, Juhani (1998). Suomen kirjoitetun yleiskielen passiivi. Turku: Åbo Akademis förlag.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna, & Tiittula, Liisa (2005). Minä käännössuomessa ja supisuomessa. In Anna Mauranen & Jarmo H. Jantunen (Eds.), Käännössuomeksi. Tutkimuksia suomennosten kielestä. Tampere Studies in Language, Translation and Culture A1 (pp. 35–69). Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle (1994). Kielet ja kontrastit. Virittäjä, 98, 203–226.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina (2007). Constructional economy and nonfinite independent clauses. In Irina Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 138–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael (1985). Complementation. In Timothy Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic fieldwork (pp. 42–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plado, Helen (2010). Eesti keele da-infinitiivis öeldisverbiga tingimuslaused. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri ESUKA / Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics JEF, 2, 255–272.Google Scholar
(2013). Eesti keele otstarbelausest. Keel ja Kirjandus, 4, 269–284.Google Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena (2000). Sinä ja suomalaiset: yksikön toisen persoonan yleistävästä käytöstä. Kielikello, 3/2000, 16–18.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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, 2, 301–343.Google Scholar
Tuomikoski, Risto (1971). Persoona, tekijä ja henkilö. Virittäjä, 75,146–152.Google Scholar
Uuspõld, Ellen (1989). Modaalsusest ja modaalsest predikaatist eesti keeles. Keel ja Kirjandus, 8, 468–477.Google Scholar
Vihman, Virve-Anneli, & Kaiser, Elsi (2006). Effects of Demotion in Estonian and Finnish. In Torgrim Solstad (Ed.), Demoting the agent: Passive, middle, and other voice phenomena (pp. 111–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VISK. Hakulinen, Auli, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riitta, Koivisto, Vesa, Heinonen, Tarja Riitta, & Alho, Irja (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. [URL]Google Scholar
Visapää, Laura (2008). Infinitiivi ja sen infiniittisyys. Tutkimus suomen kielen itsenäisistä A-infinitiivikonstruktioista. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 1181. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi (2003). Defining non-finites: Action nominals, converbs and infinitives. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 16, 185–237.Google Scholar