The papers of this volume investigate how grammar codes the subjective viewpoint of human language users, that is, how grammar reflects human conceptualization. Some of the articles deal with spatial relations and locations. They discuss how basic attributes of human conceptualization are encoded in the grammatical expression of spatial relations. Other articles concern embodiment in language, showing how conceptualization is mediated by one’s embodied experience of the world and ourselves. Finally, some of the articles discuss coding of person focusing on the subjectivity of conceptualization and how it is reflected in grammar.
The articles show that conceptualization reflects the speaker’s construal of the situation, and furthermore, that it is intersubjective because it reflects the speaker’s understanding of the relations between the speech act participants. The papers deal with Finnish, utilizing the rich resources of Finnish grammar to contribute to issues in contemporary linguistics and in particular to Cognitive Grammar.
In their paper, Tuomas Huumo and Krista Ojutkangas first introduce the system of Finnish local cases in general and then discuss the main features of the system of adpositions. The Finnish system for expressing spatial relations consists of six local cases and many adpositions, the precise number of which cannot be determined since the borderline between adpositions and relator nouns is obscure. The local cases are divided into two series: the so-called internal cases and external cases. The internal cases express relations such as ‘inside’, ‘into’, ‘out of’, while the external cases express relations such as ‘at’,’to the outside of’ and ‘from the outside of’ or ‘on’, ‘onto’ and ‘off’. Thus, a pervasive feature in the case system is the expression of directionality: in both case series there is one static case (‘in’/ ‘at’/ ‘on’), one ‘to’ case and one ‘from’ case. Similar directional oppositions are expressed by many adpositions, since the adpositional stems generally bear locative case suffixes. This is possible because many Finnish adpositions typically originate from nouns; this is reflected in the fact that they still carry local case endings and take their complement in the genitive form. In their structure such adpositional phrases resemble noun phrases where the locative case-marked head is a relator noun preceded by a genitive modifier.
Krista Ojutkangas’ paper, “Spatial axes in language and conceptualization: the case of bidirectional constructions,” is a usage-based study of the basic axes in the conceptual partition of space. The focus is on bidirectional constructions in Finnish: on descriptions of spatial relations where both opposing poles of a spatial axis are explicitly mentioned in a single sentence, instances such as ‘the bride and the groom were sitting behind the table and the guests were sitting in front of the table’. Ojutkangas shows that the inherent bipolarity of the basic spatial axes can be utilized as a relatively systematic strategy in spatial conceptualization. It also shows that a conceptualization strategy primarily used in spatial language can have further functions in discourse, in building the narrative, and in reference tracking. The analysis of bidirectional and similar constructions contributes to our knowledge of spatial conceptualization and language generally.
Tuomas Huumo’s paper is a study on fictive motion as manifested by the uses of the Finnish directional (‘to’ vs. ‘from’) local cases in expressions that involve a cognitive change. The cognitive change takes place in the relationship between an experiencer and a stimulus, in such a way that the stimulus either enters or exits the cognitive dominion of the experiencer (i.e., its consciousness, awareness, or field of perception). Verbs that indicate such relations include verbs of perception (e.g., ‘see’, ‘hear’ ‘smell’) and verbs of more abstract cognitive contact (e.g., ‘find’, ‘lose’, ‘forget’). The general observation is that even though such situations do not involve actual spatial motion, Finnish uses the directional local cases to indicate the static spatial position of the stimulus that changes its relationship with the cognitive dominion. It is argued that such uses of the directional cases show that the conceptualization of such cognitive changes reflected by the structure of Finnish involves fictive motion between different dominions and a deep and direct interaction between cognitive dominions and space.
In “Metonymy in locatives of state,” Tiina Onikki-Rantajääskö analyzes abstract uses of locative case expressions. She focuses on expression of postures and facial expressions and other ‘locatives of state’ — expressions denoting psycho-physical and other states in Finnish. Special attention is given to the bridging role of metonymy in the abstract uses of locative case expressions. Onikki-Rantajääskö shows that metonymic and metaphorical tendencies are based on cultural models. Another organizing principle lying behind expressions of posture are image-schematic dimensions. The paper shows how metonymic-metaphorical extensions make use of these dimensions. Together they form the motivation for and organizing principle behind the abstraction tendencies observed in locatives. In such a way Onikki-Rantajääskö explores the experiential and bodily basis of metaphor and metonymy.
Toni Suutari investigates the development and grammaticalization of words that refer to body parts. An examination of Finno-Ugric words meaning ‘head’ reveals counterexamples to claims both about human egocentrism in semantic development and about the asserted unidirectionality of grammaticalization. Suutari shows that meanings of anatomical ‘head’ are often secondary. In other words, certain abstract relational expressions receive a concrete meaning as names for parts of the body and then subsequently become abstract once again. This claim has implications for grammaticalization. Suutari reviews the primary body-part names and the problems of the grammatical categorization of locative forms. The Finnish and Estonian locative expressions that include body-part names belong to two types, locatives and adpositions. Suutari shows that the metaphorical change from the meanings related to body parts to abstract meanings occurred after the grammaticalization had taken place. It is therefore argued that the concrete ‘body part’ > ‘object part’ metaphor has no effect in these cases. The observations have broad implications for grammaticalization and categorization. They demonstrate that grammaticalization does not always involve changes from concrete to abstract or from lexical to grammatical, but grammaticalization may include stages where an abstract relational expression adopts a concrete meaning which in turn becomes grammaticalized.
Seppo Kittilä’s paper discusses the (formal and semantic) distinction between recipient and beneficiary in Finnish. The paper shows that the allative case is strongly associated with the notion of reception. This means that whenever a participant can be regarded as a recipient, the allative case is used in its encoding. The participant in question may also have beneficial traits, but if there is any reception involved, the allative case is used for its coding. On the other hand, Beneficiary coding (which uses different adpositions), is possible only if the notion of reception is lacking together and the participant in question is a pure beneficiary. This paper is of special interest to functional linguists and typologists working on similar phenomena in and across different languages.
On the basis of empirical evidence it has been shown that mentions of human referents manifest features of prominence on the level of both discourse and grammar. This is so because they tend to be topical and agentive and are consequently likely to appear in core grammatical roles, especially in the subject role. Nevertheless, human referents are occasionally also mentioned in oblique cases (for example, as possessors and as recipients of various types). Ritva Laury studies these oblique mentions of human referents in Finnish and investigates whether human mentions are equally distributed among all the oblique cases. She further explores what their pragmatic and semantic characteristics are and whether they take on the typical discourse profile of obliques (i.e. new, unidentifiable, and unlikely to be re-mentioned), or whether they still get treated like other human referents so that they would be identifiable, given and further tracked. Laury also investigates the semantic features of NPs used for oblique mentions of humans in discourse. The results of her study strongly confirm the centrality of human referents in grammar and discourse. Oblique mentions in the data show features of syntactic prominence, since they are not equally distributed among all the oblique cases, but instead cluster in only a few cases, namely those which occur in constructions with grammatical rather than local meaning. Further, human referents mentioned in oblique case roles are still pragmatically and semantically strongly human in terms of being participants in speech events, in being identifiable, given, and further tracked, that is, continuous topics in discourse, and in being lexically specified as humans.
The paper by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo and Lea Laitinen provides an overview to person marking in Finnish. It aims to contribute to resolving some of the long-standing confusions surrounding how person has been dealt with in Finnish grammar. In Finnish, the predicate verb agrees with the subject in person (1st, 2nd and 3rd) and number (singular : plural). The verb thus shows the same person as the nominal subject, and therefore, the nominal and the verbal person marking systems have usually not been discussed separately in Finnish linguistics (see for example Sulkala and Karjalainen 1992, Hakulinen and Karlsson 1979). Helasvuo and Laitinen show, however, that in colloquial varieties of Finnish the coding of person is more complicated. The verbal and nominal person marking systems intersect, but not in the straightforward manner assumed in mainstream Finnish linguistics. The connections between the two form an intricate network. Helasvuo and Laitinen demonstrate that the verbal person marking is not copied from the subject pronoun in a mechanical way, nor is the personal pronoun redundant. They therefore find it useful to present the nominal and verbal person marking systems as two different paradigmatic systems. They also discuss how the two systems interrelate on the syntagmatic level.
Lea Laitinen’s article deals with the grammar and meaning of Finnish constructions containing the so-called ‘zero person’ subject. In these constructions, there is no overt subject, and the verb is in the 3rd person singular form. The meanings of the construction are investigated in conversational data, and its globally marked non-specific reference is compared to the non-specific use of personal pronouns, used as generic forms referring to humans in many languages. As crystallizations of human experience, the zero person constructions express changes of state, emotions, perceptions, or other processes that affect human beings in particular situations. Laitinen shows how this potentiality of grammar is used in interaction by the speech act participants, and how these constructions which leave the conceptualizer of the situation implicit, provide a more subjective perspective on the experience than explicit personal pronouns. This paper has implications for the understanding of impersonal use of pronouns, non-specific pronominal reference, and zero persons in languages generally.
Marja-Liisa Helasvuo’s paper discusses passive constructions in Finnish. Based on a large database of spoken Finnish, she argues that contrary to the received view in Finnish linguistics, there are actually two types of passive in Finnish, namely the so-called simple passive (formed by the verb stem + passive suffix + personal marker) and a periphrastic passive; the latter is the so-called be-passive, formed with the verb ‘to be’ in its 3rd person singular form (on) and a passive participle of the main verb. In the be-passive, the finite verb is in the 3rd person form, but in the simple passive, there is a special passive “personal” marker on the verb. The passive personal marker creates personal reference, but the reference is not explicit, but rather has to be construed from the context. Helasvuo investigates the role of these two types of passives in the Finnish person system and the discourse functions that they serve. She shows that the two passives have quite distinct discourse profiles.
In the linguistic literature, the Finnish passive has been described as impersonal based on the fact that argument relations do not change (see e.g. Comrie 1977). In contrast, in a personal passive, the object of the active clause takes the role of subject in a corresponding passive clause. Helasvuo shows, however, that this use of the term “personal” vs. “impersonal” is misleading: it equates the function of person marking with the coding of the subject role. Instead, she suggests that the function of person marking on verbs is to provide a grammatical means for expressing person, either by explicit reference to person or open reference that has to construed in the context (e.g. the passive). From this perspective, the Finnish passive is by no means impersonal, but instead, is an integral part of the person system for verbs.
The papers of this volume investigate how grammar codes the subjective viewpoint of human language users, that is, how grammar reflects human conceptualization. Some of the articles deal with spatial relations and locations. They discuss how basic attributes of human conceptualization are encoded in the grammatical expression of spatial relations. Other articles concern embodiment in language, showing how conceptualization is mediated by one’s embodied experience of the world and ourselves. Finally, some of the articles discuss coding of person focusing on the subjectivity of conceptualization and how it is reflected in grammar.
The articles show that conceptualization reflects the speaker’s construal of the situation, and furthermore, that it is intersubjective because it reflects the speaker’s understanding of the relations between the speech act participants. The papers deal with Finnish, utilizing the rich resources of Finnish grammar to contribute to issues in contemporary linguistics and in particular to Cognitive Grammar.
In their paper, Tuomas Huumo and Krista Ojutkangas first introduce the system of Finnish local cases in general and then discuss the main features of the system of adpositions. The Finnish system for expressing spatial relations consists of six local cases and many adpositions, the precise number of which cannot be determined since the borderline between adpositions and relator nouns is obscure. The local cases are divided into two series: the so-called internal cases and external cases. The internal cases express relations such as ‘inside’, ‘into’, ‘out of’, while the external cases express relations such as ‘at’,’to the outside of’ and ‘from the outside of’ or ‘on’, ‘onto’ and ‘off’. Thus, a pervasive feature in the case system is the expression of directionality: in both case series there is one static case (‘in’/ ‘at’/ ‘on’), one ‘to’ case and one ‘from’ case. Similar directional oppositions are expressed by many adpositions, since the adpositional stems generally bear locative case suffixes. This is possible because many Finnish adpositions typically originate from nouns; this is reflected in the fact that they still carry local case endings and take their complement in the genitive form. In their structure such adpositional phrases resemble noun phrases where the locative case-marked head is a relator noun preceded by a genitive modifier.
Krista Ojutkangas’ paper, “Spatial axes in language and conceptualization: the case of bidirectional constructions,” is a usage-based study of the basic axes in the conceptual partition of space. The focus is on bidirectional constructions in Finnish: on descriptions of spatial relations where both opposing poles of a spatial axis are explicitly mentioned in a single sentence, instances such as ‘the bride and the groom were sitting behind the table and the guests were sitting in front of the table’. Ojutkangas shows that the inherent bipolarity of the basic spatial axes can be utilized as a relatively systematic strategy in spatial conceptualization. It also shows that a conceptualization strategy primarily used in spatial language can have further functions in discourse, in building the narrative, and in reference tracking. The analysis of bidirectional and similar constructions contributes to our knowledge of spatial conceptualization and language generally.
Tuomas Huumo’s paper is a study on fictive motion as manifested by the uses of the Finnish directional (‘to’ vs. ‘from’) local cases in expressions that involve a cognitive change. The cognitive change takes place in the relationship between an experiencer and a stimulus, in such a way that the stimulus either enters or exits the cognitive dominion of the experiencer (i.e., its consciousness, awareness, or field of perception). Verbs that indicate such relations include verbs of perception (e.g., ‘see’, ‘hear’ ‘smell’) and verbs of more abstract cognitive contact (e.g., ‘find’, ‘lose’, ‘forget’). The general observation is that even though such situations do not involve actual spatial motion, Finnish uses the directional local cases to indicate the static spatial position of the stimulus that changes its relationship with the cognitive dominion. It is argued that such uses of the directional cases show that the conceptualization of such cognitive changes reflected by the structure of Finnish involves fictive motion between different dominions and a deep and direct interaction between cognitive dominions and space.
In “Metonymy in locatives of state,” Tiina Onikki-Rantajääskö analyzes abstract uses of locative case expressions. She focuses on expression of postures and facial expressions and other ‘locatives of state’ — expressions denoting psycho-physical and other states in Finnish. Special attention is given to the bridging role of metonymy in the abstract uses of locative case expressions. Onikki-Rantajääskö shows that metonymic and metaphorical tendencies are based on cultural models. Another organizing principle lying behind expressions of posture are image-schematic dimensions. The paper shows how metonymic-metaphorical extensions make use of these dimensions. Together they form the motivation for and organizing principle behind the abstraction tendencies observed in locatives. In such a way Onikki-Rantajääskö explores the experiential and bodily basis of metaphor and metonymy.
Toni Suutari investigates the development and grammaticalization of words that refer to body parts. An examination of Finno-Ugric words meaning ‘head’ reveals counterexamples to claims both about human egocentrism in semantic development and about the asserted unidirectionality of grammaticalization. Suutari shows that meanings of anatomical ‘head’ are often secondary. In other words, certain abstract relational expressions receive a concrete meaning as names for parts of the body and then subsequently become abstract once again. This claim has implications for grammaticalization. Suutari reviews the primary body-part names and the problems of the grammatical categorization of locative forms. The Finnish and Estonian locative expressions that include body-part names belong to two types, locatives and adpositions. Suutari shows that the metaphorical change from the meanings related to body parts to abstract meanings occurred after the grammaticalization had taken place. It is therefore argued that the concrete ‘body part’ > ‘object part’ metaphor has no effect in these cases. The observations have broad implications for grammaticalization and categorization. They demonstrate that grammaticalization does not always involve changes from concrete to abstract or from lexical to grammatical, but grammaticalization may include stages where an abstract relational expression adopts a concrete meaning which in turn becomes grammaticalized.
Seppo Kittilä’s paper discusses the (formal and semantic) distinction between recipient and beneficiary in Finnish. The paper shows that the allative case is strongly associated with the notion of reception. This means that whenever a participant can be regarded as a recipient, the allative case is used in its encoding. The participant in question may also have beneficial traits, but if there is any reception involved, the allative case is used for its coding. On the other hand, Beneficiary coding (which uses different adpositions), is possible only if the notion of reception is lacking together and the participant in question is a pure beneficiary. This paper is of special interest to functional linguists and typologists working on similar phenomena in and across different languages.
On the basis of empirical evidence it has been shown that mentions of human referents manifest features of prominence on the level of both discourse and grammar. This is so because they tend to be topical and agentive and are consequently likely to appear in core grammatical roles, especially in the subject role. Nevertheless, human referents are occasionally also mentioned in oblique cases (for example, as possessors and as recipients of various types). Ritva Laury studies these oblique mentions of human referents in Finnish and investigates whether human mentions are equally distributed among all the oblique cases. She further explores what their pragmatic and semantic characteristics are and whether they take on the typical discourse profile of obliques (i.e. new, unidentifiable, and unlikely to be re-mentioned), or whether they still get treated like other human referents so that they would be identifiable, given and further tracked. Laury also investigates the semantic features of NPs used for oblique mentions of humans in discourse. The results of her study strongly confirm the centrality of human referents in grammar and discourse. Oblique mentions in the data show features of syntactic prominence, since they are not equally distributed among all the oblique cases, but instead cluster in only a few cases, namely those which occur in constructions with grammatical rather than local meaning. Further, human referents mentioned in oblique case roles are still pragmatically and semantically strongly human in terms of being participants in speech events, in being identifiable, given, and further tracked, that is, continuous topics in discourse, and in being lexically specified as humans.
The paper by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo and Lea Laitinen provides an overview to person marking in Finnish. It aims to contribute to resolving some of the long-standing confusions surrounding how person has been dealt with in Finnish grammar. In Finnish, the predicate verb agrees with the subject in person (1st, 2nd and 3rd) and number (singular : plural). The verb thus shows the same person as the nominal subject, and therefore, the nominal and the verbal person marking systems have usually not been discussed separately in Finnish linguistics (see for example Sulkala and Karjalainen 1992, Hakulinen and Karlsson 1979). Helasvuo and Laitinen show, however, that in colloquial varieties of Finnish the coding of person is more complicated. The verbal and nominal person marking systems intersect, but not in the straightforward manner assumed in mainstream Finnish linguistics. The connections between the two form an intricate network. Helasvuo and Laitinen demonstrate that the verbal person marking is not copied from the subject pronoun in a mechanical way, nor is the personal pronoun redundant. They therefore find it useful to present the nominal and verbal person marking systems as two different paradigmatic systems. They also discuss how the two systems interrelate on the syntagmatic level.
Lea Laitinen’s article deals with the grammar and meaning of Finnish constructions containing the so-called ‘zero person’ subject. In these constructions, there is no overt subject, and the verb is in the 3rd person singular form. The meanings of the construction are investigated in conversational data, and its globally marked non-specific reference is compared to the non-specific use of personal pronouns, used as generic forms referring to humans in many languages. As crystallizations of human experience, the zero person constructions express changes of state, emotions, perceptions, or other processes that affect human beings in particular situations. Laitinen shows how this potentiality of grammar is used in interaction by the speech act participants, and how these constructions which leave the conceptualizer of the situation implicit, provide a more subjective perspective on the experience than explicit personal pronouns. This paper has implications for the understanding of impersonal use of pronouns, non-specific pronominal reference, and zero persons in languages generally.
Marja-Liisa Helasvuo’s paper discusses passive constructions in Finnish. Based on a large database of spoken Finnish, she argues that contrary to the received view in Finnish linguistics, there are actually two types of passive in Finnish, namely the so-called simple passive (formed by the verb stem + passive suffix + personal marker) and a periphrastic passive; the latter is the so-called be-passive, formed with the verb ‘to be’ in its 3rd person singular form (on) and a passive participle of the main verb. In the be-passive, the finite verb is in the 3rd person form, but in the simple passive, there is a special passive “personal” marker on the verb. The passive personal marker creates personal reference, but the reference is not explicit, but rather has to be construed from the context. Helasvuo investigates the role of these two types of passives in the Finnish person system and the discourse functions that they serve. She shows that the two passives have quite distinct discourse profiles.
In the linguistic literature, the Finnish passive has been described as impersonal based on the fact that argument relations do not change (see e.g. Comrie 1977). In contrast, in a personal passive, the object of the active clause takes the role of subject in a corresponding passive clause. Helasvuo shows, however, that this use of the term “personal” vs. “impersonal” is misleading: it equates the function of person marking with the coding of the subject role. Instead, she suggests that the function of person marking on verbs is to provide a grammatical means for expressing person, either by explicit reference to person or open reference that has to construed in the context (e.g. the passive). From this perspective, the Finnish passive is by no means impersonal, but instead, is an integral part of the person system for verbs.
The papers of this volume investigate how grammar codes the subjective viewpoint of human language users, that is, how grammar reflects human conceptualization. Some of the articles deal with spatial relations and locations. They discuss how basic attributes of human conceptualization are encoded in the grammatical expression of spatial relations. Other articles concern embodiment in language, showing how conceptualization is mediated by one’s embodied experience of the world and ourselves. Finally, some of the articles discuss coding of person focusing on the subjectivity of conceptualization and how it is reflected in grammar.
The articles show that conceptualization reflects the speaker’s construal of the situation, and furthermore, that it is intersubjective because it reflects the speaker’s understanding of the relations between the speech act participants. The papers deal with Finnish, utilizing the rich resources of Finnish grammar to contribute to issues in contemporary linguistics and in particular to Cognitive Grammar.