Cover not available
Part of
Contexts of Subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives
Edited by Laura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski and Helena Sorva
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 249] 2014
► pp. 125–146

Subordination in purpose clauses

Variation of verb moods in Finnish and French

This paper investigates the variation between the indicative and conditional moods in purpose clauses in Finnish. It is argued that the use of the conditional mood can be explained by focusing on the intentional aspect of purpose relations. Due to its semantic origins, the Finnish conditional explicitly marks that the event coded by the purpose clause falls under the scope of the intentional space constructed in the main clause. By comparison, the indicative contributes to the chronological organization of events, highlighting the consequential aspect of a purpose relation. This analysis suggests that the Finnish conditional resembles the subjunctive in how it functions in purpose clauses, drawing a parallel with the French subjunctive. Subjunctive moods mark interclausal relations, as they call upon the interlocutor to interpret the event in the mental space that has been or will be constructed in the surrounding discourse.
Published online: 4 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.249.05pel
References (36)
References
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination [Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Purpose Clauses.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures, ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, and Bernard Comrie, 506–509. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Desagulier, Guillaume. 2005. Modélisation cognitive de la variation et du changement linguistiques. Étude de quelques cas de constructions émergentes en anglais contemporain. Doctoral dissertation. Université Michel de Montaigne – Bordeaux 3, UFR des pays anglophones. Available online at: [URL].Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces. Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gosselin, Laurent. 2005. Temporalité et modalité. Bruxelles: Duculot.Google Scholar
. 2010. Les modalités en français. La validation des représentations. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice, and André Goosse. 2007. Le Bon Usage, 14th edition. Bruxelles: De Boeck / Duculot.Google Scholar
Guillaume, Gustave. 1929. Temps et verbe. Théorie des aspects, des modes et des temps. Paris: Édouard Champion.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Fred Karlsson. 1979. Nykysuomen lauseoppia. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Havu, Eva. 1996. De l’emploi du subjonctif passé. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Helkkula, Mervi, Ritva Nordström, and Olli Välikangas. 1987. Eléments de syntaxe contrastive du verbe, français-finnois. Helsinki: Publications du département des langues romanes 8. Université de Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kauppinen, Anneli. 1998. Puhekuviot, tilanteen ja rakenteen liitto. Tutkimus kielen omaksumisesta ja suomen konditionaalista. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea. 1992. Välttämättömyys ja persoona. Suomen murteiden nesessiivisten rakenteiden semantiikkaa ja kielioppia. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2004. “Aspects of the Grammar of Finite Clauses.” In Language, Culture and Mind, ed. by Michel Achard, and Suzanne Kemmer, 535–577. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Subordination in Cognitive Grammar.” In Asymmetric Events, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 137–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehtinen, Tapani. 1983. “Suomen konditionaalin morfologisesta ja semanttisesta motivaatiosta.” Virittäjä 87: 482–507.Google Scholar
. 2007. Kielen vuosituhannet. Suomen kielen kehitys kantauralista varhaissuomeen. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Leino, Pentti. 2005. “Kun tarkoitus häviää – finaalisesta infinitiivistä temporaaliseksi.” In Elävä kielioppi. Suomen infiniittisten rakenteiden dynamiikkaa, ed. by Ilona Herlin, and Laura Visapää, 194–230. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Le Nouveau Petit Robert de la langue française. 2009. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.Google Scholar
Luukka, Minna-Riitta. 1992. Akateemista metadiskurssia. Tieteellisten tekstien tekstuaalisia, interpersonaalisia ja kontekstuaalisia piirteitä [Korkeakoulujen kielikeskuksen julkaisuja 46]. Jyväskylä: Korkeakoulujen kielikeskus.Google Scholar
Pajunen, Anneli. 2001. Argumenttirakenne. Asiaintilojen luokitus ja verbien käyttäytyminen suomen kielessä. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Peltola, Rea. 2011. Cohésion modale et subordination: le conditionnel et le jussif finnois au miroir de la valeur sémantique et discursive du subjonctif français. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, University of Helsinki. Available online at: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2012. “Les propositions finales en finnois.” In Langues finno-ougriennes: Aspects synchroniques et diachroniques [Cahiers d’Études Hongroises et Finlandaises 18], ed. by Peter Balogh, and Harri Veivo, 121–137. Paris: Harmattan / CIEH & CIEFi, Université Paris 3 – Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Penttilä, Aarni. 2002 [1963]. Suomen kielioppi, 3rd edition. Vantaa: Dark.Google Scholar
Riegel, Martin, Jean-Christophe Pellat, and René Rioul. 2004 [1994]. Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2009. A Typology of Purpose Clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soutet, Olivier. 2000. Le subjonctif en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2008. “The Status of Purpose, Reason, and Intended Endpoint in the Typology of Complex Sentences. Implications for Layered Models of Clause Structure.” Linguistics 46: 757–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1992. Referenssi ja määräisyys suomenkielisten tekstien tulkinnassa. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Wilmet, Marc. 2007. Grammaire rénovée du français. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar