Article published in:
Contexts of Subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives
Edited by Laura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski and Helena Sorva
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 249] 2014
► pp. 147–172

On the contextual conceptualization of joka relative clauses in Finnish

Studies on relative clauses commonly distinguish between two types of relative clauses: restrictive and non-restrictive. Research suggests that the restrictive relative clauses are subordinate and thus tightly connected to their main clause. Non-restrictive relative clauses, on the other hand, could often be replaced by a co-ordinating conjunction or by two independent clauses. Consequently, their status as subordinate constructions is called into question: they are categorized as non-subordinate relative constructions – or at least as being less subordinate than restrictive relative clauses. This article discusses the usefulness of the notions restrictive and non-restrictive relative clause in the description of Finnish data. Finnish joka clauses seem to be instantiating only one construction type, and its function as either restrictive or non-restrictive depends on contextual factors. However, analyzing relative clauses as merely just one construction type has theoretical implications for the research on subordination. If the same grammatical construction can have subordinate and non-subordinate functions only depending on the context it is used in, the question of what subordination is primarily becomes a matter of dynamic conceptualization. This article suggests that the Finnish joka construction is neither subordinate nor non-subordinate, but that it has construal potentials that are evoked in complex ways in the real contexts of use.
Published online: 04 September 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.249.06vis
References
Becker, Rita
1978 Oberflächenstrukturelle Unterschiede zwischen restriktiven und nicht-restriktiven Relativsätzen in Deutschen. Trier: L.A.U.T.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1981 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, and Tanya Kuteva
2008 “Supplement: Relativization Strategies.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, ed. by Matthew S. Dryer, and Martin Haspelmath. Munich: Max Plank Digital Library. Introduction to Ch. 122 and 123. Available online at: http://​wals​.info​/supplement​/8Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra
1981 “Non-restrictive Relative Clauses, An Essay in Semantic Description.” Revue roumaine de linguistique 26(1): 41–67.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2003 Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 “Asymmetric Events, Subordination, and Grammatical Categories.” In Asymmetric Events, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 151–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daalder, Saskia
1989 “Continuative Relative Clauses.” In Sprechen und Hören [Akten des 23]. ed. by Norbert Reiter, 195–207. Berlin: Linguistischen Kolloquiums.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce T
1978 “Some Universals of Relative Clause Structure.” In Universals of Human Language. Vol. 4, Syntax, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 374–418. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph
1979 “Appositive Relatives have No Properties.” Linguistic Inquiry 10(2): 241–243.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja
2009 “Activities Within Activities: Left Dislocations with Relative Clauses.” Presentation. Aspects of Clause Combining: the Linking of Actions in Speech and Writing . Helsingin yliopisto, October 29–31, 2009.
Etelämäki, Marja, Ilona Herlin, Minna Jaakola, and Laura Visapää
2009 “Kielioppi käsitteistyksenä ja toimintana. Kognitiivista kielioppia ja keskustelunanalyysia yhdistämässä.” [Grammar as conceptualization and as action: Combining cognitive grammar and conversation analysis]. Virittäjä 2: 162–187.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja, and Laura Visapää
2014 “Why Blend Conversation Analysis with Cognitive Grammar.” Pragmatics 24(3): 477–506.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A
1987 “The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy Reinterpreted: Subject Primacy or the Absolutive Hypothesis?” Language 63(4): 856–870. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., and Sandra A. Thompson
1990 “A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses in English Conversation.” Language 66(2): 297–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Relative Clauses in English Conversation. Relativizers, Frequency, and the Notion of Construction.” Studies in Language 31(2): 293–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Fred Karlsson, and Maria Vilkuna
1980 Suomen tekstilauseiden piirteitä: kvantitatiivinen tutkimus [ The properties of the Finnish text clauses: a quantitative study ]. Publications No 6. Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
1993 “Are Relative Clauses Either Restrictive or Non-restrictive? A Study of Relative Clauses in the Finnish Pear Stories.” In Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish syntax, ed. by Anders Holmberg, and Urpo Nikanne, 163–176. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, and Ritva Laury
2008 “Finnish Relative Clauses in Conversation: Main Clauses as Emergent Formulas.” Handout. UCSB Linguistics Department Colloquium , May 5, 2008.
2009 “Relative Clause Structures in Context.” Handout. International Pragmatics Conference . Melbourne, July 2009, Panel on Clause combining in Discourse.
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
ISK = Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, 
and Irja Alho
2004 Iso suomen kielioppi [ The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish ]. 
Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Available at: http://​scripta​.kotus​.fi​/visk.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1970 [1927] A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles Vol. 3 
London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Karvonen, Pirjo
1995 Oppikirjateksti toimintana. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L
1985 “Relative Clauses.” In Language typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuntsman, Pierre
1994 “Relatif et liaison: le cas du relatif dit de ‘liaison’.” In Le Moyen Francais, ed. by Bernard Combettes, Simone MonsonegoPhilologie et linguistique. , and Approches du texte et du discours: Actes du VIII8 colloque international sur le moyen francais, 517–527. Paris: Didier Erudition.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999 Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Subordination in Cognitive Grammar.” In Asymmetric Events, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 137–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1984 Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Loock, Rudy
2007 “Appositive Relative Clauses and their Functions in Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 336–362. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Michael A
1974 “The Surface Structure of Relative Clauses.” Linguistics 139: 83–120.Google Scholar
Manninen, Satu
2003 “To Raise or Not to Raise: The Case of Finnish Restrictive Relative Clauses.” Nordlyd 31(4): 668–693.Google Scholar
Niskanen, Tuulikki
1974 Lausetyypit lehti- ja radiokielessä sekä vapaassa puhekielessä [ Clause types in newspaper and radio language and in free spoken language ]. MA thesis. Oulun yliopiston suomen ja saamen kielen laitos.Google Scholar
Penttilä, Aarni
1954 “Hiukan relatiivilauseista.” [On relative clauses]. Virittäjä 58: 419–422.Google Scholar
Pääkkönen, Irmeli
1988 Relatiivisanan valinta [ The choice of the relative word ]. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin, and Michael McCarthy
2001 “Understanding Non-restrictive which-clauses, Which is Not an Easy Thing.” Language Sciences 23: 451–677. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Visakko, Tomi
2007 Elokuva-arvostelut ja arvottamisen retoriikka[ Film Reviews and the Rhetorics of Evaluating ]. MA thesis. Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen ja kotimaisen kirjallisuuden laitos.Google Scholar
Visapää, Laura
2012 “Joka-relatiivilauseiden funktioista.” [On the Functions if joka Relative Clauses]. Virittäjä 4: 533–559.Google Scholar