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. 173–202

More subordinate?

Verb-final order and subordination in Finnish dialects

Finnish main and subordinate clauses are generally speaking similar in terms of constituent order: both typically obey the default (S)VO (more generally, VX) order. However, the order is flexible so that other, marked orders can be used to express discourse-related meaning, such as topic/focus relations. In addition, verb-final (XV) order typically accompanies clause-initial focusing in utterances that can be called reactive. Although the ordering options may be the same, main and subordinate clauses do not make equal use of them. The present article investigates this issue from the perspective of XV order, which is an option in subordinate clauses particularly in Western Finnish; it is also made use of in Standard Finnish texts, but more marginally. The starting point comes from an article by the Finnish linguist Eeva Lindén (Linden 1959). Lindén’s analysis offers a generalization on the role of subordinate XV order and relates it to clausal order in general, suggesting that XV order it signals subordination. The present article addresses this question by consulting dialectal material just as Lindén did, but by relying on larger corpora and more context. It will be demonstrated that XV ordered clauses are generally backgrounded, their profile overridden by that of another clause, while the default VX ordered clauses are more open and varied in their interpretation, extending to uses that can hardly be claimed to be subordinate by any account. The backgrounded character of XV subordinate clauses consists of factors that ultimately involve reliance on old information. These factors include providing a setting, identifying referents and states of affairs, and being in the scope of the main clause.

Published online: 4 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.249.07vil
References
Auer, Peter
1998 “Zwischen Parataxe und Hypotaxe: Abhängige Hauptsätze im geschriebenen und gesprochenen Deutsch.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 26: 284–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia M
1976 “Main Clause Phenomena in Subordinate Clauses.” Language 52 (2): 382–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2003 Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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: [URL].Google Scholar
Halonen, Mia, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2008 “Using niin-interrogative to Treat the Prior Speaker,s Action as an Exaggeration.” Discourse Studies 10: 37–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herlin, Ilona
1998 Suomen kun [ The Finnish kun ]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Ikola, Osmo, Ulla Palomäki, and Anna-Kaisa Koitto
1989 Suomen murteiden lauseoppia ja tekstikielioppia [ Syntax and Text Grammar of Finnish Dialects ]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Aino, Ritva Laury, and Eeva-Leena Seppänen
2011 “Syntactic and actional characteristics of Finnish että-clauses.” In Subordination in Conversation. A Cross-linguistic Perspective, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Ryoko Suzuki. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotilainen, Lari
2007 Kiellon lumo. Kieltoverbitön kieltokonstruktio ja sen kiteytyminen [ The fascination of negation. The negation construction without negator and its conventionalization ]. Suomi 193. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 “Subordination in Cognitive Grammar.” In Asymmetric events, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 137–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Marja-Liisa Helasvuo
2008 “Finnish Relative Clauses in Conversation: Main Clauses as Emergent Formulas.” Paper presented at UCSB Linguistics Department Colloquium , May 15, 2008 [handout].
Laury, Ritva, and Eeva-Leena Seppänen
2008 “Clause Combining, Interaction, Evidentiality, Participation Structure, and the Conjunction-particle Continuum: The Finnish että.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining, ed. by Ritva Laury, 153–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leino, Pentti
1982 Suomen kielen lohkolause [ The Finnish cleft sentence ]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Lehtinen, Tapani
1991 “Suomen ja viron verbiloppuisista sivulauseista.” [On verb-final subordinate clauses in Finnish and Estonian]. In Nordens språk i Baltikum. Pohjoismaiden kielet Baltiassa, Nordisk språksekretariats rapporter 18, 79–82. Oslo.Google Scholar
Lindström, Liina
2004 “Verbi asend eesti kõrvallauses. Relatiivlaused.” [The position of the verb in Estonian subordinate clauses. Relative clauses]. Keel ja Kirjandus 6: 414–429.Google Scholar
Lindén, Eeva
1959 “Hypotaktisen sanajärjestyksen tehtävistä lounaismurteissa.” [On the role of hypotactic order in south-western dialects]. Virittäjä 63: 252–266.Google Scholar
Remmel, Nikolai
1963 Sônajärjestus eesti lauses. Deskriptiivne käsitlus[ Word order in Estonian sentences. A descriptive treatment ]. Eesti keele süntaksi küsimüsi. Keele ja kirjanduse instituudi uurimused VIII. Tallinn: Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Savijärvi, Ilkka
1977 Redundanssi ja kieltoverbin ellipsi suomen kielen negaatiojärjestelmässä [ Redundancy and ellipsis of negator in the Finnish negation system ]. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto.Google Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena, and Ritva Laury
2007 “Complement Clauses as Turn Continuations: The Finnish et(tä)-clause.” Pragmatics 17(4): 553–572.Google Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena, and Ilona Herlin
2009 “Kuvauksista seurauksiin: Kaksiulotteinen konstruktio ‘niin A että’.” [From descriptions to effects: The two-dimensional construction niin A että ‘so A that’]. Virittäjä 113: 213–243.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Anthony Mulac
1991 “A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English.” In Approaches to Grammaticalization (II), ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 313–329. Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A
2002 “Object Complements” and Conversation: Towards a Realistic Account.” Studies in Language 60 (1): 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2005 Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria
1989 Free Word Order in Finnish. Its Syntax and Discourse Functions. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
1995 “Discourse Configurationality in Finnish.” In Discourse Configurational Languages, ed. by Katalin É. Kiss, 244–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press,Google Scholar
1997 “Into and Out of Standard Language: The Particle ni in Finnish.” In Taming the Vernacular, ed. by Jennifer Chesire, and Dieter Stein, 51–67. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1998 “Word Order in European Uralic.” In Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe, ed. by Anna Siewierska, 173–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
SA = Syntactic X Archive
Research Institute for the Languages of Finland – University of Turku, School of Languages and Translation Studies. [URL].
SKN Urjala = Rekunen, Jorma, and Yli-Paavola Jaakko
1992 Urjalan murretta [Suomen kielen näytteitä 33]. Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Merino Hernández, Laura M.
2022. Uncertainty as a disambiguating factor for conditional, temporal, and habitual constructions: evidence from Spanish. Linguistics Vanguard 8:s4 ► pp. 393 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.