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. 223–244

Utterances ending in the conjunction että

Complete or to be continued?

This article presents an analysis of Finnish utterances that end in the conjunction että during conversational talk. Traditionally known as a complementizer, että is the equivalent to the English subordinating conjunction that. Thus, a linguistic unit that ends in että could be interpreted as being incomplete or as projecting a complement clause to follow. However, this study argues that some että-final utterances can be analyzed as being complete. Several arguments will be offered to support this claim. For example, syntactically, these utterances contain neither complement-taking predicates nor other complement-taking constructions that are associated with the conjunction että. This can be assumed to indicate that että does not function as a complementizer, but rather as a syntactically more independent particle that does not project a specific type of continuation. This claim is supported by the fact that other languages have conjunctions that are also developing uses as final particles. This analysis adopts the methodology and theoretical insights of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics.
Published online: 4 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.249.09koi
References (50)
References
Auer, Peter. 1992. “The Neverending Sentence: Rightward Expansion in Spoken Language.” In Studies in Spoken Languages: English, German, Finno-Ugric, ed. by Miklós Kontra, and Tamás Váradi, 41–59. Budapest: Linguistics Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
. 1996. “On the Prosody and Syntax of Turn-continuations.” In Prosody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 57–100. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Projection in Grammar and Projection in Interaction.” Text 25 (1): 7–36.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2007. “Prosody, Construction Grammar and Language Change.” In Anglistentag 2006 Halle. Proceedings, ed. by Sabine Volk-Birke, and Julia Lippert, 421–433. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2001. “Introducing Interactional Linguistics.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsyoshi Ono. 2007. “‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17: 513–552.Google Scholar
Drake, Veronika. 2013. Turn-final or in English: A conversation analytic perspective. An unpublished dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia. 1993. Grammar in Interaction. Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia, Barbara Fox, and Sandra Thompson. 2002. “Constituency and the Grammar of Turn Increments.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford, Barbara Fox, and Sandra Thompson, 14–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1979. “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnometodology, ed. by G. Psathas, 97–121. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 1987. “Forgetfulness as an Interactive Resource.” Social Psychology Quarterly 50 (2): 115–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli. 1989. “Partikkelit ja muut kiteymät vuoroissa: Johdanto.� In Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I [Kieli 4], ed. by Auli Hakulinen, 115–118. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Fred Karlsson. 1988 [1979]. Nykysuomen lauseoppia. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2001. Syntax in the Making. The Emergence of Syntactic Units in Finnish Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 2011. “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer, and Stefan Phänder, 22–44. 
Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ISK 2004 = 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.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1983. “On a Failed Hypothesis: ‘Conjunctionals’ as Overlap-vulnerable.” Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Kalliokoski, Jyrki. 1989. Ja. Rinnastus ja rinnastuskonjunktion käyttö [ Ja. Coordination and the use the coordinating conjunction in Finnish ]. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2008. “Conjunctions and Sequenced Actions: The Estonian Complementizer and Evidential Particle et.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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, 69–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
. 2011. Sanomattakin selvää? Ja, mutta ja että puheenvuoron lopussa [ Goes without saying? Finnish conjunctions ja, mutta and että in turn-final position ]. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Discourse Patterns for Turn-final Conjunctions.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (10): 1254–1272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 153–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna. 1999. Language as Social Action. Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation. Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan. 2008. Tur och ordning. Introduktion till svensk samtalsgrammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts akademiska förlag.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan, and Anne-Marie Londen. 2008. “Constructing Reasoning. The Connectives for att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish Conversations.” In Constructional Reorganization, ed. by Jaakko Leino, 105–153. Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John, Peter Auer, and Aldo di Luzio. 1992. “Continuing and Restarting.” In The Contextualization of Language, ed. by 273–296. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John, and John Kelly. 1986. “Projection and ’Silences’: Notes on Phonetic and Conversational Structure.” Human Studies 9: 185–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John, and Gareth Walker. 2005. “Methodological Imperatives for Investigating the Phonetic Organization and Phonological Structures of Spontaneous Speech.” Phonetica 62: 120–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulder, Jean, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. The Grammaticization of but as a Final Particle in English Conversation.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining. The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard. Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford. 2004. “Non-modal Voice Quality and Turn-taking in Finnish.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction, ed. by 29–62. 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raussi, Anne. 1992. Et(tä)-partikkelilla alkavat lausumat keskustelussa. Master’s thesis. Helsingin yliopisto, suomen kieli.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2004. “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone “So” in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 185–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Routarinne, Sara. 2005. “Keskustelupuheen johtolauseiden kielioppia.” In Referointi ja moniäänisyys, ed. by Markku Haakana, and Jyrki Kalliokoski, 83–113. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest Systematic for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1989. “Reflections on Language, Development, and the Interactional Character of Talk-in-interaction.” In Interaction in Human Development, ed. by M. Bornstein, and J.S. Bruner, 139–153. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement III: the Omnirelevance of Action.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 28: 185–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Elinor Ochs, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. “Introduction.” In Interaction and grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena, and Ritva Laury. 2008. “Complement Clauses as Turn Continuations: The Finnish että-clause.” Pragmatics 17 (4): 553–572.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 1989. “Vuoronalkuiset konnektorit: mutta.” In Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I [Kieli 4], ed. by Auli Hakulinen, 162–176. Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos.Google Scholar
. 2001. Responding in Conversation. A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suojanen, Matti K. 1985. Mitä Turussa puhutaan? Raportti Turun puhekielen tutkimuksesta. Turun puhekielen projektin julkaisuja 3. Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen julkaisuja 23. Turku: Turun yliopisto.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ““Object Complements” and Conversation: Towards a Realistic Account.” Studies in Language 26: 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. “The Clause as a Locus of Grammar and Interaction.” Discourse Studies 7: 481–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1996. Suomen lauseopin perusteet. Helsinki: Edita.Google Scholar
Walker, Gareth. 2012. “Coordination and Interpretation of Vocal and Visible Resources: ‘Trail-off’ Conjunctions.” Language and Speech 55 (1): 141–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Prettner, Robert, Hedwig te Molder & Jeffrey D. Robinson
2024. The Delicate Situation of Childhood Vaccination: On the Dispreferredness of Soliciting Parents’ Intent to Vaccinate. Health Communication ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Koivisto, Aino & Liisa Voutilainen
2016. Responding to What Is Left Implicit: Psychotherapists’ Formulations and Understanding Checks After Clients’ Turn-FinalEttä(“That/So”). Research on Language and Social Interaction 49:3 ► pp. 238 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 september 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.