Chapter published in:
Fixed Expressions: Building language structure and social action
Edited by Ritva Laury and Tsuyoshi Ono
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 315] 2020
► pp. 133–166

Chapter 6
When an expression becomes fixed

mä ajattelin että ‘I thought that’ in spoken Finnish

| University of Helsinki
| University of Turku
| University of Turku
This chapter concerns the first person past tense form of the verb ajatella ‘to think’ as a semi-fixed expression in spoken Finnish. We examine this expression in present-day conversation and in older dialect interviews, focusing on its interactional functions, the types of complements it takes, and its patterns of morphosyntactic fixedness and morphophonetic erosion in our two datasets. We show that the verb ajatella is most frequently used in its first person past tense form, mä ajattelin että [1sg + think-pst-1sg + comp] ‘I thought that’, and as has been shown for ‘think’ verbs in many other languages, it is commonly used to frame stance expressions, but another frequent use in our Finnish data is in prefacing the speaker’s expression of her own plans as well as proposals of joint action. Most commonly, mä ajattelin että is followed by clausal complements in our older data, while the complements are more diverse in the newer data, and the expression can also occur without any complements. We also show that while mä ajattelin että ‘I thought that’ occurs in our data in drastically reduced form and shows signs of morphosyntactic fixedness especially in the newer data, it cannot yet be said to have become an epistemic particle.
Keywords: ‘think’ verbs, semi-fixed expression, spoken Finnish, stance expression, planning, proposal for joint action, complementation, phonetic reduction, past tense, first person
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
  • 3.Background
  • 4.Interactional functions of mä ajattelin että
    • 4.1 Planning and proposing function
    • 4.2Expression of stance
    • 4.3Expression of speaker’s own thoughts
    • 4.4Interim summary
  • 5.Complementation
  • 6.Fixedness
    • 6.1Erosion
    • 6.2 Comparison of fixedness with a consensus analysis
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Acknowledgements
  • Data sources
  • References
Published online: 10 December 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.315.06lau
References

Data sources

Arkisyn
2018 A morphosyntactically coded database of conversational Finnish. Database compiled at the University of Turku, with material from the Conversation Analysis Archive at the University of Helsinki and the Syntax Archives at the University of Turku. Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages, University of Turku.Google Scholar
LaX
2018 Corpus of Finnish dialects. Syntax Archives, Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages, University of Turku.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin
2007 “The Interface between Discourse and Grammar: The fact is that .” In Connectives as Discourse Landmarks, ed. by Agnes Celle, and Ruth Huart, 31–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter
1992 “The Neverending Sentence: On Rightward Expansion in Spoken Syntax.” In Studies in Spoken Languages: English, German, Finno-Ugric, ed. by Miklós Kontra, and Tamas Váradi, 41–60. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink
2018 Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.37, retrieved 3 February 2018 from http://​www​.praat​.org/Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel
2007 “The Development of ;I mean: Implication for the Study of ;Historical Pragmatics.” In Methods in Historical Pragmatics, ed. by Susan M. Fitzmaurice, and Irma Taavitsainen, 37–80. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2010 Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2014 “What Does Grammar Tell Us About Action.” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–647. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson
2005 “A Linguistic Practice for Retracting Overstatements: Concessive Repair.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 257–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Silke Reineke
2017 “Epistemische Praktiken und ihre feinen Unterschiede: Verwendungen von ich dachte in gesprochener Sprache.“ In Verben in interaktiven Kontext. Bewegungsverben und mentale Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, Nadine Proske, and Arne Zeschel, 337–375. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2020. “Practices of Indexing Discrepant Assumptions with German ich dachte (‘I thought’) in Talk-in-Interaction.” Functions of Language 27 2 (2020): 113–142. Crossref
Endo, Tomoko
2010 “Epistemic Stance Marker as a Disagreement Preface: wo juede ‘I feel/think’ in Mandarin Conversation in Response to Assessments.” Kyoto University Linguistic Research 29: 43–76.Google Scholar
2013 “Epistemic Stance in Mandarin Conversation: The Positions and Functions of wo juede (I feel/think).” In Chinese Discourse and Interaction: Theory and Practice, ed. by Yuling Pan, and Daniel Kádár, 12–34. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Evans, Nick
2007 “Insubordination and Its Uses.” In Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, ed. by I. Nikolayeva, 366–431. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2011 N be that-constructions in Everyday German Conversation: A Reanalysis of die Sache ist/das Ding ist (‘the thing is’) Clauses as Projector Phrases.” In Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Ryoko Suzuki, 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haakana, Markku
2005 ”Sanottua, ajateltua ja melkein sanottua: Puheen ja ajatusten referointi valituskertomuksissa. [Thought, said and almost said: Quoting talk and thought in complaint stories].” In Referointi ja moniäänisyys, ed. by Markku Haakana, and Jyrki Kalliokoski, 114–149. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
2007 “Reported Thought in Complaint Stories.” In Reporting talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 150–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli
1993 “The Grammar of Opening Routines.” In Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, ed. by Susanna Shore, and Maria Vilkuna, 149–170. Helsinki: The Finnish Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Hardison, Ross
2003 “Comparative Genomics.” PLOS Biology 1 (2): e58. Crossref.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
2014 “Agreement or Crystallization: Patterns of 1st and 2nd Person Subjects and Verbs of Cognition in Finnish Conversational Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 63: 63–78. Crossref.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, and Aki-Juhani Kyröläinen
2016 “Choosing between Zero and Pronominal Subject: Modeling Subject Expression in the 1st Person Singular in Finnish Conversation.” Corpus linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12(2): 263–299. Crossref.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1988 “Emergent Grammar and the A Priori Grammar Postulate.” In Linguistics in context, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 117–134. Norwoord, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
2011 “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer, and Stefan Pfänder, 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson
2008 “Projectability and Clause Combining in Interaction.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 99–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang
2011 “Online Changes in Syntactic Gestalts in Spoken German. Or: Do Garden Path Sentences Exist in Everyday Conversation?” In Constructions: emerging and emergent, ed. by Peter Auer, and Stefan Pfänder, 127–155. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise
2003 Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “I Thought It Was Pretty Neat. Social Action Formats for Taking a Stance.” In From ‘Will’ to ‘Well’. In Studies in Linguistics, ed. by Stef Slembrouk, Miriam Taverniers, and Mieke Van Herreweghe, 293–304. Gent: Academia.Google Scholar
2012 “I Thought It Was Very Interesting. Conversational Formats for Taking a Stance.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (15): 2194–2210. Crossref.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2003 From interaction to grammar: Estonian finite verb forms in conversation. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
2010 “Clauses Emerging as Epistemic Adverbs in Estonian Conversation.” Linguistica Uralica XLVI(2): 81–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “Abandoning Dead Ends: the Estonian Junction Marker maitea ‘I don’t know’.” Journal of Pragmatics 106: 115–128. Crossref.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo, and Ann Weatherall
2020 “ ‘I understand’-Initiated Formulations of the Other: A Semi-Fixed Claim to the Intersubjective.” This volume.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1972 Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva
2012 “Syntactically Non-Integrated jos ‘if’ Conditional Clauses as Directives.” Discourse Processes 49: 213–242. Crossref.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Marja-Liisa Helasvuo
2016 “Disclaiming Epistemic Access with ‘know’ and ‘remember’ in Finnish.” Journal of Pragmatics 123: 80–96. Crossref.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Shigeko Okamoto
2011 “ Teyuuka and I mean as Pragmatic Parentheticals in Japanese and English.” In Subordination in Conversation, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Ryoko Suzuki, 209–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Tsuyoshi Ono
2010 “Recursion in Conversation. What Speakers of Finnish and Japanese Know How to Do.” In Recursion and Human Language, ed. by Harry van der Hulst, 69–91. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan, Camilla Lindholm, and Ritva Laury
2016 “The Interactional Emergence of Conditional Clauses as Directives: Constructions, Trajectories, and Sequences of Actions.” Language Sciences 58: 8–21. Crossref.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson
1996 Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola
1981 You know: A Discourse-Functional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2011 “Clause-Combining and the Sequencing of Actions: Projector Constructions in French Talk-in-Interaction.” In Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Ryoko Suzuki, 103–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
Routarinne, Sara, and Outi Duvallon
2005 “Parenthesis as a Resource in the Grammar of Conversation.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 45–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne
2000 “ I dunno… A Usage-Based Account of the Phonological Reduction of don’t in American English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 105–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 “Local Patterns of Subjectivity in Person and Verb Type in American English Conversation.” In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. by Joan Bybee, and Paul Hopper, 61–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref.Google Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne, and Joan Bybee
1999 “The Effect of Usage on Degrees of Constituency: The Reduction of don’t in English.” Linguistics 37 (4): 576–596. Crossref.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2000 “Argumente für die Entwicklung einer interaktionalen Linguistik.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 1: 76–95. [www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de]Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001 Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa
2013 “Constructing a Proposal as a Thought: A Way to Manage Problems in the Initiation of Joint Decision-Making in Finnish Workplace Interaction.” Pragmatics 23 (3): 519–544. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tao, Hongyin
2003 “A Usage-Based Approach to Argument Structure: ‘Remember’ and ‘Forget’ in Spoken English.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (1): 75–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
2002 “Object Complements and Conversation: Towards a Realistic Account.” Studies in Language 26 (1): 125–163. Crossref.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Anthony Mulac
1991a “A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticalization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English.” In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 313–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Sandra A., and Anthony Mulac
1991b.“The discourse conditions for the use of complementizer that in conversational English.” Journal of Pragmatics 15: 237–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tommola, Hannu
1992 “The Marking of Future Time Reference in Finnish.” In Future time reference in European Languages II. Eurotyp Working Papers VI: 3, ed. by Östen Dahl, Caspar de Groot, and Hannu Tommola, 12–28. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar