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. 167–202

The Finnish projector phrase se että as a fixed expression

| University of Oulu
| University of Turku
| University of Helsinki
This chapter shows that the Finnish expression se että ‘it (is) that’, consisting of a demonstrative followed by a complementizer, is a fixed projective element in talk-in-interaction both on its own and with collocating elements. It shares features with projector phrases identified for other languages: it is used both to prepare the addressee for the nature of the upcoming and to underline the upcoming as central to the ongoing interaction. The analysis of se että having grammaticized into a projector phrase is supported by prosodic evidence: the two elements are most often produced as one prosodic word. The findings support the idea that se että emerges in interaction with a fixed form rather than being generated by a syntactic rule.
Keywords: conversation analysis, dialect interview, emergence, everyday conversation, Finnish, interactional linguistics, projector phrase, prosodic reduction
Published online: 10 December 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.315.07vat
References

Data sources

Arkisyn: 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.
Corpus of Finnish Dialects
Syntax Archives, Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Studies, University of Turku.

References

Aho, Eija
2010 Spontaanin puheen prosodinen jaksottelu [The prosodic segmentation of spontaneous speech]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin
2007 “The Interface between Grammar and Discourse: The Fact Is That .” In Connectives as Discourse Landmarks, ed. by Agnès Celle, and Ruth Huart, 54–72. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles, and Margaret Wetherell
1999 “Show Concessions.” Discourse Studies 1 (1): 7–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter
2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text & Talk 25 (1): 7–36.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Stefan Pfänder
(eds) 2011 Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink
2018 Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer. Version 6.0.37, retrieved from http://​www​.praat​.org​/ Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta
1998 Allmän och svensk prosodi. [General and Swedish prosody.] Praktisk lingvistik 16. Lund University: Institutionen för lingvistik.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta, Edith Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali, and Kathleen Wheatley
(eds) 2009 Formulaic Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson
2000 “Concessive Patterns in Conversation.” In Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 381–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., and Elise Kärkkäinen
2012 “Taking a Stance on Emotion: Affect, Sequence, and Intersubjectivity in Dialogic Interaction.” Text & Talk 32 (4): 433–451.Google Scholar
Duvallon, Outi, and Rea Peltola
2017a “Deontic Readings of the Imperative through the Prism of Force Dynamic Relations: Permissive and Preventive Utterances with the Discourse Marker vaa(n) in Finnish.” Journal of Pragmatics 120: 17–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017b “Voimadynaaminen VAAN: Odotusten, intentioiden ja kerrottavuuden partikkeli [Finnish VAAN: the force dynamic particle of expectations, intentions and tellability].” Virittäjä 121 (4): 500–533. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt, and Beatrice Warren
2000 “The Idiom Principle and the Open Choice Principle.” Text 20 (1): 29–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1979 “On Fluency. In Individual Differeces in Language Ability and Language Behavior, ed. by Charles Fillmore, Daniel Kempler, and William S-Y. Wang, 85–102. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
2002 “Time in Action.” Current Anthropology 43: 19–3. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2008 “ ‘Die Sache ist…’: eine Projektorkonstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27 (1): 39–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 Ryoko Suzuki, and Ritva Laury, 11–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Mirja Saari
1995 “Temporaalisesta adverbista partikkeliksi [From temporal adverb to discourse particle].” Virittäjä 99: 481–500.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli
2001 “On Some Uses of the Discourse Particle kyl(lä) in Finnish Conversation.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margaret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 171–199. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho
2004 Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul
1987 “Emergent grammar.” Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157. CrossrefGoogle 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, 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: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kalliokoski, Jyrki
1989 Ja. Rinnastus ja rinnastuskonjunktion käyttö [‘And’. Coordination and the use of the coordinating conjunction]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Aino, Ritva Laury, and Eeva-Leena Seppänen
2011 “Syntactic and Actional Characteristics of the Finnish Että-Clause. In Subordination in Conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective, ed. by Ritva Laury, and Ryoko Suzuki, 69–102. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leino, Jaakko
1999 ”Mitä tarkoittaa se, että: Se-pronominista subjektina ja objektina toimivan että-lauseen yhteydessä [On using the pronoun se with an että clause as subject or object].” Virittäjä 103 (1): 27–51.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan K., and Anne-Marie Londen
2013 “Concession and Reassertion: on a Dialogic Discourse Pattern in Conversation.” Text & Talk 33 (3), 331–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, Jarkko
2015 Myönnyttelyn käytänteitä: Erimielisyys ja yhteisymmärryksen rakentaminen vuorovaikutuksessa [Practices of conceding: Disagreement and the negotiation of mutual understanding in conversation]. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Arts, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies.Google Scholar
Nordlund, Taru
2002 “Retention of Abstract Meaning: The Essive Case and the Grammaticalization of Polyphony in Finnish.” In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, ed. by Ilse Wischer, and Gabriele Diewald, 293–307. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
2011 “Perustelevasta referoivaksi: Suomen partikkelin muka merkityksenmuutos 1800-luvun tekstiaineistojen valossa [From an explanatory particle to a marker of reported speech. The semantic shift of the Finnish particle muka; ‘apparently, as if’].” Virittäjä 115 (4): 484–514.Google Scholar
NS Nykysuomen sanakirja [Dictionary of modern Finnish]. Helsinki: WSOY.
Pawley, Andrew, and Frances Hodgetts Syder
1983 “Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency. In Language and Communication, ed. by Jack J. C. Richards, and Richard R. W. Schmidt, 191–225. London: Longman.Google 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 Ryoko Suzuki, and Ritva Laury, 103–148. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rauniomaa, Mirka
2007 “Stance markers in spoken Finnish. Minun mielestä and minusta in assessments.” In Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 221–252. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures on Conversation. ed. by Gail Jefferson. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salminen, Taru
2000 Morfologiasta moniäänisyyteen: suomen kielen kvasirakenteen merkitys, käyttö ja kehitys [From morphology to polyphony: Meaning, function and evolution of the quasi-construction in Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google 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 (1): 105–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel
1990 “On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of 'Coherence' in Talk-in-Interaction.” In Conversational Organization and its Development, ed. by Bruce Dorval, 51–77. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds) 2001 Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers
(eds) 2012 The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siro, Paavo
1968 “Suomen kielen että-lauseen ongelmasta [Concerning the problem of the Finnish että clause.]” In Fenno-Ugrica. Juhlakirja Lauri Postin kuusikymmenvuotispäiväksi 17.3.1968, 203–205. Publications of the Finno-Ugrian Society 145. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
1989 “Vuoronalkuiset konnektorit: mutta .” In Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, 162–176. Kieli 4. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Finnish.Google Scholar
2001 Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suomalainen, Karita, Anna Vatanen, and Ritva Laury
2016a “ Se että -rakenne keskustelupuheessa: mihin sitä käytetään ja miten.” Paper given at the XLIII Kielitieteen päivät, Oulu, Finland, May 25-27.
2016b “The Finnish se että as an emerging and emergent construction.” Paper given at the Symposium on the emergence of units in social interaction University of Helsinki, August 4-5.
In press. “The Finnish se että initiated expressions: NPs or not?” In The ‘Noun Phrase’ across Languages: An emergent unit in interaction [Typological Studies in Language 128] ed. by Tsuyoshi Ono, and Sandra A. Thompson 12 41 Amsterdam John Benjamins
Vilkuna, Maria
1984 “Voiko -kin partikkelia ymmärtää? [Understanding conventional implicature: The clitic -kin/-kAAn in Finnish].” Virittäjä 88 (4): 393–407.Google Scholar